Second Call for Aid as Tax Deadline Looms;
Domestic Diva Defended, Top Cop Bopped.

By Henry J. Stern
December 30, 2004

We are still in the shadow of the tsunami tragedy.  The death toll is now in six figures and the possibility of similar events occurring cannot be ruled out.  Remember Rule 26-G: Every day we live is a gift of God.
 
But our lives continue, as does the life of the City of New York.  So I hope you will permit me to deal with some local issues.  First is New York Civic's intense desire to grow and to serve.  We are entirely supported by you, our readers.  On December 15, we asked for your help, and we are very pleased with the results so far.  We write today because it is December 30, and the calendar year is about to end.  Those of you who wish 2004 tax deductions for your gifts to our 501(c)3 must date them by December 31 (although we need not receive them that day).
 
Two weeks ago, I wrote a humble, and hopefully persuasive, letter asking for your contributions.  If you missed it, please link to it here.  It shows you ways to make a gift.  Since our expenses are modest, we are not in danger of disappearing, but we do need your gifts to become a stronger and more effective organization.  We could certainly use more space.  We want to sponsor more programs, which are free to our members.  We would like to be able to subscribe to LexisNexis.  It would be desirable to receive more periodicals, whose choicest parts we would be able to link for you.  The Internet is a most economical playing field, but there are costs involved, and we would like to bring you our best work.

Let us correct an error made yesterday.  The architect of the new New York Times building is Renzo Piano, not Cesar Pelli.  We are sorry to have confused the two; we can't imagine why.  For calling this to our attention, we want to thank Frank Prial, Laurie Beckelman, David Silvers, Gaston Silva, Edward C. Marschner and Damon Rich (listed in the order of their e-mails).  We appreciate their help.  We wrote airily that you could Google them yourself — clearly it was something we should have done.
 
The Martha Stewart column of Dec. 29 brought an interesting division in reader opinion.  A small majority agreed that she was being treated rather harshly.  This majority included all but one of the women who wrote in.  A good number of men, some of whom are lawyers, said that she had gotten what she deserved.  On Monday, we will post your letters on our website, www.nycivic.org, using the initials of their authors unless they want us to print their full names.
 
The Bernard Kerik articles on Dec. 13 and Dec. 21 continue to draw comment.  Readers were critical of the former police commissioner: 1) for his sins; 2) for his failure to realize that they would be uncovered once he was nominated for a very important public office; and 3) for his lack of awareness or concern about the effect his rap sheet would have in embarrassing both President Bush and Mayor Giuliani.  Some letters criticized the former mayor, and said that we should have been harsher about his support of Kerik.  We don't know what influence he had — we doubt that he persuaded the president to make the appointment.  He supported the nomination until it crashed and burned, which most of us would have done under similar circumstances.  There is more to this case than we know, or are likely to learn.
 
It was suggested that I was lenient with Mayor Giuliani because I had worked for him for eight years.  I also worked for Mayor Koch for seven years, and I like both men, although they do not like each other.  I tried hard to be fair, but I might give either mayor the benefit of the doubt in a case where I was unaware of all the facts.  I am no George Stephanopoulos.
 
The FBI, the attorney general and the president's counsel should have vetted Kerik thoroughly before the president made the nomination.  What was later revealed were mostly not secrets — many of them had appeared in Newsday, which was the first newspaper to denounce the appointment.  His affair with a correction officer had already been the subject of litigation.
 
Clearly, Kerik was the president's choice, in part because his persona was that of a self-made man with a tragic childhood, unburdened by formal education, who had nonetheless reached a high city office where he served honorably, and possibly bravely.  Among Kerik's gifts was a knack for male bonding, which he did with both the president and the former mayor.  It was his female bonding that gave him brief pleasure, but caused him immeasurable grief.
 
This is the holiday season, and we should be happy at our condition, especially when compared with so many people who have lost their lives, their families, their homes and their jobs through no fault of their own.