Copyright 2000 Newsday, Inc.
Newsday (New York, NY)
May 28, 2000, Sunday ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: CURRENTS & BOOKS; Page B03
LENGTH: 491 words
HEADLINE:
ASIDES
BYLINE: Lawrence Levy; Phineas Fiske; Robert
Wiemer. These are personal views of members of the editorial board.
BODY:
AFTER BEATING back a coup attempt that
was as extraordinary for its boldness as for how badly it was bungled, Assembly
Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) tried hard to convince reporters that he
was going to reach out to the insurgents in an effort to heal wounds and hear
their concerns.
Whatever else Silver may do well, however, being
contrite and conciliatory aren't two of them. Would he have done anything
differently, he was asked, in terms of giving individual lawmakers more of a say
in such important matters as what bills become law and who gets how much in
campaign contributions? No. His only mistakes, he said, were being too nice and
trusting rebel leader Michael Bragman (D-Syracuse).
As for the concerns
and future of Bragman, the kinder and gentler Silver said, "We have cut the
cancer out of the leadership team." I guess that's one way to reach out and
touch someone, but it won't make the healing any easier.
Lawrence Levy
AS THE HOUSE was voting Wednesday to free China from annual
trade review, C-Span invited Americans to call in with their views of the
measure: There were some supporters, but opinion ran heavily against the change,
among both Republicans and Democrats. Callers saw China as, in effect, an Evil
Empire that abused its citizens and traded unfairly; their qualms often were
passionately moral ones.
No wonder some members of Congress who should
have known better voted against the change. The paradox is, of course, that
doing more business with China, with all that entails, holds the best hope of
altering the conditions that the callers were so unhappy about. Two decades of
threatening trade restrictions, under the present system of annual reviews, have
accomplished essentially nothing.
Lawmakers go to Washington to vote
their constituents' interests-but also to exercise their best judgment. In this
case, all interests would have been best served by a yes vote for Chinese trade.
But too many lawmakers voted with their constituents' hearts, not with their own
heads. Lucky for the Chinese people, as well as for America's business prospects
in China, the bill granting permanent normal trade relations
passed anyway.
Phineas Fiske
AS THE ANTITRUST case
against Microsoft demonstrates, the purpose of law is to make work for lawyers.
If the Justice Department can draw the right rulings from U.S. District Court
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Microsoft will be sharing the fruits of its
labors with lawyers for years to come.
The befuddled Jackson, who thinks
the year is 1900 and Microsoft is a railroad, is now talking of splitting the
firm into three parts. This will create three feeding troughs for the gathering
pack of attorneys general and tort lawyers, who think Microsoft is a tobacco
company.
Robert Wiemer
These are personal views of members of
the editorial board.
LOAD-DATE:
May 28, 2000 
