Trivia of the day: Homeland Security nominee Bernard Kerik was criticized for his lack of higher education when he took over as NYC police commissioner in 2000. He subsequently earned a BS in public administration from Empire State College in 2002 (when he would have been in his mid-forties).
He's a good man for the job. He started out as a walking-beat cop in Times Square, and earned his way into the highest levels of law enforcement. The right man, for the right job, at the right time.
His autobiography is quite something. This is a very impressive man--independent of anyone's approval or disapproval of his political affiliation.
The NY Times yesterday had an article mentioning that he would open his briefcase to show people the papers that he was working on for his "mail order" degree. Kerik will become second on the list of most prominent Americans with DL higher education: Schwarzenegger is on top of the list.
Bernie Kerik's a good guy who truly worked his way up and overcame the kind obstacles that could surely have crushed others. I'm really pleased to see him offered this position! He's the right one for the job. Kit
prominent politicians and DL Didn't Gary Hart get a doctorate from Oxford largely by DL recently? It's the "largely by DL" part of which I'm uncertain.
It appears Keric thinks a former housekeeper regarding immigration and taxes could hurt his confirmation. Also, reports say Kerik made millions of dollars from a stun gun company that sold weapons to the Homeland Security Department. Records filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission show he earned $6.2 million by exercising stock options he received from Taser International.
My apologies for the above post being here. I posted it in "new thread" but it showed up here. When I tried to delete it I got the message "No thread specified" on a number of attempts. Something is really wrong with the system right now. Again, my apologies.
If you are talking about your post on the reasons why Kerik withdrew his name, what more appropriate place is there than a thread on Kerik? I agree with Bruce that a street cop who rose to the police commissioner who managed the NYPD response to 9-11 was a perfect choice. But... His Zoe Baird style disregard for America's immigration laws is troubling in a Homeland Security director. The tax trouble doesn't help either. And his Taser connections could conceivably indicate a conflict of interest. I'm inclined to reluctantly agree that he was right to withdraw his name.
One wonders about all this 'homeland security' business. Having been to both the US and England in recent days, the visible presence and absence of guys with guns in both these countries was a lesson in the different ways each culture handles itssecurity. The US is now brissling with guns and gun boats protecting verything that moves or doesn't move. The English are obviously doing the same, although one is not conscious of it. The fact that it was reported that the English has just headed off another potential 'Madrid' demonstrates their vigilance, but in a less conspicuous and gun-ho fashion. And the leader of the US's other Iraq ally, Australia, had his security beefed up a few years ago when he was assignned 2 instead of one bodyguard!
Don't think there aren't guns Lived in Europe for 12 years. Don't think for a minute the British cops don't have guns. They do (and everyone there knows it)and know how to use them. On the continent it is common to see police with dogs (my children used to want to pet them, not a good idea) and submachine guns patrolling the airports. The street cops have them in their trunks (and everyone knows that as well). Something you would never see here now. You are comparing apples to oranges and using incomplete data in trying to make your point....
Re: Don't think there aren't guns While street cops don't normally carry firearms on their persons, British antiterrorist police are bristling with weapons, including prominently displayed submachine guns. They put out a definite 'no nonsense' impression. That came as a bit of culture shock for this American, pre-9-11. Of course, post-9-11 we had National Guardsmen in full combat gear patrolling our own airports for a time, though they have since been withdrawn. But I'm sure that the airport police still have automatic weapons close at hand, behind the scenes. But Americans don't parade them around like many Europeans do. I recall that a year or two ago there was a serious security scare at Heathrow, and the airport was suddenly filled with military light armored vehicles. This stuff does illustrate some cultural differences, but they are less dramatic than some would like to believe. American street cops on patrol carry firearms, like police in most countries that I've seen, even in Europe. British police usually don't. But British police are trained in the use of firearms and usually have weapons close by. On the other hand, British police seem to me to be quicker than American police to make a show of force when they sense security problems, sending out the special weapons and tactics guys in body armor and burp guns to make a public display of standing around potential targets in London. Of course, when the NYPD gets wind of threats against the NY Stock Exchange or something, you see paramilitary police on the streets too, so maybe the difference isn't all that big.
