Sunday, November 29, 2009

Abort this nonsense

Thomas J. Tobin, Bob Kunst and Frank Cannon share political tactics that can drive any rational person to groan, or much worse. Kunst at least redeemed himself, and the two other chaps have time to do the same.

Tobin, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, R.I., lent his name to the long list of big, fat and not-so-fat idiots who distort issues by questioning U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s qualifications as a Catholic because of his support for covering abortion as part of health-care reform. The lesser-known Cannon reminded U.S. Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania that his late father, a popular governor and abortion opponent, will turn over in his grave if he votes for abortion coverage.

On a less charged issue, Kunst got needlessly charged up when Florida Gov. Charlie Crist scheduled a special election on the last day of Passover to replace U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Jewish Democrat who represents parts of Broward and Palm Beach counties. Though Crist’s action bore all the earmarks of an honest mistake, the Miami Beach activist called it “a direct attack” on religious Jews.

All three have every right to express their views on political issues big and small, but their crude and abrasive approaches ruined anything positive that their involvement might have accomplished.

The bishop aided and abetted his enemies by trying to intimidate Kennedy, a Democrat who represents part of Rhode Island. Kennedy revealed in late November that Tobin asked him to stop receiving communion, which Tobin acknowledged, and accused Tobin of telling diocesan priests to refuse to give Kennedy communion, which the bishop denied.

According to The New York Daily News, Tobin wrote Kennedy, “In your letter you say that you ‘embrace the faith.’ Terrific. But if you don’t fulfill the basic requirements of membership, what is it exactly that makes you a Catholic? Your position (on abortion) is unacceptable to the church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the church.”

The bishop must have time on his hands to exchange letters of this sort with his errant congressman. No priest shortages. No schools losing enrollment. No abusive priests to explain away. Tobin focuses attention on what is really important.

Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, must vote according to what he believes is best for all his constituents, not only the bishop. Tobin has a lot of gall to question Kennedy’s religious convictions for his position on any public issue. The bishop does have authority over Catholics in his diocese, but the government has authority over the limits of religious institutions, such as tax breaks.

Too bad Tobin did not express opposition to abortion without getting personal. Now Kennedy might be tempted to back abortion coverage just to spite Tobin.

In my state, Pennsylvania, Casey supports strong health-care reform, but he also carries on his family tradition of opposing abortion. The New York Times reported that Casey has been working on a compromise to allow spending taxpayer money for abortion as part of the larger health-care bill.

Cannon seized on the policies of the senator’s father, the Gov. Robert Casey, who was staunchly against abortion. The Times piece quotes Cannon’s column on the National Review Web site, which reads: “The governor’s son and namesake, the current junior senator from Pennsylvania, will be tested by the standard his father set.”

Casey’s diplomatic reaction: “My father’s situation was a broader discussion about the issue. This is a huge piece of health-care legislation, and what I am trying to do is to recognize that we had a consensus about public funding for abortion, and we are trying to continue that.”

Like Kennedy, Casey represents the people of Pennsylvania, not only his family.

I have worked with Kunst on occasion for some Jewish causes and was not surprised when he all but accused his governor of declaring war on Florida’s 800,000 Jews. Kunst, who is president of Shalom International, sent Crist a letter a few days before Thanksgiving asking him to change the date of the special election to succeed Wexler.

He wrote: “The problem with this date is that it falls on the last day of Passover, which is a direct attack upon the religious Jewish community…We do not know who is advising you, but this is a direct slap at religious Jews, very many who also vote Republican…This is an affront to all Jews and everyone else who believes in religious tolerance. An attack has been made that needs to be rectified IMMEDIATELY.”

I assumed that Crist or his scheduler made an honest mistake, so I was not offended and figured he would change the date even if he was asked in a civil manner. For the record, I am somewhat religious, but not strictly observant. I wrote to Kunst asking him for evidence that the governor knowingly scheduled the election during Passover.

On the day before Thanksgiving, Kunst notified me that Crist rescheduled the election from April 6 to April 13. He sent me a copy of his follow-up letter to the governor, which was headlined, “Shalom International Thanks Gov. crist for Supporting US and being a ‘Mensch.’”

He wrote: “In supporting religious freedoms for everyone, this is a model for everyone not to infringe on these constitutional and moral rights for all peoples of faith. You were sensitive to our concerns and you acted on them.”

I e-mailed Kunst: “I appreciate the gratitude you expressed to Gov. Crist. It’s a big improvement over the previous letter, and it is much shorter.”

Hopefully, Tobin and Cannon will follow Kunst’s lead. Does either want to be remembered as the anti-Mensch?

Sunday, November 22, 2009

A train wreck threatened

As if I forgot that public transit is in a state of crisis, I had two jarring reminders in early November, simultaneously: the week-long strike in Philadelphia and the shocker that Boston is faced with imminent safety hazards which might cost $500 million to repair.

Not to mention news elsewhere of potential fare hikes in New York City; a renewed attempt to save South Florida’s 70-mile rail link between Palm Beach and Miami; and a $144 million deficit in Washington, D.C., that has only one way to go - up, that is.

Preserving public transit and improving upon it is crucial. It is no less important than health care and education. A system needs to be established to guarantee that transportation continues as the vital service it is. Long before the economic meltdown, fares continued to rise, services were threatened and safety was compromised. Many Jewish communities are connected by public transit, and substantial Jewish populations even comprise a large share of metropolitan areas with the more advanced systems.

I was lucky during the Philadelphia strike, when the two subway lines and city bus routes ceased running; still operating were suburban buses and commuter rail trains. During my first day vacationing in Boston on Tuesday, Nov. 3, I learned that the strike began hours after the Phillies played their last World Series home game against the Yankees. When I returned to Philly by Amtrak at 30th Street station on Nov. 7, I still escaped the strike’s consequences because I transferred to a commuter line for the 10-minute ride downtown.

I was relieved to be spared of most of the strike, especially since I endured the cruelty of past walkouts. I walk to work, but I still rely on public transit for many reasons. With the strike still going strong, I had planned to attend a Kristallnacht commemoration on Wednesday, Nov. 11, at the Germantown Jewish Centre in West Mount Airy, in the evening. The bus would drop me off a half-block away, but if necessary a train station was located further away in a more isolated spot. I did not feel safe walking to the station and waiting there in the dark. The strike ended beforehand as the workers settled, and I was unable to attend the synagogue event, anyway.

While buses and subways were idled back home, I received my first clue as to why riding Boston’s commuter trains could be hazardous to one’s health. I rode a westbound commuter train from Boston’s South Station (Boston’s mini-version of Penn Station in Manhattan) to the West Newton station in the town of Newton, which is comprised of one of the largest Jewish populations in the metropolitan area.

I learned abruptly that riders do not detrain, so to speak, onto solid ground. When the conductor directed me to leave the train for West Newton, I peered out the exit door and spotted a narrow platform separated from the train by a pair of railroad tracks.

To reach the platform, I jumped from the train’s stairwell three feet onto the gravel separating the tracks, and I could have slipped on oil covering parts of the track I needed to cross to reach the platform. Maybe an eastbound train might rumble by just as I was crossing the tracks. Hopefully, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which oversees the system, knows enough to schedule the trains to prevent accidents.

The West Newton hazard is among a massive amount of maintenance risks. A report commissioned by Gov. Deval Patrick revealed that the MBTA has a maintenance backlog on its hands that could cost $3 billion to remedy, and it will take $500 million of that to fix critical threats.

The study projected spending up to $80 million to remove and replace rail ties damaged by flooding along the northern end of the Red Line subway immediately after the Harvard University stop. Otherwise, corrosion and damage could destabilize track alignment and lead to a train derailment, The Boston Globe reported. A new state board approved a $2.5 million contract for an engineering firm to design a longterm correction for a track repair project.

By chance, I waited for a Red Line train at the underground Porter Square stop, the first station north of Harvard, and noticed that a pond of ice had formed on the other side of the tracks.

While Boston has a good system overall, the state is intent on expanding both subways, which serve the city and immediate suburbs, and commuter trains that extend to the outer suburbs - despite the expensive maintenance backlog. Most commuter trains run sporadically; off-peak, many run a maximum of every two hours apart. Trains in New York and Philadelphia typically run every hour.

Transit systems that I have patronized elsewhere continue to struggle. A $144 million deficit for Washington’s Metro operation that was announced a few months ago could be the start of its troubles, according to a Washington Post editorial. The Nov. 12 editorial predicted significant fare hikes and service reductions because of declining ridership and a recent arbitration ruling to raise the salaries of unionized employees.

The Tri-Rail train line that passes through Florida’s three most populous counties is in danger of extinction. Officials in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties have been seeking a $2 tax on rental cars to finance the continued operation of Tri-Rail, but the state legislature has refused to approve it. Lawmakers may reconvene in December to consider funding of Tri-Rail and creation of a rail line in the Orlando area.

On Saturday, Nov. 21, I bought a “fun-day pass” for $8.25 to ride New York City’s buses and subways, the same amount I spent during my last visit in October. Earlier in the week, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority introduced a budget that is actually balanced after the state allowed new revenue sources. No fare increases or cuts in services, according to The New York Daily News.

But among his first words as MTA chairman, Jay Walder declared: “The MTA remains in a very fragile financial situation…There is no more money for us in Albany, and we will learn to do more with the funding we have.”

If, that is, the state does not plug its unsettled deficit with cuts in transportation subsidies. Besides, a four-year fiscal plan projects 7.5 percent fare and toll increases in 2011 and 2013.

Fare hikes in New York in two years? Maybe Philadelphians are fated to pay more after the post-World Series strike. This pattern has been ongoing for years and getting worse as more low- and middle-income people who can afford less are the ones being victimized.

The variety of reasons for these problems - neglect of cities, loss of tax revenues, political rivalries, corruption and so on - have never been sufficiently addressed. I wish I can be optimistic that significant measures will be taken to remedy these problems. It is a train wreck ready to happen.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Goldstone banters in Boston

It was a rare opportunity. Not only did I visit Brandeis University for the first time, but I observed two of the world’s most respected Jewish figures review the severe accusations against Israel contained in the United Nations document known as the Goldstone report.

The speakers were South African Judge Richard Goldstone himself, who headed the commission which produced the report, and Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United States. Hundreds of students, faculty and Boston-area residents comprised the heavily Jewish crowd that listened to Goldstone and Gold on the same day as a United Nations vote on the report; by coincidence, I was vacationing in Boston.

The experience of personally witnessing these two prominent figures laying out their conflicting positions merely served to enhance my take on the Goldstone report: It is a sideshow of an appalling, senseless 61-year-old conflict that refuses to end.

The aftermath of Israel’s invasion of Gaza in late December and January has endured so many contortions that it is impossible to take the Goldstone report seriously. The United Nations Assembly voted 114-18 on Nov. 5 to call for UN Security Council action if Israel and Hamas fail to investigate alleged war crimes within three months. The United States is expected to veto further movement in the Security Council.

The report singles out Israel to account for its actions in a military strike that, overall, was necessary and justifiable. I recognize that the report charges Hamas with war crimes, but the commission’s mission was originally to investigate only Israel. Goldstone saw to it the commission probed both parties, but critics in the U.N. focused on Israel’s role and Israel responded with uneven defenses.

As for the Arabs, since when have they been concerned about deaths of their own people? They have launched countless wars that placed Arab civilians in the cross-fire, pressured their own to battle Israel and murdered Arab leaders and individuals who sought peace.

There is only one significant consequence of the Goldstone report: In pressing for action on these charges, Arab extremists admit that Israel won this round and they can’t stand it. It is another “Nakba,” the Arab world’s term describing their failure to destroy Israel in 1948.

Meanwhile, Israel and the Palestinian Authority are locked in gridlock over a peace settlement, and Israel must deal with a nuclear threat from Iran and potential aggression from Gaza and southern Lebanon. The UN habitually ignores human rights abuses committed by Russia, China, Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Gold and other advocates for Israel repeatedly understate Israel’s reason for invading Gaza in late December last year. Israel had every right to attack Gaza after rockets were fired into Sderot and other parts of southern Israel, which is the routine defense of Israel and its supporters. If that is all of it, I would need to agree that the attack on Gaza was, literally, a case of overkill.

However, Hamas - the force that controls Gaza - was clearly building a war machine to cause far more damage to Israel. The Israel Defense Forces had no other choice but to move in, and they were compelled to endanger civilians in order to reach Hamas troops, supplies and facilities. Israelis would sound far more reasonable and less flippant if they employed this argument.

Both Goldstone and Gold were disingenuous in some of their assertions. After cataloguing much of the destruction of Gaza, Goldstone declared: “If that isn’t collective punishment, what is?”

Well, the planned destruction of a sovereign nation - namely, Israel - might constitute “collective punishment,” a phrase beaten to death by advocates for inhabitants of Israel’s territories. Could Goldstone have discovered this term independently of this persistent mantra?

Goldstone even attributed the report’s blanket accusation that Israel intentionally targeted civilians to past statements of high-level Israeli officials who projected that attacks on Israel would instigate excessive harm to the offending country or territory.

Such a prospect deserves serious consideration, but none of their statements prove anything. It is not even direct evidence of formal policy and it is my educated guess that these comments would be inadmissable as evidence in court. Goldstone’s claim of evidence is loosely comparable to introducing a suspect’s criminal record into a trial. Maybe they allow that in South Africa, but not in American criminal courts.

The Israeli government complicated the conflict by refusing to cooperate with the investigation. No question that the UN discriminates against Israel, but Israel’s failure to participate leaves the impression that it has something to hide.

The swiftest way to antagonize a prosecutor is to stonewall him. Israel succeeded beyond its wildest dreams. Any self-important prosecutor will slam the subject of his investigation if they refuse to cooperate. At Brandeis, Goldstone made a point of Israel’s obstinence. His words were civil and evenhanded, but his tone was sarcastic. Internally, Goldstone was probably boiling.

Already, anything that Israel’s defenders would say is highly suspect.

Gold’s sleep-inducing rebuttal was flawed partly because he expended too much time on details to bolster his position. That is fine for a book, as demonstrated with one he authored, “The Fight for Jerusalem,” but not a public discussion in which time is limited. He should have summarized his arguments and complemented them with brief examples.

The effectiveness of Gold’s response - in part that “Hamas deliberately embedded in the civilian population” - recedes because the Israeli government waited until after the investigation to defend itself.

We still cannot dismiss the question of whether Israel’s military committed war crimes. My educated guess is that the truth lies somewhere between the report’s accusations and Israel’s reaction.

It is possible that some commanders and soldiers at least acted recklessly, without regard for the safety of civilians. The single documented clue is that the 2006 two-front war with Lebanon and Gaza exposed severe weaknesses in military prepardness. Reservist training was inadequate and soldiers could not find weapons and other supplies. Prior to the 2006 war, terrorists breached security three times at military bases, which includes the kidnapping of Sgt. Gilad Shalit.

Not so clear is whether extremists belong to the IDF who ignore policies and disregard the safety of Arab civilians. J. J. Goldberg, a respected veteran of Jewish journalism, said in a commentary in the weekly Forward that soldiers informally complain about fanatics in their ranks.

While Goldberg offers no hard evidence, this concern makes sense. There are plenty of extremists in Israel, and nearly every Israeli is required to serve in the IDF. It stands to reason that there could be an overabundance of abuse on that basis.

If the IDF is burdened with serious shortcomings, it is long overdue to clean up its act. Otherwise, the military will not only jeopardize the lives of Arab civilians but its own troops, and the world will keep demanding explanations.

One Goldstone report is one too many.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Opt-out amounts to selective secession

If it becomes law, the opt-out public health care plan will amount to a form of selective secession, which may not be a bad result.

The opt-out scheme is being offered in Senate legislation to ensure that health-care reform provides a government-run system in lieu of health insurance afforded by private companies and other operations. Each state will have until 2014 to “opt out” of the public system, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid explained it in media reports.

The predictable assumption would be that more conservative states controlled by Republicans will be inclined to forgo a public option while moderate and liberal states will embrace it. Obviously, New Yorkers and Californians will savor the public option while someone in Idaho or South Carolina might be denied medical insurance because of the reaction of their legislature and governor.

Many would readily concur that the Civil War never ended, as the war re-emerged in different forms since 1865. The war is ongoing between those who seek to help the have-nots and those who think they are protecting their wealth. The issue was slavery at one time, segregation at another time, now it is health care.

After the last three decades of conservative dominance, I have often wondered if South Carolina had the right idea when it seceded from the Union and touched off the Civil War. To say the least, I am certainly glad that slavery ended, but bear in mind that Southern states and other conservative enclaves have often straight-jacketed our government from improving opportunities for the less fortunate and, in general, allowing progress.

What would have happened had President Lincoln just permitted South Carolina and other southern states to secede from the Union? We can make speculative arguments for both pros and cons, especially the question of slavery, as to what might happen. Getting into these arguments need to wait for another column.

The opt-out concept is intriguing because of its genuine potential to lead to comparable arrangements for other policies. States that wish to avoid participation in a national policy can go their own way. Of course, secession meant that a state or states would go their separate ways entirely.

In the case of health-care legislation, most states with the largest Jewish populations will almost certainly accept the public option, while many small states with low Jewish populations, in addition to Texas, might opt out; more than 100,000 Jews are estimated to live in Texas.

Florida would be especially tough to predict. Would seniors who inhabit much of Florida believe the public option will threaten Medicare or help them? One-third of Florida’s 18 million citizens live in the heavily Democratic and Jewish southern counties of Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach, while northern and central Florida is much more conservative.

While some members of Congress belong to the opposition, political figures in their own states could opt in, anyway. The wooing of U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine was silly. Both of Maine’s representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives - Democrats Chellie Pingree and Michael Michaud - have posted announcements supporting a public option, and in fact Pingree’s daughter is speaker of the Maine House of Representatives. Gov. John Baldacci led the formation of a state-run health-insurance program six years ago, so I cannot imagine Maine leaders resisting a national system if it beats their own system.

Three years ago, Pennsylvania’s two senators could be expected to oppose a public option had the issue arisen, but now the state’s two senators are among its advocates. Republican Rick Santorum was ousted in 2006 by Democrat Bob Casey in 2006 and Arlen Specter switched from Republican to Democrat earlier this year because he feared he would lose next year’s primary to an ultra-conservative challenger; it is no secret that President Obama would support his re-election bid in return for his support on core issues. Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell clearly wants affordable health insurance, but the Pennsylvania legislature might be sharply divided on this issue because of party loyalty and ideological differences.

Disputes over tax dollars allocated for some states and not others is barely pertinent. The heaviest flow of federal tax revenues originates in places such as Beverly Hills, Manhattan’s Upper East Side and Fairfield County in Connecticut, all states with substantial support for a public option; SenatorsChristopher Dodd and Joe Lieberman are split and all five House members openly support it or are seriously considering it.

Even states whose leaders are dead set against a public option might come around later if the public option succeeds elsewhere. Public demand could eventually pressure them into accepting the option.

Lawsuits from both sides of the issue could be filed. Individuals who live in no-option states might complain that they are being deprived of a federal service. Opponents could argue that a law which only benefits some states violates the constitution.

The same opponents never complained about disproportionate spending for projects in their states.

The opt-out clause is fine so long as my state, Pennsylvania, permits all its citizens - including moi - to be covered by affordable health insurance. Though people may question the constitutionality of this provision, but the constitution says nothing about selective secession.

The founders would not have been so surprised. They experienced plenty of convoluted politics themselves.