Sharon, author of The Center of NJ Life will host the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers this Sunday. Thanks to Sharon for volunteering to take the place of this week's scheduled host.

All New Jersey bloggers and blog readers are invited to participate. Please send links to njcarnival@gmail.com for posts you would like featured in this week's Carnival.

First the bad news:

The Daily Fry will be unable to host this week’s Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers as scheduled. If you are a New Jersey blogger and would like to host this Sunday, October 2, please email us – enlightennj@gmail.com.

The good news:

The Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers hasn’t been a complete bust – we see a sizable number of participants are looking to schedule a blog meet up. Daniella from Daniellas Misadventures got the ball rolling with an email suggesting the idea and Debbie Galant from the Barista of Bloomfield Avenue has offered to help with logistics for a New Jersey Blogger get together.

It might be a good idea for Debbie and her associates to take the lead on this one so that a date, time and place may be nailed down based upon the consensus of the bloggers wishing to attend. Without someone taking the lead, the emails will go round and round without result.

Poor Impulse Control will host the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #19 this Sunday.

All New Jersey bloggers and blog readers are invited to participate. Please send links to njcarnival@gmail.com for posts you would like featured in this week's Carnival.

A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial on Tuesday’s gubernatorial debate between Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester notes “Corzine looked and sounded like a candidate who is taking the voters for granted”.

Corzine chose to react defensively to the first question of the debate, about a gift $470,000 loan to former girlfriend (and union president) Carla Katz. His performance was mostly downhill from there, with an inarticulate and disengaged presentation of his proposed policies. At one point, Corzine dismissively referred to Forrester as the "opposition candidate," as if his own coronation awaits and a debate is a trifling inconvenience. Forrester, in contrast, came across as aggressive, focused and - gasp - prepared.

That is in sharp contrast to the Star-Ledger’s opinion that Corzine started out tenuously, seemed a bit nervous, but quickly gained his footing. We apparently were watching the same debate as the Inquirer as we wrote: Forrester was in command, well prepared and clearly articulated his positions, while Corzine appeared shaky, nervous and confused. It was our opinion Doug Forrester won the debate and the Inquirer agrees.

But why rely on someone else’s opinion. If you didn’t have a chance to see the debate you still can when NJN rebroadcasts the hour-long program this Sunday at noon or you can view the video online here.

For more commentary on debate #1 check out Roberto’s series of posts: Corzine vs. Forrester Debate, Round One; More Debate Follow-Up; More Debate Follow-Up, Part II; More Debate Follow-Up, Part III

The first debate in New Jersey’s race for Governor between Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester has just finished. If you are a supporter of Jon Corzine, you must be horribly disappointed in his performance, as he appeared shaky, nervous and confused.

If you are a supporter of Doug Forrester, you too must feel disappointed. Disappointed because Forrester cleaned Corzine’s clock, but realize the audience was probably very small and won’t have the impact on the race it should.

Democrats often make fun of President Bush’s public speaking, but Corzine makes Bush sound like Cicero. Forrester was in command, was well prepared and clearly articulated his positions. In all respects, Forrester was the clear winner of the debate.

Corzine was on the defensive for most of the debate, although the panel asked tough questions of both candidates. The Senator tried to interject Hurricane Katrina, FEMA and the Bush administration into any number of his answers, but this tactic made him appear weak and incapable of debating issues relevant to the state and the opponent in the room, Forrester.

More later if Blogger doesn’t continue to eat our posts.

Update: For those that didn’t have an opportunity to watch last night’s debate, the Corzine vs. Forrester debate video may be viewed here. Decide for yourself how well each candidate presented himself, defended his proposals and record. You can decide if the Star-Ledger’s take - “Corzine, who started out tenuously and seemed a bit nervous, quickly gained his footing “, is an accurate description or partisan spin.

An analysis recently completed by consultants hired by the GOP found thousands of cases where people in New Jersey apparently voted more than once, or voted posthumously in the 2004 election. The Republicans have forwarded the study to State's Attorney General Peter Harvey, asking for an investigation before Oct. 11, the last day New Jerseyans can register to vote before the Nov. 8 election. Key findings of the study may be read here.

Tom Wilson, New Jersey State Chairman of the Republican Party said sloppy record-keeping cannot explain all of the irregularities the analysts found. "Clearly, if you're dead, you didn't vote," explaining such findings suggest voter fraud.

Wilson said the analysis did not include voter party affiliations to ensure impartiality for possible use in court and declined to release the names of those who cast questionable ballots, explaining there could be criminal charges.

Democratic spokesman Richard McGrath said: "If the Republican Party conducted the investigation, it's safe to assume that the facts and figures are wrong and the findings are suspect. If an investigation is needed, it should be done the right way, not the Republican way."

McGrath must be confused. Republicans paid for an analysis of New Jersey’s voter roles, found thousands of voter irregularities and turned all of the data over to Attorney General Peter Harvey, a Democrat, for an investigation.

The Republicans are incapable of taking anyone off voter registration lists and are powerless to enforce or root out voter irregularities. They must rely on the State’s Attorney General to take action or they must sue in court. The Attorney General’s office or the court may then find the analysis accurate and take appropriate steps to clean up the voter roles and prosecute voter fraud or the study will be rejected as flawed and inaccurate.

Not everyone sees it that way. Here’s journalist and blogger Steve Hart’s take on the voting irregularities uncovered by the Republican analysis:

When Karl Rove slithered through New Jersey a few months back, he must have made a big impression on the state's Republican Party reptiles. In particular, he must have coached them on the party's formula for democracy, post-2000 style: If you can't win the vote, keep people from counting the ballots, raise a big cloud of dust and send in your lawyers.

But this con ain't gonna fly. What gives the game away is the party's refusal to release its findings to the press.

The idea of being able to vote only if eligible, once per election and not after death apparently doesn’t comport with Hart’s concept of democracy. Sorry Steve, we’ll bet most people are with us on this one, even if you throw in the name Karl Rove and call Republicans reptiles. Voters, regardless of party, want fair elections and don’t approve of people committing voter fraud.

Hart says Republicans are perpetrating a con because if their allegations were true they’d turn over their finding to the press. That’s an odd statement, because Hart, along with everyone else, learned of the findings in the press.

We assume Hart means the press has not been provided with the list of the people voting more than once or posthumously. Why is it unusual for people to turn over evidence of a crime to the law? Most folks prefer criminal investigations to be conducted by the proper authorities and for trials to be conducted in the courts, not by or in the press.

The State’s Attorney General is responsible for clearing up voter registration lists and if he isn’t doing his job, he should be forced to comply with the laws that help to ensure clean and fair elections. We support the counting of all votes; we just prefer all the votes counted to be legal. Is this a partisan or controversial notion? Curious isn’t it that the Democratic Party and Steve Hart see it that way? We have to ask the question, why? The answer seems obvious to us, but we’ll let our friends on the other side of the aisle speak for themselves.

Maybe the Democrat and former Governor, Brendan Byrne can shed some light of the issue:

Former Gov. Brendan Byrne likes to poke fun at Hudson County by joking that when he dies, he will be buried in Jersey City so that he can remain active in politics. But Republicans this week released a study that found dead people were voting all over the state, and that Hudson County was not the worst offender. Bergen County had the most dead voters, while Hudson was tied for fifth place with Morris.

The news hit Byrne hard. But he's not changing his burial plans just yet.

"We've got to do more to stimulate interest in politics among dead people in Hudson County," he tells the Auditor.

In other election news: Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg asked a judge to allow her to seek Byron Baer's state Senate seat without forfeiting her Assembly seat.

The move comes after the Bergen County Clerk's Office said the Teaneck Democrat could not be nominated for two elected positions at once - her own Assembly seat, for which she won the Democratic primary in June, and Baer's vacated Senate seat, which will be filled in a special party election Thursday night.

In the election last week, former Assemblyman and Hackensack Police Chief Ken Zisa beat Assemblywoman Loretta Weinberg, D-Teaneck, by a single vote, 112-111, to be on the November ballot.

But Weinberg will ask a judge this week to count five unopened ballots from Tenafly that were disqualified by U.S. Rep. Steve Rothman, D-Fair Lawn, who was called in by Weinberg and Zisa to resolve the dispute.

Rothman threw the ballots out because the voters' names were not forwarded to the Bergen County Democratic Organization until Wednesday, the day before the special election.

Rothman also threw out two ballots from Bergenfield because he believed they were cast by voters who illegally replaced two other members.

The ballots, if approved, could change the outcome of the election.

These are the shenanigans that go on amongst Democrats …

From the Boston Globe:

Conservative friends have been sending me long, detailed e-mails about the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. They are all designed to place the blame on New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, while exonerating President Bush. These electronic messages have certainly been impressive and revealed previously unknown facts. After reading them, I acknowledge the timelines of what happened, when and who knew what, and when and who signed what and when. My friends are right that state and local government were the first lines of defense--and they failed. This represents a systemic failure of government at all levels.

While their details are valid and their points well made, these are merely the facts.

Click the Graphic for More Information

The Nightfly is hosting the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #18 today.
We are but actors on a stage playing our parts.

Reading articles and blogs written by “progressive” we are beginning to understand their constant call for raising income taxes regardless of the circumstances. Raising income tax rates may or may not increase government revenues, but that is not really their concern. For many “progressives” increasing income tax rates is a way to punish people for earning more than they believe a person should be allowed.

Senator Charles Schumer(D-NY) was on O’Reilly last night and he said a few things that might surprise our friends on the right and the left:

On Judge John Roberts:

First he is the most brilliant person that has ever come before us.
He is right about this, you can't ask a judge what he'll do in the future.
What he is I think is a conservative. He is a mainstream conservative.

On the Supreme Court:

I think the Warren Court did go too far and it spawned a conservative movement to control the courts.

On the judge that ruled the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional:

I am (outraged), judges like that make things very bad for Democrats.

On the Bush Anti-Poverty Record:

O’Reilly asks: Who is the biggest sender on poverty entitlements in the history of the country? Which administration?

Schumer guesses President Nixon. O'Reilly tells him the answer is President Bush.

Schumer says: They are, you're right. People don't realize it.

On O’Reilly:

I've always enjoyed your show. I think you're fair.

See Video here

From a woman in her fifties, a lifelong Democrat, born in New York, living in New England, with a background as a therapist:

What happens when journalists are cynics rather than skeptics? One result is that every event and every action is rated and spun as though its sole purpose is either to enhance or detract from a political party or a politician. It is assumed that whatever stands politicians may take, they are always based only on self-interest rather than even a consideration of such old-fashioned and outdated virtues as principle.

A recent New Republic features an article by Ryan Lizza that is an example of this noxious genre. Lizza manages to deal with two of the most dreadful events of recent years--9/11 and Hurricane Katrina--and evaluates them only in terms of which political party is helped/hurt by each disaster, and how both parties are using them to "position" themselves into power.

Lizza writes that the Democrats can gain from the Katrina disaster by promoting themselves as people who handle humanitarian crises properly. He then compares that to the political advantage the Republicans received post-9/11 when they were perceived as the party that could best handle a security crisis.

If the Republicans are perceived as being better able to handle a security crisis, it is because they actually were engaged in handling a major security crisis post-9/11. It is logical to assume that the perception of Republicans as tough on national security was predicated at least in some part on their actual performance in a shaky situation that represented a demanding challenge-- one that many people give them credit for handling at least somewhat well--rather than on mere rhetoric and promises.

But if Democrats were to get credit for handling a humanitarian crisis better than Republicans based on Katrina, wouldn't the Democrats have had to have actually performed better than Republicans during Katrina? Can a perception of better performance simply come from criticizing the performance of others? Somehow I don't think so; I don't think most people are that naive. Merely to say "I could do it better, trust me!" isn't usually enough.

But, ordinarily, it is not. It would be much better if Democrats could point to some sort of huge humanitarian crisis that they actually handled well recently.

Oh, you say that there actually was a humanitarian crisis recently in which Democrats were involved? Which one was it?

Well, as it turns out, it was Katrina itself. Both Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blano and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin were (drum roll here) Democrats!!!

As they say, read the entire post – link.

Judge John Roberts should easily be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Chief Justice. He is obviously a brilliant, decent man with an impeccable background and exceptional experience in the law. We were happy with the choice of John Roberts once we heard him say he would treat all that came before the Court equally and that he sees the role of a judge an umpire and not a player. All the rest is just political theater.

You can read the transcript of yesterday’s senate hearings here. While the spotlight was on Roberts, we found the following remarks by Senators Graham and Brownback to give us reason to cheer. It was just great to hear Senators express thoughts that have crossed our minds more than once.

Senator Graham - But There Is A Limit

The Kelo case. Of all the things that have been decided, and I haven't been to my office since the recent case about the pledge -- though it may have trumped it -- I have gotten more phone calls about the Kelo case than anything the Supreme Court has done lately.

And for those who may be tuning in, the Kelo case basically said that the government can take your property, give it to someone else, another private person because it could be used at a higher and best use and it may generate more taxes.

I'm not going to ask you to tell me how you decide the Kelo case. But I just want you to know -- as Senator Kyl indicated, this is the only time you can hear from us -- that my phone is ringing off the hook and that every legislature that I know of is going into session as quickly as they can to correct that.

So I want to leave with you -- and when you meet your new colleagues, please let them know that some of the things they do that we watch. And that the courts are able to do their job because the public defers to the court and respects the court, but there is a limit.

Graham’s delivery of that last line was priceless and to truly appreciate the moment you have to see the tape.

Senator Brownback - Doesn't This Strike You As Odd

First Amendment, everybody knows: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

Well-known, well-regarded, highly -- broadly interpreted by the courts to the point that you would get court opinions -- and I just want to quote these. This is actually in a Supreme Court opinion, that the court would in the past four years when this opinion was issued, in -- I think it was 2003 -- the last four years, the court had sternly disapproved -- sternly disapproved -- restrictions upon certain forms of speech such as virtual child pornography. The court said, can't do that, limit that speech. Tobacco advertising: the court said, can't limit that speech. Dissemination of illegally intercepted communications: you can't limit that speech. Sexually explicit cable programming: can't limit that speech.

All right, so the court has been, it seems to me, very pronounced in this area -- free speech, can't limit it -- basically to the Congress. Can't limit it.

And to the point, you know, where it goes to the issue of virtual child pornography -- and that was the case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. And I want to describe this in a little bit of detail, because I want to back it up and ask another question associated with it.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the court struck down a congressional statute regulating pornography, in this case Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, expanded the federal prohibition on pornography to include virtual child pornography -- realistic images which were made without the use of actual children.

But the Congress based its opinion on the basis that pedophiles will use this material to recruit, over the Internet, individuals to draw in children into sexual activity.

And so we found out about that, investigated it, did a number of hearings and said, "We've got to stop this stuff."

The court says you can't do it. It's limitation on free speech.

Then, not long ago -- as a matter of fact, the opinion was issued in 2003 -- we had a big debate on campaign finance reform, in front of the Congress. One of the members of our committee, Senator Feingold, was one of the lead sponsors of the McCain-Feingold piece of legislation.

And it came in front of the courts -- McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. And the court largely upheld the McCain-Feingold law, one section of which did this: prohibited corporations, labor unions and other organizations from political advertisement that mentioned a specific candidate or office holder within 60 days of a general election.

You may be -- you're probably very familiar with this. It was a big national debate.

Under the court decision, this congressional action prohibiting speech -- and not just any speech, and not just pornography. This is political speech close to the time when people are making decisions on elections.

The court decided that this congressional action prohibiting political speech was upheld under a First Amendment ostensibly designed to protect this, I would contend, form of political participation and speech.

And I looked at that. I voted on the McCain-Feingold law. I did not think there was any way the court would hold that this is constitutional, because you're limiting political free speech, and right when people are making their decision.

And one of the lead reasons or lead abilities we have in this country is to be able to criticize the government, and certainly at a point in time when it matters the most -- right ahead of elections.

How do you square such a broad interpretation of the First Amendment in these cases and such a limitation on political free speech? Can you explain that to me?

Doesn't this strike you as odd, these two side by side under the same First Amendment?

We could never understand how the Court found the restrictions on political speech in McCain-Feingold to be constitutional. The restrictions on political speech seem even more absurd when the same group of judges found virtual child pornography to be protected under the First Amendment. It was terrific to hear an elected representative take the words right out of our mouths because it sure does strike us as odd.

The Democrat, Charles T. Epps Jr. is running for the New Jersey State Assembly from the 31st District. He has time for a part-time job because Epps is also Jersey City's School Superintendent. A school superintendent who is negotiating a new three-year contract with the state. So far Epps' contract includes:

A $20,000 raise, bringing his base salary to $210,520 this year

Annual raises that would bring his base to $229,343 by 2007

A car and a $1,000-a-month housing allowance

A $10,000 tax-deferred annual annuity

Performance incentives – 5% of salary per year

$575,000 for 493 days of unused sick time accumulated before he was appointed superintendent in 2000. (Assumes Epps unused sick time is calculated the same as Long Branch Superintendent Joseph M. Ferraina.)

Jersey City is an Abbott School District, spends $14,420 per pupil and pays only 13% of the total cost of its schools through property taxes; consequently the sky is the limit. So if the Superintendent wants to be a state assemblyman – no problem. After all you have to cater to a guy as valuable as Charles T. Epps, Jr:

"Nobody's clamoring to get these jobs," Epps said about the price of his new contract. "It's a labor of love. I think I'm worth a lot more."

Just another public employee choosing “public service — not personal gain — as their life's work.” Epps must have quite the record of achievement considering his high opinion of himself wouldn’t you think? Consider the results of the schools he oversees:

In 2004, about half of Jersey City's public-school students taking the Grade Eight Proficiency Assessment failed the test's language arts and math sections. Nearly 60 percent of the high schoolers failed the math portion of the High School Proficiency Assessment. In three of Jersey City's six high schools, more than half of the seniors were unable to pass the HSPA. Of those seniors who failed the HSPA, most graduated under the Special Review Assessment, a process that has been criticized for its lack of academic rigor.

Yes, Epps is the best person in the entire United States for the job.

Today President Bush said: "Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."

So which of these headlines accurately reflects what the President actually said?

Bush takes blame for hurricane relief problems ABC Online

Bush takes blame for Katrina mess Aljazeera.net

Blame me for Katrina shambles, says Bush as ratings hit new low Times Online, UK

Bush takes full responsiblity for Katrina blunders Denver Post, CO

Bush: I'm Responsible for Some Katrina Failures FOX News

As a work conflict prevented the Pink Panther from hosting this week’s Carnival, The Nightfly has volunteered to host the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #18. Thanks to Mike.

All New Jersey bloggers and blog readers are invited to participate. Please send links to njcarnival@gmail.com for posts you would like featured.

Due to a work conflict, The Pink Panther will be unable to host the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #18 on Sunday, September 18.

If you are a New Jersey blogger and would like to host the Carnival this Sunday, please contacts us: enlightennj@gmail.com.

Roberto at Dynamobuzz and the NJ Conservative have posts about the latest Corzine – Forester poll numbers in the 2005 New Jersey Governor's race. The numbers for Doug Forrester don’t look good at this point, but what is really upsetting, is that people have no understanding of each candidate’s platform.

While the majority of potential voters in the poll cited property taxes as the top problem in the state, only one-third of voters had heard about either candidate’s property tax "reduction" plan. If two-thirds of those polled are not familiar with Forrester’s 30 % reduction in property taxes plan versus Corzine’s for a 10% increase in property tax rebates, what are the odds people are familiar with any other issue or candidate position?

It would seem people are basing their preference for Governor on something other than facts. God help us.

Jeff Faria (Mister Snitch!) has created a website After 9/11 that includes a five minute audio and video clip from his documentary, After 9/11 Remerance and Renewal. Faria had also hoped the site would be a place to “link blogs posts year by year, to see how our feelings and attitudes toward 9/11 evolve over time.”

Faria writes: “fate has stepped in and 9/11 continues to elude decisive commentary. This year, Hurricane Katrina and the events surrounding it have colored, obscured, and dwarfed 9/11 posts around the blogosphere. Therefore we’ve forgone 9/11 posts in this site’s first year."

In the spirit of Faria’s After 9/11 project we have compiled links from New Jersey blogs commemorating the day we will never forget.

Armies of Liberation - 911
Bad Hair Blog - Always Remember
Barista of Bloomfield Avenue - Tragic Overload?
Blue State Conservatives - Lest We Forget
BuzzMachine - Remember
Clifton Blogs - Remember
CoffeeGrounds - On A More Somber Note
Confessions of a Jersey Goddess - 9/11: Moving On is A Good Thing; Forgetting is Not
Cripes, Suzette! - 9/11
Enlighten-NewJersey - September 11, 2001 – A Day We Will Never Forget
Exit Zero - Never Forget
GiggleChick - 9.11
Jersey Beat - Remember (As If We Could Forget)
Keepin It Real - Never Forget...
Laughing At The Pieces - Freedom's Just Another Word.. *
Likelihood of Confusion - Here is New York -- A September 11 Excerpt
Mister Snitch! - Our After 911 Site Is Online
New Midget Revue - I will never forget
NJ Spoken Word - 9/11: The People Who Forget Their History Are...
Parkway Rest Stop - Never Forget
Reihl World View - 9/11 and 9/11: Fireman and Angel Ice Sculpture
Shamrocketship - Year 4
Sluggo Needs a Nap - Lest We Forget
Tami,The One True - September 11th, 2005
The Idiom - 1460 Days
The Political Dogs - Medals of Valor Awarded
Tiger Hawk - The September 11 Post
Uncle Tonoose - Forget Me Not

As the day progresses we will add any additional New Jersey blog posts.

Click the Graphic for More Information

The Nightfly is hosting the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #17 today.

The latest AP/Ipsos poll results were released yesterday. If these results are truly representative of American public opinion – everyone is now to blame for the problems with the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Well, everyone except for all of the armchair disaster relief experts.

Poll Question: How much blame does each of the following deserve for the problems in the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina? A lot, a good amount, only a little, or none at all?

To Be Blamed: A Lot / Good Amount			Poll Breakdown
Blamee	%		Political Affiliation	%
State governments Local governments U.S. government President Bush Local residents	74% 67% 63% 55% 48%		Strongly Republican Moderately Republican Definitely Independent/neither Moderately Democrat Strongly Democrat Refused/not sure Total Republican Total Democrat	19% 23% 9% 28% 20% 1% 42% 48%

We always have a nagging question in the back of our minds when people are asked to assess major undertakings, such as with hurricane relief efforts. Compared to what? Did this disaster response effort go better or worse than operations under similar circumstances? We don’t know. We know human performance can always be improved and the Katrina disaster response will be no exception

However, all of the facts concerning the actions people did or did not take are not known at this point. There will be plenty of time to debrief and analyze the situation after all the people have been gotten to safety and provided for.

We only know what we’ve read and heard from the media and from that vantage point it appears some major mistakes were made. However, we think many people lack a realistic perspective from which to judge others at this stage. One of the best quotes we’ve read that really places things in perspective was from an Instapundit reader.

It's called a disaster because it overwhelms our ability to respond and to mitigate the disruption in communications, supplies, medical services, and everything else in daily life. If we could respond completely and immediately, then it would just be a minor inconvenience.

Just look at the size of Hurricane Katrina:

Take a look at this set of photographs (197 in all) taken by one man in New Orleans from Sunday August 29 through Thursday September 1. When you look at these photos in sequence it may help to explain why some local, state and federal authorities made the calls they did at the time. Now with the benefit of hindsight, everyone is judged to be at fault.

Below are four pictures from the set taken of Canal Street in New Orleans, beginning Sunday before the hurricane hit through Wednesday August 31, the day after the levees broke.

Sunday August 28 – Day 1

Monday August 29 – Day 2

Tuesday August 30 – Day 3

Wednesday August 31 – Day 4

The Nightfly will host the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #17 this Sunday.

All New Jersey bloggers and blog readers are invited to participate. Please send links to njcarnival@gmail.com for posts you would like featured in this week's Carnival.

Jon Corzine said. "It's not how I'd spend the money if I were king." Don’t you mean governor rather than king, Senator Corzine? Anyway, we would prefer to keep our money rather than sending it to the King for spending as his majesty chooses.

President Bush said:: “You know, there's a debate here about refugees. Let me tell you my attitude and the attitude of people around this table: The people we're talking about are not refugees. They are Americans, and they need the help and love and compassion of our fellow citizens. And the people at this table are providing that help and compassion and love.”

When we first read and heard the media referring to the people fleeing the ravages of Hurricane Katrina as refugees, we thought it an odd term to apply to the people of the Gulf Coast. But we’re used to the media slapping labels on people and wrote it off as just the usual suspects (CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, AP, The New York Times, etc) trying to be dramatic.

Jesse Jackson has said: "It is racist to call American citizens refugees." As far as we can tell the term refugee is being applied to all evacuated survivors of Katrina and not to those of one particular race. Why Jesse Jackson and company have decided to proclaim the term refugee as racist we will leave to others to determine. However, if the term annoys people, we have no idea why some media outlets persist with using the term. That’s our entire opinion on the subject if anyone’s interested.

So what gives with the New Jersey Goddess?

So, you people who are whipping out your dictionaries to set Jackson straight on the meaning of the word "refugee," knock it off. Go back to school for a few courses in linguistics, semantics, and psychology. Talk to a sociologist before you write your next piece on this type of subject.

Keep in mind that many New Orleans residents who are no longer in the city need training and jobs. Many were already on government assistance and so carry the stigma of being "on welfare" in the eyes of some narrow-minded Americans. Why give the displaced a name that people associate with noncitizens of the United States? Won't we have enough to deal with considering the racial tension?

Even the conservative supporters of Enlighten New Jersey should be able to get this one and understand that what you call people is not a frivolous discussion.

The solution is to educate people not to stereotype, but as a nation, we can choose right now not to label a group of people with a name that's destined to be problematic.

Yes, even the conservatives over here at Enlighten-NewJersey were able to get this one. It’s okay to label, stereotype, judge others before you know the facts or hear what they have to say and treat others condescendingly if you’re a New Jersey Goddess.

How does Jon Corzine’s hometown, Hoboken, do it? The city is raising property taxes for the first time in ten years by 2 percent. The 2-percent municipal tax increase will add $60 a year for every $100,000 in assessed property value.

Hoboken and other municipalities receiving the lion’s share of state school aid have not experienced the huge increases in property taxes as have those communities that receive little to no funding from the state.

While suburban communities foot the bill for the construction of their schools, Hoboken taps the state’s school construction fund “to replace a perfectly good school that has, among other features, a swimming pool, a cavernous gym, a huge auditorium and classroom space for 600 more students than it houses.”

No wonder Corzine refuses to take a pledge not to raise taxes - 80% of New Jersey’s income tax revenue goes to school districts such as Hoboken. Corzine’s property tax relief plan that would increase the average homeowner rebate by $64 is just great for those that see a miniscule property tax increase every ten years. For those that see hefty increases to their property taxes every year, $64 is inconsequential.

Doug Forrester has taken a no-new-tax pledge and has proposed a plan to reduce property taxes by 30%. A Governor Corzine would do nothing to change the inequitable school aid formula, provide no real property tax relief and add new government programs that will lead to increased income and other taxes. A Governor Doug Forrester will reduce state spending and provide meaningful property tax relief.

This year taxpayers have a real choice between candidates for Governor of New Jersey. A vote for Corzine is one for higher state and local taxes; a vote for Forrester is a vote for holding the line on state spending and lower property taxes. What else do voters need to know?

Blogging will be sporadic until our Internet access is fixed.

By June 30, 2006, New Jersey’s Transportation Trust Fund will be depleted of almost all revenue available for maintaining and building the state’s roads and mass transit systems. Nearly every penny paid in state gas taxes and other dedicated taxes and fees will be needed to cover debt from the state’s past transportation spending.

Earlier in the year, Democrat John Wisniewski, chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee, called for an increase in the gas tax from 10.5 cent- per-gallon to 29.5 cents. However, our representatives in Trenton punted and now legislators aim to take up the matter during a "lame duck” session in November or December. Once safely elected, the State Assembly will be back to business as usual, spending with abandon and raising taxes.

In the mean time, the bankrupt state transportation fund has become an issue in the gubernatorial race. The Republican candidate, Doug Forrester has issued a pledge not to raise any taxes, including the gas tax and the Democrat, Jon Corzine adamantly refuses to make a no-tax-hike pledge. Forrester plans to replenish the transportation fund from within the state’s $28 billion budget and Corzine is banking on the “lame duck” legislators to bail him out by raising the gas tax before a new Governor is sworn into office.

In terms of the gas tax, it really doesn’t matter who wins the governor’s race or control of the state’s assembly in November – the tax will be increased and signed into law before any newly elected representatives take office in 2006.

Now this may come as a surprise, but we believe the gas tax is a fair tax and it should be raised if necessary to fund the state’s transportation needs. Building and maintaining public infrastructure such as highways, bridges and transit systems should be the responsibility of state government and a tax that is tied directly to an individual’s use of a public service is an equitable method for raising the necessary funds.

Public infrastructure should be self-financing through tolls, fares, and other transportation related consumption taxes, such as the one on gasoline. The rub is getting our politicians to use the revenues generated from the gas tax strictly for roads and related transpiration needs. This is the issue Corzine and Forrester should be debating - how each would ensure revenue from the gas tax is not used for any other purpose.

Aside from limiting the use of gas tax revenue, there is another idea that could help New Jersey rejuvenate the state’s Transportation Trust Fund – stop sending gas tax revenue to Washington.

Republican House member, Scott Garrett, has introduced a reform bill that would let states opt out of the federal gas tax, in part or entirely, and allow a state to keep the revenue from the 18.4-cent-per-gallon tax the federal government now imposes.

"The National Interstate Highway System has been completed," said Garrett in a statement. "There needs to be a new system set in place that allows the states more discretion over the transportation programs, maximizes the resources available for our transportation system, and is more equitable for New Jersey and other donor states like it."

Just as New Jersey receives only receives 57 cents for every tax dollar we send to Washington, the state receives only 92 cents for every gas tax dollar collected in the state and sent to the federal government. The Garrett reform measure is something New Jersey’s entire congressional delegation should be able to back. Unfortunately, the state’s Democrat controlled delegation, led by Senator Corzine, enjoy controlling the slush fund that enables them to buy off special interests and fund projects that have nothing to do with transpiration infrastructure.

Once again New Jersey gets the short end of the federal appropriation stick and it has nothing to do with the “rich state/ poor state” meme. For example: Alaska gets $5.18 for every gas tax dollar it pays in, Washington, D.C. gets $3.32; Rhode Island, receives $2.40; and South Dakota, $2.13. New Jersey’s poor return can only be attributed to poor representation by our Democrat Senators and Congressmen.

So rather than debate a raise in the state’s gas tax, a done deal before either candidate can become governor, Forrester and Corzine should debate plans for limiting the use of gas tax revenue to roads, brides and mass transit and Senator Corzine's failure to secure New Jersey’s fair share of federal tax revenue.

We have not been able to find this news anywhere else, but the New York Times is reporting that the Mayor of New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin has begun offering five-day vacations to the city’s police, firefighters and city emergency workers and their families.

According to the article, beginning today, New Orleans officials will be sending 1,500 security workers and their families to Las Vegas or Atlanta in two shifts. Those electing to accept the paid time off will be given air transportation and hotel rooms. Police officers and firefighters may opt to fly to other cities, but will not be provided with lodging.

Deputy Fire Chief Joseph Matthews, who is also the director of the city's Office of Emergency Preparedness, said: "We've been at this six days and we need to give our people a break.” Forty percent of the city's officers will remain at their posts while the others are on vacation. When the first group returns, those who stayed behind will go on leave.

Colonel Terry Ebbert, director of homeland security for New Orleans, responsible for the city’s recovery and rescue operation, and police superintendent, P. Edwin Compass both said that they planned to take a break as well, but probably for less than five days. The two will continue to direct the recovery by telephone.

Mayor Nagin, who has been demanding more federal assistance, asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency to pay for the trips but the agency said no. Nagin has decided the city will pay the costs.

Nagin now believes there are enough National Guard members in the city to allow the police to take a break and still keep the city secure. The Mayor brushed off questions about whether such a trip might look like a dereliction of duty. "I'll take the heat on that," Mr. Nagin said. "We want to cater to them."

W. J. Riley, the deputy superintendent of police, said that by late Sunday afternoon more than 2,900 National Guard members and law enforcement officers from around the country were operating in New Orleans. By early evening, Mr. Riley said, the advance units of a 2,200-person force from the 82nd Airborne Division had landed. Several thousand more soldiers were expected, including members of the First Cavalry Division.

“Officials said they expected the military, with much greater resources, to expand rescue work, begin cleaning up the city and take the first steps toward reconstruction.” New Orleans officials said they would remain in charge. "We haven't turned over control of the city," Colonel Ebbert said.

We learned long ago not to believe everything we read. If someone told us this story we would assume it was a crazy rumor and wouldn’t believe a word of it. However, the article does quote the major players in New Orleans, so it just may be true. Given the performance of the leaders of New Orleans and Louisiana, abandoning their own people in their hour of greatest need seems plausible.

Last night Geraldo Rivera was in New Orleans interviewing members of the 82nd Airborne he met while covering the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These guys have been to two major battle zones and now have to defend New Orleans. Meanwhile, six days into protecting their own city, New Orleans’ finest are being sent off to Las Vegas for R&R? Unbelievable.

Nagin and company appear to be in charge alright - in charge of blaming others, but not much else as far as we can tell. Wait until this crew gets a hold of the billions of federal dollars that will be coming their way. The poor people of New Orleans never had a chance and things aren’t likely to change under current local leadership.

The Garden State's 570 school superintendents collectively saw their salaries rise 13.5 percent from 2001 to 2004, according to a Gannett New Jersey investigation.

One more example of our public employees choosing “public service — not personal gain — as their life's work.” Yea, we know it’s for “the children” and it has nothing to do with making as much as you possibly can without being held accountable for results.

“In Long Branch, for example, Superintendent Joseph M. Ferraina received a base salary of $201,756. In addition, the district paid him for 80 unused sick days and 18 unused vacation days. Extras like that brought Ferraina's total compensation in 2005 to $311,000.” Is there any other industry that provides pay for unused sick and vacation days to people in managerial positions? Folks in the education industry demand to be treated as “professionals” and yet negotiate compensation packages with pay calculated as if they were hourly paid workers.

“And in the three state-operated school districts of Newark, Jersey City and Paterson, state education officials negotiated contracts worth more than $200,000 for superintendents” Just another example of money being no object to those not footing the tab. The residents in these schools districts provide little to no funding for education and so there is no incentive to hold down costs. We have no problem paying people salaries commensurate with responsibilities and performance, but are these school systems performing?

“Many superintendents defend their salaries, saying they're doing a tough job under difficult circumstances.” Newark Superintendent Marion Bolden said: "I would like somebody else to come in here and do this job," "Given the struggle that you have in urban districts, I don't know what people expect."

Spoken like a person that can’t be fired and in a position over their head. Bolden has been provided with the most generous resources per student in the state. Would it be too much to ask for students to actually perform to grade level? Apparently, it is too much to ask. Bolden said: "What I object to is people saying this is a business, but you can't measure our performance because these are (students), not products."

No, superintendent Bolden you are not making products, you are providing a service. Somehow service-based businesses in the private sector have figured out how to measure performance and pay people accordingly. Based upon the performance of Newark’s schools, Bolden should have been fired, not rewarded with a second three-year contract.

The education industry throws common sense and financial management out the window. “Supporters also say a good superintendent will earn their compensation by bringing in millions of dollars in extra school funding.”

Perhaps it’s time to rethink the meaning of a “good” school superintendent and change the incentive plan – the more taxpayer dollars a superintendent spends, the more the s/he makes? No wonder education costs are ever increasing and taxes are spiraling out of control. Taxpayers are rewarding educators for spending more – only in the education industry would such thinking be accepted and treated as logical.

Click the Graphic for More Information

Have you had your dojo mojo today? is hosting the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #16 today. Check out what Jersey bloggers were writing about this week in this [Not-So-Sweet] Sixteen post.

Thanks to the bloggers below for writing what we have been thinking over the last several days.

I’m Weary - Parkway Rest Stop

Sinking to the occasion - Incite

I am not a Republican - what a sad old goth

The BBC accuses the New York Times of politicizing Katrina - Tiger Hawk

Jim at Parkway Rest Stop is... Weary and frankly so am I – New Jersey Weblogs

Weary describes us perfectly.

I rolled out this morning...kids had the mornin' news show on
Katie Couric was talkin' 'bout the fighting in Babylon
Some senator was squawkin' 'bout the bad economy
It's gonna get worse you see, we need a change in policy

There's a local paper rolled up in a rubber band
One more sad story's one more than I can stand
Just once how I'd like to see the headline say
Not much to print today, can't find nothin' bad to say

Because...

Nobody robbed an old lady on the lower part of town
Nobody OD'ed, nobody burned a single buildin' down
Nobody fired a shot in anger, nobody had to die in vain
We sure could use a little good news today

I'll come home this evenin'...I'll bet that the news will be the same
Somebody takes a hostage... somebody else to blame
How I wanna hear the anchor man talk about a county fair
And how we cleaned up the air, how everybody learned to care

Whoa, tell me...

Nobody was assassinated in the whole dang world today
And in the streets of N'Orleans, all the children had to do was play
And everybody loves everybody in the good old USA
We sure could use a little good news today

Original Lyrics

DoJo MoJo will host the Carnival of the New Jersey Bloggers #16 this Sunday.

All New Jersey bloggers and blog readers are invited to participate. Please send links to njcarnival@gmail.com for posts you would like featured in this week's Carnival.

A Tale of Two Cities

In 1973, a flood in Bound Brook, New Jersey resulted in loss of life and the evacuation of people from their homes. In response to the disaster, the Army Corps of Engineers began studying the problem and by 1980 the Crops submitted a report recommending a plan for protecting the Green Brook Sub Basin. The project plan was authorized for construction by the Water Resources Act of 1986.

The project plan kicked around for another 11 years when in 1997 the Corps completed a General Reevaluation Report and proposed a new plan to fix the flooding problem in Bound Brook. This new plan recommended a number of remedies, including the construction of levees and floodwalls along the Green Brook to provide flood protection.

In June of 1999, a Project Cooperation Agreement between the U.S. Government and the state of New Jersey was signed. In September 1999, Hurricane Floyd swept through New Jersey, flooding Bound Brook, again resulting in loss of life and evacuation of people from their homes. The 1999 flood was the most damaging on record for an area that had long been identified as vulnerable. In September 2000, the initial phase of the flood control project began and the entire Green Brook Sub Basin project is now slated to be completed in 2012 – assuming all goes well.

By the time the project is completed it will have been: 39 years since the Crops began studying the problem, 32 years since the Corps submitted its original flood control plan, 26 years since congress authorized the project's construction and 13 years since the final construction plan was approved.

It hard to imagine, but just think, during this period the country will have been led by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (GHW), Clinton, Bush(GW) and one or two more Presidents we’ve yet to elect.

Very interesting you think, but why are you guys relating this saga? This ridiculous article by Sidney Blumenthal, a former Clinton advisor, begged for a little perspective. In "No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming", Blumenthal writes:

In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico. But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature.

A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken.

Let’s see, Blumenthal wants his readers to believe a year ago the Corps proposed a study on how to protect New Orleans from a hurricane and if Bush President hadn’t gotten in the way, “the Big Easy” would be high and dry today. Uh, huh.

You probably didn’t need to read our little story about the Corps’ Bound Brook project to realize this is one of the most outrageous and blatant partisan attacks ever. However, let’s assume Blumenthal was telling the truth about the Corps proposing a study in 2004. Based upon our experience in New Jersey, the New Orleans flood protection project would be completed somewhere between 2017 and 2043 – just in time to save the city from the ravages of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.