I have to read the news and I just can't make this stuff up. I saw where the MD State Police, an organization typically lauded for their professionalism admitted: "Poor Judgement" and denied "unlawful acts." Well that was astonishingly similar to what Monica Goodling stated. I'm glad at least one Senator has taken notice, that matters, as a matter of principle; that matters. I know a relative of Hoyer, Steve 79 grad. I was always a supporter of Wayne Gilchrest, have pulled some Democratic levers in my life, (I live in MD) and though Hoyer cannot lower the price of gas, create perpetual energy, he can at least look into this issue. I want to say that the statement: "The Maryland State Police superintendent said yesterday that he is "troubled" by methods his agency used to infiltrate and monitor peace activists and anti-death-penalty groups and called the operation an exercise in poor judgment." is remarkably similar to "Goodling admits to "crossing the line" and going too far "by asking political questions" during interviews with potential career attorneys. In fact she says she did block or delay appointments of liberal Democrats from employment, noting on one occasion, "When I looked at that resume I made a snap judgment and I regret it."
Even though I remain a registered Republican, I don't like the politicizing of law enforcement. There was a point when in print and with little annonyminity I posted thoughts at NetTrustCentral. I advocated using non-politicized policing to fight the war on terror. The response was built-into the proclomation that that approach wouldn't work, by those who "blundered" in so many ways. No we look back and see where people trusted to lead "poor judgement" where their emotional holidays from law enforcement institutionalized mob-lynch actions. Now I'm not "pile on the issue dejour" or trying to paint MSP with a brush, but the sudden awareness that these "bad ideas" are amazing from the same people who "condoned" and "abetted" these acts. It is dangerous to object publicly to a mob, dangerous when policing sides with the irrational, and I wish others had been "rational and critical" of some of these ideas as they were formulated. I'm wary of the recent people who change their opine on these matters in 20-20 clarity. I respectfully disagree with David Kilcullen, a "former Australian Army officer who is now an adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."
You have to battle ideas with ideas, the fucking stupidity is that you can legislate or codify thought.. as if the political proposition of say, well Jim Crow laws can be enforced by say the FBI and MSP through COINTEL acts.
I AGREE Kilcullen in as much as valuable time and effort that should have been focused on bona-fide COINTEL has been lost, but this should have been objective analysis based outsode of the political lenses and a concentration span of a gnat.
But I have always been wary of the "common mans thought" as if that should be a litmus, mediocrity. Some vociferous now in condemnation of the outcome of this recent folly screamed for mob mentallity, I really feel that this is just a hegellian swing of the lower hanging fruit who lacked principle to take a couraged stand, or who simply were ignorant, but "poor judgement" from professionals scares me, I see it as an indulgence in personal emotions or lack of charcter in courage.
Hear me Hoyer.. there is no fun in having a jet at 15K' over your property on top of a restricted fly space, TV tower, circling.. poor judgement doesn't cover the extreme folly of what was going on buddy, going on in the name of institutions were emotive holidays are not as the DOJ tries to state: Good faith crimes committed by people with poor judgement. Uhmmmm well if the crime is committed in good faith of fighting terrorism, well then poor judgement doesn't matter??? Kids with too much testosterone and no parental guidance offer that excuse.
But talk about an abdication of responsibility, let me give you three links.
Now Paulson who overall I admire for his handling of this crisis, is at a point where he is called upon to balance utilitraian considerations of a larger economy versus the obvious disconnect of moral hazard.
I will say this, that I hope our institutions handle this crisis more effectively than they did post 911. In fact!!! This crisis has cost us more than the terrorists attacks have!
You know you don't get many opportunities to get it right, and often we don't. But factually you have to be able to look back and honestly say that "poor judgement" wasn't involved, that you didn't take an emotional holiday.
I liked the fact that Paulson announced the stimulus package before the House and Senate did.. but I wonder if he can go to the same well,, can he dip from the same well.. often???
I will say this. People DEPEND on this judgement. People DEPEND on the trust that our banking is sane and safe. They really do want institutional credibility and not instead shifting the lawn chairs on the deck of the titanic as they cling to a bad idea.. to the bitter end.
I must admit I side with the FDIC on packaging CDO's as assets and then not wanting to write off the loss's as the BOJ did. Who are we in the USA to perform carry trades with??? The Euro??? F.Y.I Carry trades was borrowing Japanese currency at low interest, buying dollars, and then the process of needing to do it more.. continuing the spread.. as if the moral hazard isn't obvious...
I mean so far so good Paulson, but PRINCIPLES and JUDGEMENT Matters.
MYHO is that it is better to relaize the losses.. and protect the dollar, better to admit an unfortunate truth, and speak truth, than try and shovel crap under a carpet.. and the eyes of the world are on you Mr Paulson, no easy task, yep tag your it.. the SME.. but don't look back and claim "poor judgement" as the examples above illustrate.. the costs and what's at stake is to important.
America is ideas and the dollar.. we export more of that than anything else.. stay vigilante Mr. Paulson to not the political expedient, the special interests, and do what is right.