Joe Wilson’s rebuke was hardly partisan overkill but rather a momentous event in the history of Congress.
Race unquestionably factored into Wilson’s disruption of President Obama’s address before a joint session of Congress, held in the House of Representatives chamber. The first president ever to be told “you lie” at such an occasion is partly black, and many people who rallied around Wilson, a white Republican, were driven by racial bias and refusal to accept an African-American as president. We cannot read Wilson’s mind, but maybe on some level he feels some prejudice.
African-Americans were subjugated for centuries because of the power white society held over them, and those who sought to free the slaves or later end the Jim Crow laws were punished for their good deeds. Since black Americans can now engage in politics on an even playing field, House members like Rep. James E. Clyburn employed their power to punish Wilson’s conduct.
Clyburn carried out a solemn responsibility when he led the drive to rebuke Wilson. Here was a black man who could use the system to advocate for himself, the black community and anyone who believes in justice. Clyburn and the other black House members received plenty of help to accomplish this; the Sept. 15 vote was 240 to 179. It was impressive that the House acted six days after Wilson told Obama “you lie” when the president said to Congress that illegal immigrants will not receive free health care.
Interestingly, Clyburn holds the title of House Majority Whip and represents a district that adjoins Wilson’s district in and around Columbia, S.C.
Wilson apologized to the president, but Clyburn and other House Democrats deemed it crucial that he apologize to the House itself because his behavior violated House rules and reflected on the House as an institution. The silence of House members would have meant assent.
Wilson displayed his arrogance by refusing to apologize in the well of the House, on grounds that he had already apologized to Obama. It did not matter that telling his colleagues he was sorry would have restored honor to the House. He must have regarded such an act as humiliation that Democrats wanted to impose on him.
Clyburn’s feat constitutes a significant episode in history. He made a formal statement to reclaim a sense of psychic dignity for every black man and woman who labored in the fields, felt a whip cracked across their back, was lynched by a white mob or assaulted for the legal act of registering to vote. He also validated the endeavors of those who tried to end slavery and marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, which often required courage.
This resolution especially honored the extensive efforts of Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner to end slavery. He was severely injured when Rep. Preston Brooks repeatedly struck Sumner at his Senate desk in 1856 partly because of his abolitionist stands. Like Wilson, Brooks represented a district in South Carolina and, like Obama, Sumner was a Harvard-trained attorney.
The measure also sent a message to opponents of health-care reform and other progressive policies. Yes, they can express their opinions, but disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
As a caveat, these people are driven far more by issues than concerns over Obama’s race. They would not lay off a white male who pushed a similar agenda, and I cannot imagine anyone calling a President Colin Powell a liar as he addressed Congress, even if he richly deserves it. What we have is the combination of having a black person in the Oval Office who happens to be, as they say, quite uppity.
On that note, the Clyburn resolution sent this stern message to anyone who cannot accept an African-American, or at least an uppity one, as president: Get used to it.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
SOAKING GRANDMA
Now Mayor Bloomberg is soaking Mother Russia, so to speak, while New York City tax revenues have gone with the wind.
NYC is no better than other cities and government entities that exploit measures to raise funds to compensate for lost tax money. Has it reached the point where they are wringing what change they can from grandma?
The Kings Courier, part of a Brooklyn chain of weekly newspapers, reported that some women described as elderly Russian émigrés were fined $250 each for swimming in shallow water after hours at Brighton Beach. The community is a hub for Russian Jews and one-time home for an earlier generation of Jews; Bloomberg is Jewish.
As Parks Department spokesperson Philip Abramson explains it, New York state law bars swimming without lifeguards on duty and the city is concerned because of recent drowning.
NYC should send a message to offenders, but the city’s take is excessive since working-class residents are often vulnerable to this kind of ticketing. Police departments are notorious for setting parking and traffic ticket quotas. I was victimized on two occasions by what appeared to be this quota mentality. A friend pointed out how one city jacks up penalties for vehicular violations.
At Brighton Beach, Parks officers fined the women for bathing in shallow waters at 6:45 p.m., while it was still light out. If the city should be ticketing the bathers at all, why is the fine so high? A $25 fine would be reasonable, but $250 is probably a colossal chunk of their paycheck.
On a Web site called Gothamist, Irina Kovaneva griped that she can only swim after work; the lifeguards work from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. She asks how the city can operate the park police unit instead of paying lifeguards to remain on duty until 7 or 8 p.m.
Kovaneva recalls life in Mother Russia: “We came to the U.S. to escape the Communist regime, the regime when every step is watched and controlled by the government. What I am facing with this incident is a liberal fascism, when government interferes in your personal life and tells you what you should do, how and when.”
The Courier also reported that Sanitation police previously distributed tickets to small shop owners in Benson Hurst for failing to post signs in their shops designating recyclables. They went through the garbage in a pizzeria and ticketed the owner after finding a plastic bottle here.
Bloomberg denied that the ticketing system is intended to balance the books when he met with editors and reporters for the newspaper. He claimed that a quota system is needed to ensure that enforcement agents meet their responsibilities. Huh?
My friend recalled how he was initially fined $20 for a vehicular violation. He was late to respond, and by the time he did the fine rose to $70.
More than a year ago, I was ticketed for a $70 even though I already paid for a ticket on the River Line light rail operated by New Jersey Transit. I had forgotten to punch the ticket to mark the time I purchased it, but the officer did not care. He was probably under strict orders to ticket anything that moved. I fought this in court, without any attorney, and the judge dismissed the charges.
In central Pennsylvania several years ago, a police officer ticketed me after I drove around his car while it was stopped in the right lane. He was talking to someone and in the process blocked traffic. I was just trying to stay out of his way. He would not give me a chance to explain.
These quota systems are insane. It is a symptom of desperation in cities and other government entities that are deprived of needed tax revenues. The problem is deeper because suburbs benefit from middle-class flight and the cities send more money to Washington and their respective state capitals than they get back.
Those ladies in Brighton Beach did not leave Russia for a city that increasingly resembles a third-world country.
NYC is no better than other cities and government entities that exploit measures to raise funds to compensate for lost tax money. Has it reached the point where they are wringing what change they can from grandma?
The Kings Courier, part of a Brooklyn chain of weekly newspapers, reported that some women described as elderly Russian émigrés were fined $250 each for swimming in shallow water after hours at Brighton Beach. The community is a hub for Russian Jews and one-time home for an earlier generation of Jews; Bloomberg is Jewish.
As Parks Department spokesperson Philip Abramson explains it, New York state law bars swimming without lifeguards on duty and the city is concerned because of recent drowning.
NYC should send a message to offenders, but the city’s take is excessive since working-class residents are often vulnerable to this kind of ticketing. Police departments are notorious for setting parking and traffic ticket quotas. I was victimized on two occasions by what appeared to be this quota mentality. A friend pointed out how one city jacks up penalties for vehicular violations.
At Brighton Beach, Parks officers fined the women for bathing in shallow waters at 6:45 p.m., while it was still light out. If the city should be ticketing the bathers at all, why is the fine so high? A $25 fine would be reasonable, but $250 is probably a colossal chunk of their paycheck.
On a Web site called Gothamist, Irina Kovaneva griped that she can only swim after work; the lifeguards work from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. She asks how the city can operate the park police unit instead of paying lifeguards to remain on duty until 7 or 8 p.m.
Kovaneva recalls life in Mother Russia: “We came to the U.S. to escape the Communist regime, the regime when every step is watched and controlled by the government. What I am facing with this incident is a liberal fascism, when government interferes in your personal life and tells you what you should do, how and when.”
The Courier also reported that Sanitation police previously distributed tickets to small shop owners in Benson Hurst for failing to post signs in their shops designating recyclables. They went through the garbage in a pizzeria and ticketed the owner after finding a plastic bottle here.
Bloomberg denied that the ticketing system is intended to balance the books when he met with editors and reporters for the newspaper. He claimed that a quota system is needed to ensure that enforcement agents meet their responsibilities. Huh?
My friend recalled how he was initially fined $20 for a vehicular violation. He was late to respond, and by the time he did the fine rose to $70.
More than a year ago, I was ticketed for a $70 even though I already paid for a ticket on the River Line light rail operated by New Jersey Transit. I had forgotten to punch the ticket to mark the time I purchased it, but the officer did not care. He was probably under strict orders to ticket anything that moved. I fought this in court, without any attorney, and the judge dismissed the charges.
In central Pennsylvania several years ago, a police officer ticketed me after I drove around his car while it was stopped in the right lane. He was talking to someone and in the process blocked traffic. I was just trying to stay out of his way. He would not give me a chance to explain.
These quota systems are insane. It is a symptom of desperation in cities and other government entities that are deprived of needed tax revenues. The problem is deeper because suburbs benefit from middle-class flight and the cities send more money to Washington and their respective state capitals than they get back.
Those ladies in Brighton Beach did not leave Russia for a city that increasingly resembles a third-world country.
Monday, September 7, 2009
OLMERT'S TROUBLES COULD BE OURS
Thanks a bunch, Ehud.
You have created the potential for a new backlash against Jews throughout the world. It is a very real possibility in Europe and Middle East countries, and American Jews are vulnerable.
Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister of Israel, was formally indicted Sunday, Aug. 30, for accepting $600,000 in cash from a Long Island businessman; fraudulently billing multiple entities while in government; and promoting the the interests of a former law partner’s clients, according to The New York Times.
Practically speaking, severe repercussions in the United States are unlikely even if Olmert is found guilty. However, the possibility is always there, and Olmert’s case involves more significant inferences.
It is bad enough that American Jews must contend with Bernard Madoff, who demolished family fortunes, and a Brooklynite who stands accused of trafficking in human organs.
Olmert’s situation is more serious. He was prime minister of a young, vulnerable nation heavily dependent on the United States for money, arms and diplomatic support. He is the first Israeli prime minister ever to have been indicted on corruption charges, though some of his predecessors have come close. A conviction will mean that he cheated his own country.
Any American citizen has a right to question if Olmert, while he was at it, cheated the United States. Did he misuse American funds? Did he steer the president and Congress in the wrong direction in relations with other Arab nations? Did he employ military weapons for aggressive purposes?
Israel is accused of transgressions from different corners. Some allegations were true and others were flat-out lies.
Olmert probably never needed to trick the previous administration into anything. President Bush’s crowd was staunchly pro-Israel, and initially it backed right-wing policies. Olmert’s mismanagement of the 2006 war could well have been based on reckless advice from the Bush administration. After Hezbollah committed acts of war at the Israel/Lebanon border, the Israeli military mainly responded by hammering Lebanon with excessive air strikes while delaying ground troop action to the best advantage.
Olmert united all ideological factions in Israel toward the same goal: kicking him out of office. He could not quell a crisis adequately, which is the most fundamental skill required of an Israeli leader. He was also criticized for the unnecessary deaths of civilians and his government’s failure to maintain the military for a state of war.
Olmert’s departure as prime minister was welcomed by Israelis and their supporters for any number of reasons, though the corruption allegations finally drove him out. Because Olmert was indicted, what are outsiders to think? American taxpayers could finally decide it is time to cease sending aid to Israel. That would be understandable, and in a more volatile environment it should be expected.
As one non-Jewish friend told me, most Americans will view Olmert as another corrupt politician whose acts do not reflect on the Israeli people. In fact, people probably agree that Israel makes serious mistakes from time to time, but it is generally in the right and deserves America’s help.
That would be a valid assessment. I find that, overall, Americans have become more fair and reasonable in their judgment of situations. They are more apt to base conclusions on what individuals do, not on their race, religion or nationality. An American Jew won the popular election for vice president in 2000 and we now have an African-American president. Even Europeans who despised Bush knew better than to lump all Americans with him.
Still, the prospect for a backlash should never be underestimated. Too bad that Olmert never considered that possibility.
You have created the potential for a new backlash against Jews throughout the world. It is a very real possibility in Europe and Middle East countries, and American Jews are vulnerable.
Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister of Israel, was formally indicted Sunday, Aug. 30, for accepting $600,000 in cash from a Long Island businessman; fraudulently billing multiple entities while in government; and promoting the the interests of a former law partner’s clients, according to The New York Times.
Practically speaking, severe repercussions in the United States are unlikely even if Olmert is found guilty. However, the possibility is always there, and Olmert’s case involves more significant inferences.
It is bad enough that American Jews must contend with Bernard Madoff, who demolished family fortunes, and a Brooklynite who stands accused of trafficking in human organs.
Olmert’s situation is more serious. He was prime minister of a young, vulnerable nation heavily dependent on the United States for money, arms and diplomatic support. He is the first Israeli prime minister ever to have been indicted on corruption charges, though some of his predecessors have come close. A conviction will mean that he cheated his own country.
Any American citizen has a right to question if Olmert, while he was at it, cheated the United States. Did he misuse American funds? Did he steer the president and Congress in the wrong direction in relations with other Arab nations? Did he employ military weapons for aggressive purposes?
Israel is accused of transgressions from different corners. Some allegations were true and others were flat-out lies.
Olmert probably never needed to trick the previous administration into anything. President Bush’s crowd was staunchly pro-Israel, and initially it backed right-wing policies. Olmert’s mismanagement of the 2006 war could well have been based on reckless advice from the Bush administration. After Hezbollah committed acts of war at the Israel/Lebanon border, the Israeli military mainly responded by hammering Lebanon with excessive air strikes while delaying ground troop action to the best advantage.
Olmert united all ideological factions in Israel toward the same goal: kicking him out of office. He could not quell a crisis adequately, which is the most fundamental skill required of an Israeli leader. He was also criticized for the unnecessary deaths of civilians and his government’s failure to maintain the military for a state of war.
Olmert’s departure as prime minister was welcomed by Israelis and their supporters for any number of reasons, though the corruption allegations finally drove him out. Because Olmert was indicted, what are outsiders to think? American taxpayers could finally decide it is time to cease sending aid to Israel. That would be understandable, and in a more volatile environment it should be expected.
As one non-Jewish friend told me, most Americans will view Olmert as another corrupt politician whose acts do not reflect on the Israeli people. In fact, people probably agree that Israel makes serious mistakes from time to time, but it is generally in the right and deserves America’s help.
That would be a valid assessment. I find that, overall, Americans have become more fair and reasonable in their judgment of situations. They are more apt to base conclusions on what individuals do, not on their race, religion or nationality. An American Jew won the popular election for vice president in 2000 and we now have an African-American president. Even Europeans who despised Bush knew better than to lump all Americans with him.
Still, the prospect for a backlash should never be underestimated. Too bad that Olmert never considered that possibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)