Hank Kalet

A new state commission has begun the task of determining the fate of the death penalty in New Jersey. It will be holding hearings and gathering information to assess its value — whether it acts as a deterrent, whether it offers the appropriate punishment, whether it can be administered fairly.

My hope is that the commission will do as most civilized nations have already done and end capital punishment.

Several thoughts:

There is a basic moral dilemma at the heart of the debate, one outlined by the French philosopher Albert Camus in “Reflection on the Guillotine” — capital punishment is state-sanctioned and premeditated murder. It “adds to death a rule, a public premeditation known to the future victim, an organization which is itself a source of moral sufferings more terrible than death.” Camus says the death penalty is “the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal’s deed, however calculated can be compared. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life.”

And it is a moral tautology: It is a penalty that punishes the taking of life by taking a life — an equation that may seem logical to some but that hardens the heart of society and endorses the notion of retribution, making it more difficult to argue against vigilante justice. It is, after all, an eye for an eye.

Even if there were not moral issues at stake here — and I understand that there are many who do not follow the same moral and ethical principles that I follow — there are grave concerns about the fairness of its application and the accuracy of the judgments that impose it (given the finality of the death penalty, we have to make sure we are right and we must make sure we are not applying in a discriminatory fashion, neither of which seem possible).

It is time to follow the advice of Justice John Paul Stevens and stopping “tinkering with the machinery of death.”

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

This story, written by Staff Writer Joseph Harvie, will be running in tomorrow’s South Brunswick Post:

The Township Council could have a public hearing on the 2006 municipal budget at its meeting Tuesday if Extraordinary State Aid figures are released by then.

A 2006 budget hasn’t been adopted because the Township Council applied for $700,000 in Extraordinary Aid.

However, the state adopted its $30.8 budget on July 8, eight days after it was due on June 30, which delayed the release of Extraordinary Aid numbers for municipalities.

Sean Darcy, a spokesman for the state Department of Community Affairs, said municipalities should expect Extraordinary Aid figures soon.

Township Public Affairs Coordinator Ron Schmalz said the township will hold a public hearing on the budget if state aid figures are released in time.

He said that if figures aren’t released, the Township Council will vote on budget amendments that will allow the township to operate without a formal budget.

The delay in adoption has also delayed third-quarter tax bills, which are usually due on Aug. 1. Tax bills will not be mailed until the Township Council adopts its budget. Residents will have 45 days after they are mailed to pay.

The Township Council introduced a $43.68 million budget in March that was $280,000 more than last year’s $43.4 million spending plan.

If adopted, the municipal tax rate would increase by 8 cents, to 60 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. Under that rate, the owner of a house assessed at the township average of $190,000 would pay $1,140 in municipal taxes, up $152 from the previous year.

The proposed plan does not include the $700,000 in Extraordinary State Aid. In order to apply for Extraordinary Aid, the township must use $4.3 million of its $4.7 million surplus, which it has done.

According to township Chief Financial Officer Joe Monzo, $385,485 represents one tax point in the township. That means $700,000 in Extraordinary Aid could mean a tax rate reduction of 1.82 cents.

Members of the council said that the budget was “a work in progress” and more cuts would be made before it is adopted.

I run the story in full to offer some context. What we are witnessing at the local level here in South Brunswick is similar to what has happened at the state level for too many years. The Township Council has been resorting to a series of one-shot approaches that have offset potential tax hikes in the past, but which are now coming due. This has left the township — considered one of the more affluent municipalities in the state — going to the state like a panhandler, hat in hand hoping for a couple of quarters in extraordinary aid to help it balance its budget without having to ask local taxpayers for too much cash. Only, the budget asks for a municipal tax hike of 11.9 percent after the state handout is included.

And it doesn’t take into account the difficult straits the township will find itself in next year as it scrambles to balance its budget without much of a surplus account or extraordinary aid.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

In a year of great Mets stories, this one is probably my favorite.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

Nicholas Kristof looks at the boomerang effect that has made the Middle East such a mess all these years. He describes it like this:

Impatient Arabs backed violence and thus put Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert into power, while utterly discrediting Israeli doves. Some Arabs seethed at their daily discomforts, and so they backed provocations that are now vastly multiplying the suffering in Gaza and Lebanon alike.

I’m afraid that impatient Israelis may now be falling into the same trap. Israelis, outraged by attacks and kidnappings, have escalated the conflict by launching an assault on Lebanon that may make life in Israel far more dangerous for many years to come.

Kristof symapthizes with the Israelis — this round of violence was, after all, precipitated by Hezbollah and Hamas, though the Israelis went out of their way to taunt Hamas — but he also calls into question the basic approach being used by the Israelis.

Plenty of experience shows that Israel can’t deter private terror networks, but that it can deter states. Syria, for example, despises Israel but doesn’t launch rockets or kidnap soldiers. So Israel might benefit from firmer states in Lebanon and Gaza that actually control their territories. Instead, the latest Israeli offensives foster anarchy to both the north and the south, potentially nurturing militant groups that are not subject to classical deterrence.

If Israel is ever to achieve real security, we have a pretty good idea how it will be achieved: the kind of two-state solution reached in the private Geneva accord of 2003 between Arab and Israeli peaceniks. The fighting in Lebanon pushes that possibility even farther away — and in that sense, each bombing mission harms Israel’s future as well as Lebanon’s.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press

A lot of ink is being wasted on this, but it is worth commenting on.

Here’s the background:

Last week, the mayor and council of Bogota in Bergen County sent a letter to McDonald’s asking formally asking that the fast-food chain remove a Spanish-language billboard and replace it with an English version.

The mayor, Steve Lonegan, is an arch-conservative who ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for governor and just maybe angling for another shot.

Into this little flap, which plays on the anti-immigrant anger that has been festering in American politics recently, steps the state’s attorney general, Zulima Farber. The AG’s Division of Civil Rights requested a copy of the letter, which led Lonegan to go public.

Farber, of course, is embroiled in a little flap of her own, having apparently intervened in a traffic stop involving her boyfriend. There have been calls for her to step down, even some calling for impeachment proceedings to begin.

The reality is that both sides are using the billboard for political purposes, wallowing in the kind of political hypocrisy that gives everyone in public life a bad name.

Here is what Lonegan said in The Star-Ledger, a quote that lays bare the absurdity involved:

“It seems to me that the Attorney General of the State of New Jersey … would have more important things to do than to involve herself in a debate about the marketing of iced coffee.”

I could ask the mayor the same thing. Doesn’t the mayor of a small Bergen County borough with a growing Hispanic population have anything to do than debate the marketing practices of a fast-food chain hawking iced coffee?

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press