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.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
BIGOTS STILL DO NOT KNOW: SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH IT
Oops! There goes the tourist trade. Too bad for the fine citizens of the city of Hammond in northeastern Louisiana.
Hammond caught the world’s attention after Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, stood his ground after refusing to marry an interracial couple, a violation of a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows interracial marriage.
“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” he told an Associated Press reporter on Thursday, Oct. 15. “There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage. I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”
A biracial child will never be accepted by blacks or whites, and he or she need not dream of being elected president of the United States.* Like Barak Obama. Louisiana is part of the United States. Technically.
A news release was posted on the city of Hammond’s Web site imploring reporters to alter their dateline from Hammond to nearby Robert, La., where Bardwell lives. The city stressed that Bardwell was independently elected and has no formal affiliation with Hammond whatsoever.
The Bardwell account coincides with nearly a half-dozen other domestic instances rooted in prejudice, including the beating of a gay man, the nauseous Limbaugh-Sharpton confrontation and an Irish singer’s anti-Semitic rant; I’m excluding the South Carolina flap about Jews because of mixed feelings. I have never been able to comprehend the thinking - or lack thereof - behind these attitudes or at least why some people cannot grow out of them. I am left trying to second-guess their motives, but I can think of some responses to them.
The episode that affects me personally was Irish tenor Ronan Tynan’s offensive comment about a Jewish woman seeking an apartment in his East Side building in Manhattan. A real estate agent who accompanied the woman told Tynan, who sometimes sings “God Bless America” at Yankees playoff games, that “they are not Red Sox fans.”
To which Tynan shot back: “I don’t care about that, as long as they are not Jewish.”
The woman complained to the Yankees after the Oct. 15 encounter, and they swiftly suspended his gig, The New York Daily News reported. He apologized to her and claimed to be joking, but the victim said it did not sound like that. What was he thinking? I’ll get to my theory later.
Back to Bardwell: I do notice that this justice lives in the South some distance from any big city. Is this a southern thing? A backwoods vantage point? I do not wish to lump all southerners and/or rural residents with this guy. If there is any truth to this, TV host Jay Leno said it best when he suggested Bardwell clings to the belief that a married couple should not be of the same race but from the same family. West Virginia is not alone.
Returning to the North, a 49-year-old gay man was beaten to a pulp in the College Point section of northern Queens on Oct. 8, as his assailants spewed out anti-gay slurs, police told the News. I concede that my attitudes about homosexuals have been less than perfect, but I generally do not care about one’s sexual orientation. It is ghastly that anyone would discriminate or physically harm someone because of their sexual orientation. There is something wrong with it, as Seinfeld might say.
Friends of the two suspects, both in their twenties, rationalized their actions when they showed up at a rally against anti-gay violence. “This whole rally is so pathetic,” said Camelisse Kiana, 15. “I don’t think this is a hate crime because he doesn’t have nothing against gay people.” Added Marcel Gelmi, “It was an assault but it wasn’t a hate crime.” We suppose that makes it okay.
Most bizarre is the ongoing duel of the dolts: Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton…sorry, that’s the Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton threatened to sue Limbaugh for accusing him of taking a “leading role” in the 1991 Crown Heights riots. Sharpton did take a “leading role” of forcing Limbaugh out of an investment team that sought to purchase part of the St. Louis Rams because of his well-documented racist rants on his radio show.
“I am definitely going to prove he makes reckless, unaccountable statements,” Sharpton said of Limbaugh.
Sharpton should know what he is talking about. During the funeral of 7-year-old Gavin Cato, whose death in an auto accident touched off the riots, Sharpton dubbed Crown Heights Jews as “diamond merchants” and referred to the “apartheid ambulance” service operated by ultra-Orthodox Jews there. Cato was fatally injured when struck by a vehicle operated by an Orthodox driver.
No reasonable person could side with either of these boneheads, but the merits favor Sharpton. His advocacy style has evolved to a more respectable level, though he has at best hinted at remorse for his revolting past. The right-wing Limbaugh still spouts absurdities like a little brat. Sharpton contends that Limbaugh’s accusation suggests that he committed a crime, which is true.
Limbaugh could clarify what he meant, but Sharpton still owes the Jewish community an explanation and apology after all these years.
It is not hard to speculate about what prompted Ronan Tynan’s conduct. I am not one to link a person’s drinking habits to an ethnic stereotype, but I am reminded of an incident in which a crude comment applies to Tynan.
A few years ago, a friendly but eccentric woman who had just flown into Boston from Ireland sat next to me on an Amtrak train headed for Maine. As the trip progressed, so did her eccentric ways. The more she spoke, the sooner I realized that she was soused.
As our conversation waned, she subsequently addressed a middle-aged couple across the aisle. After 10 minutes of chat, the husband chided her: “A little too much Irish whiskey, eh?”
Ouch. The woman was obnoxious, but responding to her with an ethnic slur was way out of line. It would have been a touche-moment if the Jewish woman in New York responded to Ronan Tynan with a line like that.
*I am not the only person to make the connection between Justice Bardwell’s remarks and the election of a biracial president, but this connection did occur to me soon after I learned of the episode and before I heard or read of it by others.
Hammond caught the world’s attention after Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, stood his ground after refusing to marry an interracial couple, a violation of a 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows interracial marriage.
“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” he told an Associated Press reporter on Thursday, Oct. 15. “There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage. I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”
A biracial child will never be accepted by blacks or whites, and he or she need not dream of being elected president of the United States.* Like Barak Obama. Louisiana is part of the United States. Technically.
A news release was posted on the city of Hammond’s Web site imploring reporters to alter their dateline from Hammond to nearby Robert, La., where Bardwell lives. The city stressed that Bardwell was independently elected and has no formal affiliation with Hammond whatsoever.
The Bardwell account coincides with nearly a half-dozen other domestic instances rooted in prejudice, including the beating of a gay man, the nauseous Limbaugh-Sharpton confrontation and an Irish singer’s anti-Semitic rant; I’m excluding the South Carolina flap about Jews because of mixed feelings. I have never been able to comprehend the thinking - or lack thereof - behind these attitudes or at least why some people cannot grow out of them. I am left trying to second-guess their motives, but I can think of some responses to them.
The episode that affects me personally was Irish tenor Ronan Tynan’s offensive comment about a Jewish woman seeking an apartment in his East Side building in Manhattan. A real estate agent who accompanied the woman told Tynan, who sometimes sings “God Bless America” at Yankees playoff games, that “they are not Red Sox fans.”
To which Tynan shot back: “I don’t care about that, as long as they are not Jewish.”
The woman complained to the Yankees after the Oct. 15 encounter, and they swiftly suspended his gig, The New York Daily News reported. He apologized to her and claimed to be joking, but the victim said it did not sound like that. What was he thinking? I’ll get to my theory later.
Back to Bardwell: I do notice that this justice lives in the South some distance from any big city. Is this a southern thing? A backwoods vantage point? I do not wish to lump all southerners and/or rural residents with this guy. If there is any truth to this, TV host Jay Leno said it best when he suggested Bardwell clings to the belief that a married couple should not be of the same race but from the same family. West Virginia is not alone.
Returning to the North, a 49-year-old gay man was beaten to a pulp in the College Point section of northern Queens on Oct. 8, as his assailants spewed out anti-gay slurs, police told the News. I concede that my attitudes about homosexuals have been less than perfect, but I generally do not care about one’s sexual orientation. It is ghastly that anyone would discriminate or physically harm someone because of their sexual orientation. There is something wrong with it, as Seinfeld might say.
Friends of the two suspects, both in their twenties, rationalized their actions when they showed up at a rally against anti-gay violence. “This whole rally is so pathetic,” said Camelisse Kiana, 15. “I don’t think this is a hate crime because he doesn’t have nothing against gay people.” Added Marcel Gelmi, “It was an assault but it wasn’t a hate crime.” We suppose that makes it okay.
Most bizarre is the ongoing duel of the dolts: Rush Limbaugh and Al Sharpton…sorry, that’s the Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton threatened to sue Limbaugh for accusing him of taking a “leading role” in the 1991 Crown Heights riots. Sharpton did take a “leading role” of forcing Limbaugh out of an investment team that sought to purchase part of the St. Louis Rams because of his well-documented racist rants on his radio show.
“I am definitely going to prove he makes reckless, unaccountable statements,” Sharpton said of Limbaugh.
Sharpton should know what he is talking about. During the funeral of 7-year-old Gavin Cato, whose death in an auto accident touched off the riots, Sharpton dubbed Crown Heights Jews as “diamond merchants” and referred to the “apartheid ambulance” service operated by ultra-Orthodox Jews there. Cato was fatally injured when struck by a vehicle operated by an Orthodox driver.
No reasonable person could side with either of these boneheads, but the merits favor Sharpton. His advocacy style has evolved to a more respectable level, though he has at best hinted at remorse for his revolting past. The right-wing Limbaugh still spouts absurdities like a little brat. Sharpton contends that Limbaugh’s accusation suggests that he committed a crime, which is true.
Limbaugh could clarify what he meant, but Sharpton still owes the Jewish community an explanation and apology after all these years.
It is not hard to speculate about what prompted Ronan Tynan’s conduct. I am not one to link a person’s drinking habits to an ethnic stereotype, but I am reminded of an incident in which a crude comment applies to Tynan.
A few years ago, a friendly but eccentric woman who had just flown into Boston from Ireland sat next to me on an Amtrak train headed for Maine. As the trip progressed, so did her eccentric ways. The more she spoke, the sooner I realized that she was soused.
As our conversation waned, she subsequently addressed a middle-aged couple across the aisle. After 10 minutes of chat, the husband chided her: “A little too much Irish whiskey, eh?”
Ouch. The woman was obnoxious, but responding to her with an ethnic slur was way out of line. It would have been a touche-moment if the Jewish woman in New York responded to Ronan Tynan with a line like that.
*I am not the only person to make the connection between Justice Bardwell’s remarks and the election of a biracial president, but this connection did occur to me soon after I learned of the episode and before I heard or read of it by others.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
CONGRESS DOUBLE-CROSS AT MOJAVE
The upshot of the Mojave cross dispute is simple: The federal government discriminated against a minority religion.
The government went to unusual lengths to retain a cross on public land after rejecting an application for a Buddhist shrine. A decade ago, the National Park Service turned down an application for the shrine and decided to remove the cross from a rocky outcropping at the 1.6 million acre Mohave National Preserve in southern California.
Congress intervened. It declared the site a national monument, forbade the NPS from spending funds to take down the cross and in 2003 voted to swap land with the Veterans of Foreign Wars so that the VFW would control the single acre of land surrounding the cross, which was erected by the VFW in 1934 to commemorate fallen soldiers.
The five relatively sane members of the U.S. Supreme Court will do well to consider this sequence of events before they cast their votes in the case of “Buono v. Salazar,” in which the feds claims that switching the property to private ownership makes the existence of the cross there constitutional.
When the Court heard arguments on Wednesday, Oct. 7, Justice Antonin Scalia left little doubt how he will vote, and the other three simplistic justices hinted that they will side with him.
Many Jews like myself resent having to observe religious symbols on public property, but even some of us recognize that these situations can often become convoluted. I personally interpret the First Amendment to mean that no religious symbols are permitted on taxpayer-funded property, but it is obvious that adhering to strict legalities means we would have to remake Arlington Cemetery.
The cross was repeatedly characterized as being located in the middle of nowhere, so why should anyone care? It is not as if the 8-foot high cross stands in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia or atop an abandoned fort on New York City’s Governor’s Island, both busy National Park Service sites. Mohave, which is 200 miles east of Los Angeles and 60 miles southeast of Las Vegas, is low on my vacation priority list.
Actually, Mohave does brisk business, with 628,000 visitors in 2008, according to the NPS Web site. Many visitors probably spot the cross while traveling on a nearby road, which means they see it once and briefly at that.
The fact remains that our government discriminated against a minority religion. Attorney Peter J. Eliasberg, who represents the American Civil Liberties Union, made a good case for that during a televised news conference. Republican U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis, whose district covers Mojave, reported on his congressional Web site that he coordinated the legislative measures at the behest of veterans groups.
This legal train wreck opened when then-preserve assistant superintendent Frank Buono proposed that the Buddhist shrine application be rejected and the cross removed, and NPS officials agreed to both. Congress subsequently blocked the NPS from spending any money to take away the cross, The Washington Post reported.
Buono, now retired, sued in 1999 and a federal district judge agreed that the cross violated constitutional standards; the ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Congress subsequently declared the spot a national memorial and launched a deal to swap land with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, leaving the VFW with an acre of land surrounding the cross. Buono returned to court with the American Civil Liberties Union, and the appeals court stated that the transaction “would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve,” according to the Post.
Buono is a practicing Catholic who keeps a cross in his home, but he opposes allowing a religious symbol on federal land.
Congress passed all these measures when Republicans were in control, yet Democrats neglected to overturn Lewis’s legislation when they took over after the 2006 midterm elections. It is no stretch to guess that they feared getting tangled up in a church-state issue, as did President Obama by persisting in defending the legislation in court. Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar, an Obama appointee and former Democratic senator from Colorado, is the “Salazar” in “Buono v. Salazar.”
Long forgotten has been the applicant for the Buddhist shrine even though Congress jumped through hoops to accommodate advocates for a Christian symbol. That is discrimination.
Three justices bolstered the point, if inadvertently, that these steps constitute discrimination during legal arguments. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned if the land swap was “a sensible interpretation” of previous rulings, so acknowledging Congress’s far-reaching efforts to retain the cross.
Scalia patronized minority religions when he declared that the cross is the “common symbol of the resting place of the dead”; like most Jews, Eliasberg offered a different take as he reminded Scalia that “there is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”
Justice John Paul Stevens automatically recognized the lengths to which Congress went when he asked the Obama administration attorney, “Do you think anyone thought there is the remotest possibility they (VFW) would put up a different memorial?”
That means Congress indeed discriminated against a minority religion. Buddhists in America are justified to claim they were, well, double-crossed by their own government.
The government went to unusual lengths to retain a cross on public land after rejecting an application for a Buddhist shrine. A decade ago, the National Park Service turned down an application for the shrine and decided to remove the cross from a rocky outcropping at the 1.6 million acre Mohave National Preserve in southern California.
Congress intervened. It declared the site a national monument, forbade the NPS from spending funds to take down the cross and in 2003 voted to swap land with the Veterans of Foreign Wars so that the VFW would control the single acre of land surrounding the cross, which was erected by the VFW in 1934 to commemorate fallen soldiers.
The five relatively sane members of the U.S. Supreme Court will do well to consider this sequence of events before they cast their votes in the case of “Buono v. Salazar,” in which the feds claims that switching the property to private ownership makes the existence of the cross there constitutional.
When the Court heard arguments on Wednesday, Oct. 7, Justice Antonin Scalia left little doubt how he will vote, and the other three simplistic justices hinted that they will side with him.
Many Jews like myself resent having to observe religious symbols on public property, but even some of us recognize that these situations can often become convoluted. I personally interpret the First Amendment to mean that no religious symbols are permitted on taxpayer-funded property, but it is obvious that adhering to strict legalities means we would have to remake Arlington Cemetery.
The cross was repeatedly characterized as being located in the middle of nowhere, so why should anyone care? It is not as if the 8-foot high cross stands in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia or atop an abandoned fort on New York City’s Governor’s Island, both busy National Park Service sites. Mohave, which is 200 miles east of Los Angeles and 60 miles southeast of Las Vegas, is low on my vacation priority list.
Actually, Mohave does brisk business, with 628,000 visitors in 2008, according to the NPS Web site. Many visitors probably spot the cross while traveling on a nearby road, which means they see it once and briefly at that.
The fact remains that our government discriminated against a minority religion. Attorney Peter J. Eliasberg, who represents the American Civil Liberties Union, made a good case for that during a televised news conference. Republican U.S. Rep. Jerry Lewis, whose district covers Mojave, reported on his congressional Web site that he coordinated the legislative measures at the behest of veterans groups.
This legal train wreck opened when then-preserve assistant superintendent Frank Buono proposed that the Buddhist shrine application be rejected and the cross removed, and NPS officials agreed to both. Congress subsequently blocked the NPS from spending any money to take away the cross, The Washington Post reported.
Buono, now retired, sued in 1999 and a federal district judge agreed that the cross violated constitutional standards; the ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Congress subsequently declared the spot a national memorial and launched a deal to swap land with the Veterans of Foreign Wars, leaving the VFW with an acre of land surrounding the cross. Buono returned to court with the American Civil Liberties Union, and the appeals court stated that the transaction “would leave a little donut hole of land with a cross in the midst of a vast federal preserve,” according to the Post.
Buono is a practicing Catholic who keeps a cross in his home, but he opposes allowing a religious symbol on federal land.
Congress passed all these measures when Republicans were in control, yet Democrats neglected to overturn Lewis’s legislation when they took over after the 2006 midterm elections. It is no stretch to guess that they feared getting tangled up in a church-state issue, as did President Obama by persisting in defending the legislation in court. Secretary of the Interior Kenneth Salazar, an Obama appointee and former Democratic senator from Colorado, is the “Salazar” in “Buono v. Salazar.”
Long forgotten has been the applicant for the Buddhist shrine even though Congress jumped through hoops to accommodate advocates for a Christian symbol. That is discrimination.
Three justices bolstered the point, if inadvertently, that these steps constitute discrimination during legal arguments. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned if the land swap was “a sensible interpretation” of previous rulings, so acknowledging Congress’s far-reaching efforts to retain the cross.
Scalia patronized minority religions when he declared that the cross is the “common symbol of the resting place of the dead”; like most Jews, Eliasberg offered a different take as he reminded Scalia that “there is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”
Justice John Paul Stevens automatically recognized the lengths to which Congress went when he asked the Obama administration attorney, “Do you think anyone thought there is the remotest possibility they (VFW) would put up a different memorial?”
That means Congress indeed discriminated against a minority religion. Buddhists in America are justified to claim they were, well, double-crossed by their own government.
Monday, October 5, 2009
UNLIKELY COALITION RE: IRAN
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is doing to his people now what he wants to do to mine.
Iran’s president could not get away with jailing, terrorizing and murdering thousands who demonstrated against him at the United Nations and in several other cities on Thursday, Sept. 24, since leaders here and in other Western countries, however imperfect, allow citizens the freedom to protest. More than 40 organizations created the Stand for Freedom in Iran coalition to demonstrate against Ahmadinejad’s brutality of his fellow Iranians and his plans to destroy Israel.
Most notably, Jews and Iranians joined together to send Ahmadinejad a blunt message. It is hard enough to motivate members of any single group affected by a given issue, but here are two unlikely groups that gathered for a common cause. This event presents an opportunity to sustain ongoing pressure on Ahmadinejad from our part of the world.
It is hardly coincidence that Ahmadinejad antagonized both Jews and his own people. As natural bullies, tyrants will subjugate their own when they must and intimidate external groups or nations whenever they can get away with it. He picked on Israel partly because there is already an anti-Israel groundwork and he holds the strategic high ground.
The convergence of American Jews and Iranians, including Muslims, is a minor miracle. The Sept. 24 rally launched a coalition between two interest factions with life-and-death stakes in Iran’s future. Iranians are struggling for freedom and Jews are confronting a threat to Israel’s existence. Their pressure on Ahmadinejad can only help their respective peoples. To put it mildly, they face an uphill fight, but their failure to organize will help give Ahmadinejad a free hand.
For that matter, let’s hope that the other organizations which sponsored the rally, including African Americans and Puerto Ricans, continue to work with them. Ideally, all concerned people should be involved.
The lives of both Jews and Iranians could depend on what we do. Ahmadinejad no doubt exploited the levers of government to steal the June 11 election. Ordinary Iranians faced retaliation for protesting the election results. Though they swamped the streets of Tehran and other cities, people of Iran risked death, torture and imprisonment. Some were murdered or jailed simply because they chose to marched for their liberty.
Interestingly, Americans who filled the block-long Dag Hammarskjold Plaza for the Stand for Freedom in Iran rally reflected a relatively low turnout. The rally was scarcely covered by the New York dailies, and the few news reports I could locate suggested a range of 3,000 to 10,000. That’s light by New York standards.
Rally participants griped to a New Jersey Jewish News reporter that turnout was insufficient. “Where were all the people?” asked Gail Kushner of West Orange, near Newark. “There should have been a stronger representation of adults,” added Stan Shapiro of Roseland, also a Newark suburb.
I had planned to attend, but I was sick that day. A bus was chartered to pick up demonstrators from the Philadelphia area in Elkins Park, a northern suburb. Besides, the rally was held on a weekday when most people are working.
Jews must be concerned with Ahmadinejad’s obvious threat to demolish Israel with a nuclear device, still in development, while denying that Hitler wiped out 6 million Jews; thousands of Holocaust survivors still live to testify to Nazi Germany’s crimes.
In fact, Israel is already engaged in a war with Iran. Ahmadinejad initiated the war when Iran supplied its first weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah. Israel fought a two-front war in 2006 against Hamas and Hezbollah and invaded Gaza last December. This is reason enough for Israel to attack Iran.
Ahmadinejad built his nuclear development sites with the intention of preventing Israel or anyone else from eliminating these places, and he claims Iran can effectively retaliate. An Israeli attack would likely incite outrage among Arabs who will mass behind Ahmadinejad.
On the plus side, Ahmadinejad must worry about the fury and resentment among his people, but one cannot be optimistic that they will succeed in ousting him.
It is ironic that masses of Iranians face jail or death for exercising the rights we take for granted, yet opponents here constitute a relatively small number in a city where the police consistently facilitate demonstrations.
The Sept. 24 rally possibly contributed to progress in dealing with Iran. One week later, Iranian delegates made small but significant concessions aimed at preventing development of a nuclear weapon.
No time to rest. It should embolden opponents of Iran in America to persist with their protests. This sums it up neatly:
“This has to be a sustained effort,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, as quoted in The Jewish Standard, a weekly in Bergen County, New Jersey. “What we have to show is we’re committed to a course of action that will be effective.”
Iran’s president could not get away with jailing, terrorizing and murdering thousands who demonstrated against him at the United Nations and in several other cities on Thursday, Sept. 24, since leaders here and in other Western countries, however imperfect, allow citizens the freedom to protest. More than 40 organizations created the Stand for Freedom in Iran coalition to demonstrate against Ahmadinejad’s brutality of his fellow Iranians and his plans to destroy Israel.
Most notably, Jews and Iranians joined together to send Ahmadinejad a blunt message. It is hard enough to motivate members of any single group affected by a given issue, but here are two unlikely groups that gathered for a common cause. This event presents an opportunity to sustain ongoing pressure on Ahmadinejad from our part of the world.
It is hardly coincidence that Ahmadinejad antagonized both Jews and his own people. As natural bullies, tyrants will subjugate their own when they must and intimidate external groups or nations whenever they can get away with it. He picked on Israel partly because there is already an anti-Israel groundwork and he holds the strategic high ground.
The convergence of American Jews and Iranians, including Muslims, is a minor miracle. The Sept. 24 rally launched a coalition between two interest factions with life-and-death stakes in Iran’s future. Iranians are struggling for freedom and Jews are confronting a threat to Israel’s existence. Their pressure on Ahmadinejad can only help their respective peoples. To put it mildly, they face an uphill fight, but their failure to organize will help give Ahmadinejad a free hand.
For that matter, let’s hope that the other organizations which sponsored the rally, including African Americans and Puerto Ricans, continue to work with them. Ideally, all concerned people should be involved.
The lives of both Jews and Iranians could depend on what we do. Ahmadinejad no doubt exploited the levers of government to steal the June 11 election. Ordinary Iranians faced retaliation for protesting the election results. Though they swamped the streets of Tehran and other cities, people of Iran risked death, torture and imprisonment. Some were murdered or jailed simply because they chose to marched for their liberty.
Interestingly, Americans who filled the block-long Dag Hammarskjold Plaza for the Stand for Freedom in Iran rally reflected a relatively low turnout. The rally was scarcely covered by the New York dailies, and the few news reports I could locate suggested a range of 3,000 to 10,000. That’s light by New York standards.
Rally participants griped to a New Jersey Jewish News reporter that turnout was insufficient. “Where were all the people?” asked Gail Kushner of West Orange, near Newark. “There should have been a stronger representation of adults,” added Stan Shapiro of Roseland, also a Newark suburb.
I had planned to attend, but I was sick that day. A bus was chartered to pick up demonstrators from the Philadelphia area in Elkins Park, a northern suburb. Besides, the rally was held on a weekday when most people are working.
Jews must be concerned with Ahmadinejad’s obvious threat to demolish Israel with a nuclear device, still in development, while denying that Hitler wiped out 6 million Jews; thousands of Holocaust survivors still live to testify to Nazi Germany’s crimes.
In fact, Israel is already engaged in a war with Iran. Ahmadinejad initiated the war when Iran supplied its first weapon to Hamas or Hezbollah. Israel fought a two-front war in 2006 against Hamas and Hezbollah and invaded Gaza last December. This is reason enough for Israel to attack Iran.
Ahmadinejad built his nuclear development sites with the intention of preventing Israel or anyone else from eliminating these places, and he claims Iran can effectively retaliate. An Israeli attack would likely incite outrage among Arabs who will mass behind Ahmadinejad.
On the plus side, Ahmadinejad must worry about the fury and resentment among his people, but one cannot be optimistic that they will succeed in ousting him.
It is ironic that masses of Iranians face jail or death for exercising the rights we take for granted, yet opponents here constitute a relatively small number in a city where the police consistently facilitate demonstrations.
The Sept. 24 rally possibly contributed to progress in dealing with Iran. One week later, Iranian delegates made small but significant concessions aimed at preventing development of a nuclear weapon.
No time to rest. It should embolden opponents of Iran in America to persist with their protests. This sums it up neatly:
“This has to be a sustained effort,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, as quoted in The Jewish Standard, a weekly in Bergen County, New Jersey. “What we have to show is we’re committed to a course of action that will be effective.”
Sunday, September 20, 2009
THE POWER TO COUNTER RACISM
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.
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.
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)