Reading, Writing, and Al Capone

Oh my, that's a howlerGA busted a gut laughing.

Props to Julie, for telling it like it allegedly is.  Allegedly speaking.  In this post-SLAPP era of online timidity, it is refreshing to see a gal/guy  (of the Reform-persuasion) exercise their NJ Constitutionally-protected right of free political speech under their own name!

Wait a minute, GA... don't you mean the US Constitution and its First Amendment ?

No!  Yes!

Yes, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression: freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.

But no, GA meant the NJ Constitution, because you peeps who have not yet been SLAPPed may not know that New Jersey's State Constitution affords greater protections for political free speech than the US Constitution!

Yes, boys and girls, turn to Article I, Rights and Privileges:
   2.  a.  All political power is inherent in the people.  Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

6.   Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.  

   18.  The people have the right freely to assemble together, to consult for the common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives, and to petition for redress of grievances.
Paragraphs 2, 6 and 18 are a regular Triple-decker Free Speech Sandwich, NJ-style.  Dig in!

Now all New Jersey needs are Anti-SLAPP laws to safeguard its citizens from frivolous lawsuits, and to save 'someone' a fortune.

Well, aside from Julie's Al Capone howler, here's GA's fave line:
These folks are nothing less than crooks and thieves...any effort that involves them, cites them, or collaborates with them is getting in bed with that element.
Or like somebody's mama used to say: lie down with dogs and wake up with fleas.

Funny, but who should come to the rescue, but one of the Respondents in a headline-making ELEC complaint, charged with numerous "reporting transactions"  for her role as Deputy-Treasurer on Beth Mason's 2009 "Team for One Hoboken" campaign, Ines Garcia Keim: 
Julie, I don't know you but I wonder if you know Dr. Petrosino or if you have ever spoken with him. I have not always agreed with him but the fact is that Dr. Petrosino has a PhD in Education and is a tenured professor at the University of Texas which has a highly regarded graduate education program.
GA loves that argument.  A PhD degree = a dip in a baptismal font.

Yeah, sure.

As though any correlation exists between ethics and intelligence, or ethics and academic success. It doesn't.  In fact, the more educated an ethically-challenged person is, the more likely that person will be to escape detection, and get a 'pass' from people who say, "oh no, not him because he's got a PhD!"

To prove the point, history is rife with highly educated and/or highly intelligent accomplished folks who have demonstrated highly unethical behavior.   To name just a few:

Ted Kaczynski (A.K.A. The Unabomber).   
Kaczynski skipped the 5th grade after testing 167 on an IQ test. He entered Harvard at the age of 16 where he earned his undergraduate degree by age 20. He earned his PhD in mathematics at the University of Michigan, where he focused on geometric function theory. After this, he was hired by the University of Berkeley, becoming their youngest professor . He won the University of Michigan's Sumner B. Myers prize, thanks to a PhD thesis on boundary functions, recognized as that year's best mathematics dissertation.

Jeffrey Dahmer
Tested with an IQ of 145 

Richard Loeb and Nathan Leopold 
 Leopold was a child prodigy who reportedly spoke his first words at 4 months, and possessed a recorded IQ of 210. Leopold graduated college with honors from Harvard in 1923. Richard Loeb had an IQ estimated at between 160 and 168.

Ted Bundy
 Possessing a reported IQ score of 136.

Of course, those people possessed rottenness of historic proportions, but you get the drift.

Some of the biggest dolts (IQ-wise) are extremely good, honest and/or law-abiding.  Some of the biggest brainiacs are not.  So much for that argument.


  1. Ines Garcia Keim is dumber than a box of rocks and is not credible on any topic except losing elections (except one that was uncontested) and having the world's creepiest family. Anything she weighs in on -- anything at all -- you can feel pretty safe running to the other side of as quickly as possible and be sure you'd be on pretty solid ground. In total seriousness, if Ines Garcia Keim made a statement that the world is round, I'd have to very earnestly reconsider my position on that one.

  2. Branco really is a moron. Free speech is "why we're in the situation we're in." Yeah lets have less of that first amendment junk. Branco can spew or one of his screen names or his buddies but the rest of us should go away. And that idiot is on carmelo's staff?

  3. I'll bet Bernie Madoff had a high IQ.

  4. My fav is Ines pointing out he is tenured in Texas. Funny, that was one of the things she disliked about him when he also had a full time HBOE job and she was a district parent and a founding member of Parents Inc, standing alongside Ruthy, Maureen, Irene, Jean Marie and other district parents voicing concerns about spending $900,000 on a K-2 program. Until Beth told her to stay away. "alledgedy" of course.

  5. My fav is Ines pointing out he is tenured in Texas. Funny, that was one of the things she disliked about him when she was a district parent because he also had a full time job for the HBOE at the same time. But then she was a founding member of Parents Inc, standing alongside Ruthy, Maureen, Irene, Jean Marie and other district parents voicing concerns about spending $900,000 on a K-2 program. Until Beth told her to stay away. "alledgely" of course.

  6. As a taxpayer I would like to know how much of "MY" tax dollars were spent in total on this expansion.

  7. You took this from someone's FB feed! That is so twisted and ridiculous and then you turned it into a post about oppressing free speech, which it has absolutely nothing to do with! HoLa parents are proud of their students, as they should be. All the 'reformers' twist and distort everything to fit their agenda, while not actually reforming a damn thing!

    1. Get over it, drama queen. Facebook is the public domain. So is this blog. The post has nothing to do with HoLa nor their parents.

      But you are welcome to your opinion.

    2. Facebook posts are not private. The media uses them all the time in news stories. Case in point the recent story of the teen suing her parents. If you want privacy don't use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc.,.
      LINCOLN PARK — Rachel Canning, the 18-year-old Morris Catholic High School senior who made national and international headlines after she moved out of her parents' home alleging abuse and sued them for child support, will be attending college at Western New England University, according to her Facebook page.

      "Decision made," Canning said in a March 30 post. "WNE U class of 2018 BME Major w/ 56,000$ (sic) scholarship."

  8. And if you read the actual letter it has nothing to do with Petrosino.

  9. Dear Grafix Avenger, and every other over-reactionary here. Please note the sequence of events regarding this topic before getting all riled up.

    1. An HoLa parent wrote a letter to the editor expressing her support for the school (free speech, expressed an opinion in a public forum).

    2. WEEKS LATER, Petrosino quoted that parent's letter in his blog (free speech, expressed an opinion in a public forum).

    3. A Facebook user expressed support for HoLa and that parent's letter, and posted a link to the Petrosino blog post, which quotes the original letter (opinion expressed in a private forum subject to the rules of the owner of the forum, in this case, Facebook).

    4. Another FB user misunderstands the original FB user's post, thinking the original FB user was expressing support of Petrosino, when in fact she was expressing support for the HoLa parent's original letter to the editor (opinion expressed in a private forum subject to the rules of the owner of the forum, in this case, Facebook)

    5. Things seem to get muddy because people don't RTFA. Another FB user seems to indicate that anyone wishing to comment about the content, should probably read the content first in order to post a comment that is relevant to the actual discussion (opinion expressed in a private forum subject to the rules of the owner of the forum, in this case, Facebook).

    6. Graphix Avenger posted a screenshot of the discussion to this blog, which I believe is a violation of Facebook's rules about using an FB user's feed content without their permission. Graphix Avenger owns this blog making this also a private forum and subject to the rules of Graphix Avenger.

    7. One person telling another person that they should RTFA, or that their opinion is misinformed or useless or whatever... is NOT an infringement of free speech. Why is this always so hard to understand? Freedom of speech means you will not be thrown in jail or fined for your own stupid opinion. However you are FREE to have as many stupid opinions as you wish, and as loudly as you want.

    Now, will everyone please RTFA, and then chill the F out?

    1. No darling, it is not a violation of Facebook rules. Not at all. Facebook is the public domain. I do believe users have the option of closing content to specific individuals/ friends. But then, there is nothing to stop those individuals from downloading and disseminating content.

      Thank you for providing the sequence of events, though the context is beside the point- the lovely smack-down delivered by the Ms.Steinberg works in any frame: wood, metal, plaster.

      About the screenshot- it was sent to me on a distribution, it made the rounds. Got lots of yuks. I am rarely on Facebook.

      Personally, I think its hysterical- Julie's comment that is. I have blogged quite a bit about corruption at the BoE in the 'good ole days.' I am surprised to see the stir, really much ado over not much more than a very pithy comment from a person not intimidated to use their name, which most seem to be, unfortunately as the result to the massive SLAPP suit filed in 2012 against 24 REFORM bloggers.

      That's all.

    2. Facebook a private forum? You must be kidding.

  10. If using a feed without a users permission is a violation of the Facebook policy, then why doesn't facebook fire the multitude of folks who get fired based on what they post into the public (or semi-public) domain? Seems Facebook should be suing a lot of people.

    I found it interesting that Joe Branco blamed people educating themselves about the relationships and ulterior motives in Hoboken politics for getting us into trouble.

  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Listen, Mr./Ms. Shit-Stirrer, you are on notice. One more and you're gone.

  12. This post has nothing to do with the article or hola. Maybe people should read the post?


Post a Comment