Another outlandish legal opinion should prod us to wonder how four U.S. Supreme Court justices got accepted to law school.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writes in a dissenting opinion: “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith. For these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.”
Translated, adherents of a given religion must always be permitted to practice their beliefs…even if they stomp on the rights of others in the process and violate our laws.
Three situations in which religious beliefs clashed with the law or basic values of civilization reached a boiling point. A Christian student group was denied its mission of homophobia;
Orthodox Jews howled when one of their own was sentenced to an excessive prison term; and a group of Islamist extremists trashed a United Nations summer camp in Gaza because it shuns training its children in hate and militancy.
In the middle of America’s gay capital, the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco limits membership privileges to anyone who will not disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” The New York Times reports. That covers “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” They cannot be voting members or assume leadership positions.
Hastings denied CLS recognition as a student organization because its policies amount to discrimination. The college affords recognized student groups modest financial assistance, use of the school’s communications channels and meeting space and use of the school’s name and logo - so long as they permit all students to participate in their activities, according to the Times.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “CLS…seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.” Alito wrote the aforementioned dissent on behalf of himself, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
This quartet misses the point that our system of laws supersedes our personal attitudes. CLS discriminates against homosexuals and most universities - especially those funded by tax revenues - cannot allow that. Some religious groups will severely harass people to convert them and defend their action by claiming it is their religious belief to do so. Harassment itself is a criminal offense, albeit a minor one.
It is scary that these four justices do not understand the difference.
In Gaza, two dozen masked men broke into a United Nations summer camp before dawn on recently when they tied up four guards and proceeded to slash and burn tents, toys and a plastic swimming pool, according to the Associated Press.
Islamic extremists are naturally suspected. Hamas operates camps that bash Israel and teach military-style marching along with horseback riding, swimming and Islam. As the AP story puts it, “U.N. camps try to instill hope in a better future, a message wrapped in fun and games.”
Allegiance to religious beliefs there is often the rule, and the law is the exception. For some their religion is the law. We are not indicting all Muslims here, but many do not care what they do in the name of religion. Their attitude mandates that all territory in their part of the world must be Muslim-dominated, and so they oppose Israel’s very existence.
The U.N. camp’s presence threatens this idea because the camp’s mission is to foster hope in these children. They may grow up to accept people of other religions.
There are higher stakes: The Palestinians want to be recognized as a nation in the world of nations, yet many refuse to play by the rules of civilization.
From Iowa to Brooklyn’s Boro Park, the issue is more subtle for ultra-Orthodox Jews upset with the 27-year federal sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, who was found guilty eight months ago of 86 counts of financial fraud, the weekly Forward reported. The 51-year-old Agriprocessors executive managed the now-defunct slaughterhouse and meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, owned by his family’s large kosher meat enterprise, according to the newspaper.
Besides Rubashkin’s fraud charges, other concerns about the plant involved the hiring of undocumented workers and abuse of child labor.
The obvious question on the minds of some Jews, though not openly expressed by many, was whether the sentencing judge was motivated by Rubashkin’s religion. “This is just like Dreyfus!” Mordy Getz told The Forward. “They won’t kill him, but they’ll just lock him up for decades and destroy a whole family.”
Alfred Dreyfus, the French Jewish army captain framed for selling military secrets to Germany in 1894, survived his imprisonment at Devil’s Island where the guards were not allowed to talk to him. He committed no crime, the trial was held in secret and the evidence, if one can call it that, was weak. Even if the judge is a rabid anti-Semite, Rubashkin still has the right to appeal.
In The New York Jewish Week, Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Agudath Israel of America, called the sentence “a dark day for American justice…It is a dark day as well for American Jewry…the extraordinary severity of the sentence imposed upon one of our Jewish brothers sends chills of shock and apprehension down our collective spine.”
My usual attitude toward “Jewish brothers” who commit crimes or otherwise act outrageously is to toss out the prison keys, but Zwiebel’s words beg these questions: Did Rubashkin think while committing his crimes that he might face strong punishment? Did it occur to him that his deeds might reflect on other Jews?
Most intriguing is the level of passion that his sentence aroused in the Orthodox Jewish community. Were they so passionate when abuses at Rubashkin’s plant were first exposed?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
UCI suspension a good start
Perhaps it was their futile attempt at humor.
Eight students at the University of California Irvine passed up their chance to answer university charges that they disrupted a speech presented by Israeli Ambassador Michael B. Oren last Feb. 8, a UCI administrator stated in a letter. Instead, they invoked their “Fifth Amendment” rights - as if they were being criminally prosecuted.
Actually, Lisa Cornish, UCI’s director of student housing, stated in the letter that the students' attorney said they believe criminal charges "are pending" against them.
Cornish’s letter informed the students that UCI administrators have recommended that the Muslim Student Union be suspended as a campus organization for a full year and placed on disciplinary probation the following year; and that group members collectively perform 50 hours of community service. The MSU is appealing through the university system as it is allowed to do.
Good start, but no self-respecting advocate for Israel will accept that as sufficient. The disruptive students should individually be subject to harsh university discipline and prosecution by the Orange County District Attorney’s office.
For the past decade, the pro-Palestinian side has engaged in protest tactics that are at best crude and abrasive and at times plainly violations of criminal laws. Finally, an afflicted institution hammered a group of thugs who brazenly disregarded all the rules and laws that applied to their actions. Still, more hammering is necessary.
When Oren attempted to speak at a UCI gathering, Muslim students interrupted his talk one at a time by shouting taunts at Oren, who served in the Israeli military and authored the best-selling "Six Days of War" that chronicles the 1967 war; Oren grew up in West Orange, N.J. before moving to Israel. The offending students were cheered by supporters.
Eleven of the participants, eight of whom attended UCI, were arrested by campus police and cited for disturbing a public event. Under campus procedures, UCI police were slated to investigate the episode and turn over a report to the Orange County District Attorney's office. The district attorney would decide whether to prosecute, a university spokesperson said.
The report prepared by Cornish charged that the disruption was planned at a meeting of the Muslim Student Union, while the plotting strangely enough called for participants to deny that the MSU had anything to do with it. Shrewd, aren't they?
The report adds that the group's goal was to "send the speaker a message" and develop a plan to disrupt Oren's speech. The plan identified students willing to participate, drafted scripted statements and urged supporters to attend and cheer each disruption, The Orange County Register reported.
According to the newspaper, UCI reported that MSU members "fabricated information," "obstructed" a campus activity, engaged in "disorderly or lewd conduct" and participated "in a disturbance of the peace or unlawful assembly." The university said it compiled extensive evidence to support its case.
A few Jewish leaders commended UCI, but privately they could be saying that the university's action falls short of what needs to be done. Again, hopefully this is just the beginning. Nothing was mentioned about individual students who were caught acting out. The university initially accused them of violating local, state or federal laws, yet it is not known if they face disciplinary action. Some supporters of Israel would predictably demand their expulsions; at the least, they should be suspended.
Also unmentioned is the outcome of a criminal investigation. The Orange County District Attorney's office is expected to decide whether to press charges on the basis of the campus police investigation.
Cornish wrote that all suspects in the incident refused to respond to the university's charges. In fact, they declared their "Fifth Amendment" rights. There are no Fifth Amendment rights in Syria and Saudi Arabia, are there?
The disruption of Oren's speech probably amounts to such criminal offenses as disorderly conduct, harassment and conspiracy. If their views have merit, they do not need to violate the law. They employed America's freedoms to call attention to their concerns, and then disregarded our laws and cried discrimination when they were called to account for it. Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never whined about the consequences of their actions.
The Muslim Student Union and its associates learned nothing from this. They insist on playing victim. Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, issued this defensive statement: "It appears to be politically motivated to silence any future peaceful and legitimate criticism of Israel's brutal practices. This was nothing but a peaceful and symbolic protest."
It would surprise nobody if Ayloush's organization coached the MSU on tactics for disrupting Oren's speech and/or comparable events.
There are plain signals that the university is attempting to orchestrate the fallout from the incident. News of the MSU's suspension broke as soon as school was out of session. Few if any students would have been on campus. The spring session ended on Friday, June 11, and the news was released on the following Monday, June 14; summer classes start on June 21.
It was a local Jewish organization which had the satisfaction of announcing the story after obtaining Cornish's letter through the Freedom of Information Act.
My educated guess is that university officials will not be upset by even the harshest reproach from supporters of Israel who criticize the punishment as too light. College presidents, chancellors, boards of trustees, principals, headmasters and so forth share a tradition of being displeased with negative publicity. They do not enjoy it when an international incident occurs at their school, causes discomfort to a foreign nation's ambassador, discourages students of a respected ethnic/religious group from applying to their school and prompts a very aggressive Jewish organization - namely, the Zionist Organization of America - to urge donors to find better places to spend their money.
It is very possible that they are waiting for law enforcement authorities to prosecute these troublemakers, a move that could result in fines and prison terms. This would give them an excuse to expel or at least suspend those offensive parties still attending UCI.
University officials might enjoy sending these students "a message."
Eight students at the University of California Irvine passed up their chance to answer university charges that they disrupted a speech presented by Israeli Ambassador Michael B. Oren last Feb. 8, a UCI administrator stated in a letter. Instead, they invoked their “Fifth Amendment” rights - as if they were being criminally prosecuted.
Actually, Lisa Cornish, UCI’s director of student housing, stated in the letter that the students' attorney said they believe criminal charges "are pending" against them.
Cornish’s letter informed the students that UCI administrators have recommended that the Muslim Student Union be suspended as a campus organization for a full year and placed on disciplinary probation the following year; and that group members collectively perform 50 hours of community service. The MSU is appealing through the university system as it is allowed to do.
Good start, but no self-respecting advocate for Israel will accept that as sufficient. The disruptive students should individually be subject to harsh university discipline and prosecution by the Orange County District Attorney’s office.
For the past decade, the pro-Palestinian side has engaged in protest tactics that are at best crude and abrasive and at times plainly violations of criminal laws. Finally, an afflicted institution hammered a group of thugs who brazenly disregarded all the rules and laws that applied to their actions. Still, more hammering is necessary.
When Oren attempted to speak at a UCI gathering, Muslim students interrupted his talk one at a time by shouting taunts at Oren, who served in the Israeli military and authored the best-selling "Six Days of War" that chronicles the 1967 war; Oren grew up in West Orange, N.J. before moving to Israel. The offending students were cheered by supporters.
Eleven of the participants, eight of whom attended UCI, were arrested by campus police and cited for disturbing a public event. Under campus procedures, UCI police were slated to investigate the episode and turn over a report to the Orange County District Attorney's office. The district attorney would decide whether to prosecute, a university spokesperson said.
The report prepared by Cornish charged that the disruption was planned at a meeting of the Muslim Student Union, while the plotting strangely enough called for participants to deny that the MSU had anything to do with it. Shrewd, aren't they?
The report adds that the group's goal was to "send the speaker a message" and develop a plan to disrupt Oren's speech. The plan identified students willing to participate, drafted scripted statements and urged supporters to attend and cheer each disruption, The Orange County Register reported.
According to the newspaper, UCI reported that MSU members "fabricated information," "obstructed" a campus activity, engaged in "disorderly or lewd conduct" and participated "in a disturbance of the peace or unlawful assembly." The university said it compiled extensive evidence to support its case.
A few Jewish leaders commended UCI, but privately they could be saying that the university's action falls short of what needs to be done. Again, hopefully this is just the beginning. Nothing was mentioned about individual students who were caught acting out. The university initially accused them of violating local, state or federal laws, yet it is not known if they face disciplinary action. Some supporters of Israel would predictably demand their expulsions; at the least, they should be suspended.
Also unmentioned is the outcome of a criminal investigation. The Orange County District Attorney's office is expected to decide whether to press charges on the basis of the campus police investigation.
Cornish wrote that all suspects in the incident refused to respond to the university's charges. In fact, they declared their "Fifth Amendment" rights. There are no Fifth Amendment rights in Syria and Saudi Arabia, are there?
The disruption of Oren's speech probably amounts to such criminal offenses as disorderly conduct, harassment and conspiracy. If their views have merit, they do not need to violate the law. They employed America's freedoms to call attention to their concerns, and then disregarded our laws and cried discrimination when they were called to account for it. Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never whined about the consequences of their actions.
The Muslim Student Union and its associates learned nothing from this. They insist on playing victim. Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, issued this defensive statement: "It appears to be politically motivated to silence any future peaceful and legitimate criticism of Israel's brutal practices. This was nothing but a peaceful and symbolic protest."
It would surprise nobody if Ayloush's organization coached the MSU on tactics for disrupting Oren's speech and/or comparable events.
There are plain signals that the university is attempting to orchestrate the fallout from the incident. News of the MSU's suspension broke as soon as school was out of session. Few if any students would have been on campus. The spring session ended on Friday, June 11, and the news was released on the following Monday, June 14; summer classes start on June 21.
It was a local Jewish organization which had the satisfaction of announcing the story after obtaining Cornish's letter through the Freedom of Information Act.
My educated guess is that university officials will not be upset by even the harshest reproach from supporters of Israel who criticize the punishment as too light. College presidents, chancellors, boards of trustees, principals, headmasters and so forth share a tradition of being displeased with negative publicity. They do not enjoy it when an international incident occurs at their school, causes discomfort to a foreign nation's ambassador, discourages students of a respected ethnic/religious group from applying to their school and prompts a very aggressive Jewish organization - namely, the Zionist Organization of America - to urge donors to find better places to spend their money.
It is very possible that they are waiting for law enforcement authorities to prosecute these troublemakers, a move that could result in fines and prison terms. This would give them an excuse to expel or at least suspend those offensive parties still attending UCI.
University officials might enjoy sending these students "a message."
Friday, June 18, 2010
Helen Thomas' view: How extensive here?
The nine words that drove Helen Thomas “the hell out of” the White House - thanks to a Long Island rabbi - are far more disturbing than the veteran journalist herself, for surely her attitude is shared by some harsh critics of Israel.
The malicious smears against Israel have been acute, distorted and relentless over the years. Israel is oppressing the Palestinians and occupying their land. The army lays siege to Gaza and massacres women and children. The list goes on, though we cannot deny that Israel makes serious mistakes at times.
It is not hard to respond to their accusations. Explain the facts when you believe a critic is wrong, but acknowledge their claims when they are right. There is no rational way to deal with the Thomas stance.
Thomas uttered her fateful words a few days before Israel’s clash with the Turkish ship on Memorial Day, but her outburst was not brought to light until a week after the violent attempt to break the blockade of Gaza. Outside a White House function, Long Island Rabbi David Nesenoff asked her to comment on Israel. Her words:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.”
Nesenoff, an independent filmmaker, asked where they should go, and she said, “They should go home.” He asked, “Where’s home?” Her response: “Poland, Germany and America, and everywhere else.”
How does our Israeli brethren reconcile with that attitude? How do we satisfy Helen Thomas? Price real estate in Warsaw? Book a flight to Dachau? We are willing to recommend Boca Raton.
Of course, neither Israel nor the Jewish people will ever accept the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state. Nobody can accomplish this goal without inciting World War III. Does Thomas want an all-out, scorched-earth war?
Most disturbing is the question of how prevalent is this viewpoint. No doubt that many Arabs in the Middle East and some of their brethren in the United States envision Israel’s destruction, but how many Americans and Europeans lacking a direct emotional tie share this view?
True, Thomas’s parents emigrated from Lebanon, but they moved to the United States long before the state of Israel was created and prior to when Lebanon became involved in the conflict, and that originated with the Palestine Liberation Organization’s influence there 35 years ago. She is also a Christian. Islamic loyalty is a major influence of Arab hostility toward Israel and Christians may well be more vulnerable to Muslim extremists than Jews.
Thomas would not be the first person in America, including some of European and African background, to believe that Israel should not exist. I have heard the phrase “From the river to sea” expressed a few times in America, particularly during an anti-Israel program at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. They were talking about supplanting the land mass - namely, Israel - that stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterreanean Sea.
The more restrained Israel critics have leveled excessive accusations, but they still claim to support Israel’s existence. Others may oppose Israel’s existence, but they grudgingly recognize that compromise is necessary - probably in the form of an independent Palestinian state.
Yet one subset wants the Jews out altogether. End of story. The Jews left Palestine 2,000 years ago and Arabs have owned land there for centuries, they will assert. They will also claim that Europeans and Russians who converted to Judaism moved into Palestine before World War II and subsequently the international community created Israel to salve its Holocaust guilt - at the expense of the Palestinians. So the Jews must leave to return the land to its rightful owners.
Some Americans of diverse backgrounds think this way, but the number of individuals in this category could make a crucial difference in influencing government policies. How extensive is this attitude? So far, their efforts are not working. When Helen Thomas opened her big mouth, few people stepped forth to defend her.
Her compatriots were too cowardly to stand up for her, but they are probably complaining that Helen Thomas was left twisting in the wind. Kind of what they have sought to do to Israel.
The malicious smears against Israel have been acute, distorted and relentless over the years. Israel is oppressing the Palestinians and occupying their land. The army lays siege to Gaza and massacres women and children. The list goes on, though we cannot deny that Israel makes serious mistakes at times.
It is not hard to respond to their accusations. Explain the facts when you believe a critic is wrong, but acknowledge their claims when they are right. There is no rational way to deal with the Thomas stance.
Thomas uttered her fateful words a few days before Israel’s clash with the Turkish ship on Memorial Day, but her outburst was not brought to light until a week after the violent attempt to break the blockade of Gaza. Outside a White House function, Long Island Rabbi David Nesenoff asked her to comment on Israel. Her words:
“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland.”
Nesenoff, an independent filmmaker, asked where they should go, and she said, “They should go home.” He asked, “Where’s home?” Her response: “Poland, Germany and America, and everywhere else.”
How does our Israeli brethren reconcile with that attitude? How do we satisfy Helen Thomas? Price real estate in Warsaw? Book a flight to Dachau? We are willing to recommend Boca Raton.
Of course, neither Israel nor the Jewish people will ever accept the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state. Nobody can accomplish this goal without inciting World War III. Does Thomas want an all-out, scorched-earth war?
Most disturbing is the question of how prevalent is this viewpoint. No doubt that many Arabs in the Middle East and some of their brethren in the United States envision Israel’s destruction, but how many Americans and Europeans lacking a direct emotional tie share this view?
True, Thomas’s parents emigrated from Lebanon, but they moved to the United States long before the state of Israel was created and prior to when Lebanon became involved in the conflict, and that originated with the Palestine Liberation Organization’s influence there 35 years ago. She is also a Christian. Islamic loyalty is a major influence of Arab hostility toward Israel and Christians may well be more vulnerable to Muslim extremists than Jews.
Thomas would not be the first person in America, including some of European and African background, to believe that Israel should not exist. I have heard the phrase “From the river to sea” expressed a few times in America, particularly during an anti-Israel program at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. They were talking about supplanting the land mass - namely, Israel - that stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterreanean Sea.
The more restrained Israel critics have leveled excessive accusations, but they still claim to support Israel’s existence. Others may oppose Israel’s existence, but they grudgingly recognize that compromise is necessary - probably in the form of an independent Palestinian state.
Yet one subset wants the Jews out altogether. End of story. The Jews left Palestine 2,000 years ago and Arabs have owned land there for centuries, they will assert. They will also claim that Europeans and Russians who converted to Judaism moved into Palestine before World War II and subsequently the international community created Israel to salve its Holocaust guilt - at the expense of the Palestinians. So the Jews must leave to return the land to its rightful owners.
Some Americans of diverse backgrounds think this way, but the number of individuals in this category could make a crucial difference in influencing government policies. How extensive is this attitude? So far, their efforts are not working. When Helen Thomas opened her big mouth, few people stepped forth to defend her.
Her compatriots were too cowardly to stand up for her, but they are probably complaining that Helen Thomas was left twisting in the wind. Kind of what they have sought to do to Israel.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Peace activists or accomplices?
Is it just me, or did you also wonder how these “peace activists” found the free time to join the mission defying Israel’s blockade? Did you also wonder how they could afford to travel the world for this purpose?
Here’s the critical question: How could educated, compassionate people fail to sense something strange about their compatriots? How were they so incapable of figuring out the current facts of life in the Middle East before they even stepped foot on the Mavi Marmara or one of its sister ships?
These “peace activists” may be intelligent, idealistic people, but they have a stupid side. Either they could not comprehend the realities or they did not care. I can absolve the first group, but the latter group is despicable and probably anti-Semitic.
The motives of some activists merit consideration, and the Israeli government and military should not escape legitimate criticism when it emerges. Even if the military made mistakes when it intercepted the Mavi Marmara on Memorial Day, the passengers should never have pushed Israel into that position in the first place. As readers are aware, Israel said that its commandos were attacked by extremists and killed nine of them to defend themselves.
The peaceniks chose between Israel’s security and ostensibly aiding the Gazan people. Who made their choice knowingly and who genuinely misunderstood Israel’s situation?
Israel was stuck in a corner. Its leaders feared that these ships, supposed to be carrying humanitarian supplies, could be smuggling weapons and other materials that Hamas, the terrorist pack that dominates Gaza, might employ for future attacks on Israel. Hamas is pledged to Israel’s destruction and for years launched rockets into southern Israeli towns. In another act of war, Hamas persists in holding Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit hostage after nearly four years.
Some longtime critics of Israel were probably accustomed to assailing past misguided Israeli policies - especially, the 1982 Lebanon war and the construction and retention of settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank. In the interim, Israel offered the Palestinian Arabs their own state in 2000; pulled out of Gaza in 2005; and mainly undertook military operations that were defensive in nature. Now Israel faces ongoing threats from terrorists in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon.
These developments have been front-page news for the last decade, so the peaceniks are hardpressed to explain how they could be so ignorant of this.
Quoting several analysts, The New York Times reported that the Free Gaza Movement, which sponsored the flotilla, is a varied coalition of groups and individuals, “often with little in common apart from opposition” to the blockade. Varied media reports said that peace activists included members of national legislatures, a writer, a physician, a retired diplomat and a retired registered nurse from Cape Cod.
Some activists sound like good people who genuinely wanted to help the needy. The nurse has helped victims of Haiti’s earthquake. Another passenger was an Irish politician whose father is a retired marine in Massachusetts who once organized opposition to the Vietnam war. Former American diplomat Edward Peck, who served in the Reagan administration, no doubt remembers the Lebanon war.
News reports suggest that the peaceniks did not trust the Israeli government to deliver the humanitarian supplies to Gaza. On top of that, I would speculate that they took into consideration that the Israeli government is controlled by a coalition of rightwing parties headed by Likud.
What they may need to understand is that Likud’s return to power directly resulted from the ongoing hostility Israel faced from the Palestinians despite its significant strides to peace. Israeli voters tend to play good cop/bad cop.
The peaceniks might not engage in violence, but they joined a flotilla filled with fanatics who would employ violence, and did. You would think the peace activists might notice signs of bizarre behavior and even spot devices that could be used as weapons.
Some years ago, when Israel announced the discovery of 90 tunnels in Rafah, the southern border town in Gaza, it occurred to me that members of the International Solidarity Movement like Rachel Corrie must have been aware of them. They probably observed weapons carried by Palestinian Arabs in the towns where they stayed. Corrie is the 23-year-old ISM member who was killed when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer.
Likewise, I suspect that the American and European passengers on the flotilla were aware of clues that something was amiss.
Even if the “peace activists” neither lifted a hand against the commandos nor had any idea about the intentions of extremist passengers, they still participated in an act of war simply by trying to break a blockade arranged by a sovereign nation that, whatever its lapses, was trying to protect its citizens.
For smart people, they are extraordinarily dumb.
Here’s the critical question: How could educated, compassionate people fail to sense something strange about their compatriots? How were they so incapable of figuring out the current facts of life in the Middle East before they even stepped foot on the Mavi Marmara or one of its sister ships?
These “peace activists” may be intelligent, idealistic people, but they have a stupid side. Either they could not comprehend the realities or they did not care. I can absolve the first group, but the latter group is despicable and probably anti-Semitic.
The motives of some activists merit consideration, and the Israeli government and military should not escape legitimate criticism when it emerges. Even if the military made mistakes when it intercepted the Mavi Marmara on Memorial Day, the passengers should never have pushed Israel into that position in the first place. As readers are aware, Israel said that its commandos were attacked by extremists and killed nine of them to defend themselves.
The peaceniks chose between Israel’s security and ostensibly aiding the Gazan people. Who made their choice knowingly and who genuinely misunderstood Israel’s situation?
Israel was stuck in a corner. Its leaders feared that these ships, supposed to be carrying humanitarian supplies, could be smuggling weapons and other materials that Hamas, the terrorist pack that dominates Gaza, might employ for future attacks on Israel. Hamas is pledged to Israel’s destruction and for years launched rockets into southern Israeli towns. In another act of war, Hamas persists in holding Israeli Sgt. Gilad Shalit hostage after nearly four years.
Some longtime critics of Israel were probably accustomed to assailing past misguided Israeli policies - especially, the 1982 Lebanon war and the construction and retention of settlements throughout Gaza and the West Bank. In the interim, Israel offered the Palestinian Arabs their own state in 2000; pulled out of Gaza in 2005; and mainly undertook military operations that were defensive in nature. Now Israel faces ongoing threats from terrorists in Iran, Gaza and Lebanon.
These developments have been front-page news for the last decade, so the peaceniks are hardpressed to explain how they could be so ignorant of this.
Quoting several analysts, The New York Times reported that the Free Gaza Movement, which sponsored the flotilla, is a varied coalition of groups and individuals, “often with little in common apart from opposition” to the blockade. Varied media reports said that peace activists included members of national legislatures, a writer, a physician, a retired diplomat and a retired registered nurse from Cape Cod.
Some activists sound like good people who genuinely wanted to help the needy. The nurse has helped victims of Haiti’s earthquake. Another passenger was an Irish politician whose father is a retired marine in Massachusetts who once organized opposition to the Vietnam war. Former American diplomat Edward Peck, who served in the Reagan administration, no doubt remembers the Lebanon war.
News reports suggest that the peaceniks did not trust the Israeli government to deliver the humanitarian supplies to Gaza. On top of that, I would speculate that they took into consideration that the Israeli government is controlled by a coalition of rightwing parties headed by Likud.
What they may need to understand is that Likud’s return to power directly resulted from the ongoing hostility Israel faced from the Palestinians despite its significant strides to peace. Israeli voters tend to play good cop/bad cop.
The peaceniks might not engage in violence, but they joined a flotilla filled with fanatics who would employ violence, and did. You would think the peace activists might notice signs of bizarre behavior and even spot devices that could be used as weapons.
Some years ago, when Israel announced the discovery of 90 tunnels in Rafah, the southern border town in Gaza, it occurred to me that members of the International Solidarity Movement like Rachel Corrie must have been aware of them. They probably observed weapons carried by Palestinian Arabs in the towns where they stayed. Corrie is the 23-year-old ISM member who was killed when she attempted to block an Israeli bulldozer.
Likewise, I suspect that the American and European passengers on the flotilla were aware of clues that something was amiss.
Even if the “peace activists” neither lifted a hand against the commandos nor had any idea about the intentions of extremist passengers, they still participated in an act of war simply by trying to break a blockade arranged by a sovereign nation that, whatever its lapses, was trying to protect its citizens.
For smart people, they are extraordinarily dumb.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Class and crass over Gilad Shalit
What a touch of crass. The Free Gaza Movement lacked the sense to even pretend that they recognize Jewish humanity when it smacks them in the face.
Before the violent Memorial Day clash with Israeli commandos, their Freedom Flotilla was supposedly packed with food, clothing and construction materials to the people of Gaza, but they had no room for a letter and package that Noam Shalit and his family wanted to send to his son, Gilad Shalit, held hostage by Hamas since June 25, 2006, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports.
In Washington, D.C., two congressmen - a Jew and a Christian, a Democrat and a Republican, a New “Yawker” and a “heartlander” - jointly introduced House Resolution 1359 urging the immediate release of Shalit, the Israel Defense Forces sergeant seized by Hamas terrorists in a cross-border raid, according to the JTA. They hope the measure passes before the fourth anniversary of Shalit’s kidnapping.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, whose district covers Jewish communities in Queens and Nassau County, chairs the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and represents portions of Queens and Nassau County. Rep. Dan Burton, of Indiana, co-sponsored the resolution in his capacity as senior Republican member of the subcommittee; about 10,000 Jews are estimated to live in or near Burton’s district.
The timing of 1359 affords supporters of Israel an ideal opportunity to reassess efforts to seek Shalit’s release. No sustained drive to press for his freedom has ever been evident in the United States, though loosely organized efforts crop up every so often. Strong street protests in Israel may even be counter-productive, writes Haifa University Professor Steven Plaut.
Their common cause reflects the elementary injustice of Shalit’s plight. What Hamas persists in doing to the sergeant is intolerable. It is a compelling issue that ranks in priority close to Iran’s nuclear threat and the arms build-up in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Shalit’s kidnapping is a blatant act of war that justifies use of force by Israel. How can anyone dispute this?
Our protests in both America and Israel must be persistent, coordinated and full-throated, but we cannot be optimistic that it will spur Shalit’s release. That would be the best result, but at minimum we need to call the world’s attention to Shalit’s struggle. When critics pressure Israel, we should remind them of Ackerman’s words when he announced his legislation: “This outrageous and deeply immoral conduct is absolutely contrary to both international law and the most basic standards of human conduct.”
It is refreshing that the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism - the umbrella organization for the Conservative movement - announced its launch of a drive to raise awareness of Shalit’s plight.
As JTA reports, participants can join a Yellow Balloon campaign to mark the fourth anniversary by e-mailing virtual yellow balloons that say “Bring Gilad Home” and draw attention to the campaign over Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. The campaign, run by USCJ’s youth and young adult services department, urges the display of real yellow balloons in front of synagogues, affiliated organizations and private residences during the week of June 21.
“We know that it is only if the world is reminded of his plight that he stands any chance of being freed,” says Richard Moline, USCJ’s youth and young adult services director, as quoted by JTA.
USCJ also calls upon people to lobby their elected officials and write his parents to express support.
In this vein, we can all write to our representatives in Congress asking them to sign onto Resolution 1359, especially those members of Congress perceived as harshly critical of Israel.
Interestingly, some members of Congress called on Israel to expand access of supplies to Gaza without mentioning Shalit’s situation. That group includes Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania.
This is also an opportune time for Jewish organizations to demand that leaders of the Free Gaza Movement explain why they refused to deliver the Shalit family’s letter to Gilad.
Congress passed at least one resolution on Shalit’s behalf a few years ago. If you are learning this only now, you are not alone. Coverage of Shalit’s situation has been sporadic in the mainstream daily newspapers, and reporting in American Jewish newspapers has not been much better.
The media share the blame with Jews and other supporters of Israel who exerted limited effort to make news about Shalit. They were too busy pursuing less substantial matters such as disparaging Jimmy Carter, objecting to a potential Israel-bashing conference, slating a demonstration against a mosque near Ground Zero and hunting down Mel Gibson with the zeal of Tommy Lee Jones in “The Fugitive.”
These other concerns are important and should be addressed, but we are talking proportions here. We need to focus on what is most significant, and I think a soldier’s kidnapping qualifies.
Israelis have been active holding demonstrations, but Haifa’s Steve Plaut reports in a commentary that they may be hurting Shalit’s cause. He writes, “These protests issue demands to and put pressure on the Israeli government rather than on Hamas. Hamas is indifferent to the desires and passions of the demonstrators. By demanding that ‘everything’ be done to obtain Shalit’s release, the only real effect of the protests is to raise the price it will take to obtain Shalit’s freedom. The protests also make such a release more remote and unlikely.
“The terrorists understand perfectly well that all this only serves to increase the pressure on the Israeli government to offer ever-greater capitulations,” he adds.
Many people are appalled that Israel would even consider Hamas’ demand that it release 1,000 or more Arab prisoners including - perhaps especially - mass murderers in exchange for Shalit. Israelis correctly fear that releasing prisoners will only encourage Hamas and other terrorist organizations to abduct more Israelis.
Maybe there are other ways for Israel to retrieve Shalit. One suggestion: Perhaps Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can refer to the attack on Gaza last year by telling Hamas, “If you return Sgt. Shalit, we will not finish the job.”
Hamas may never give up Shalit no matter what we do. Yet if Jews do not show that we care, why should the rest of the world care?
Before the violent Memorial Day clash with Israeli commandos, their Freedom Flotilla was supposedly packed with food, clothing and construction materials to the people of Gaza, but they had no room for a letter and package that Noam Shalit and his family wanted to send to his son, Gilad Shalit, held hostage by Hamas since June 25, 2006, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports.
In Washington, D.C., two congressmen - a Jew and a Christian, a Democrat and a Republican, a New “Yawker” and a “heartlander” - jointly introduced House Resolution 1359 urging the immediate release of Shalit, the Israel Defense Forces sergeant seized by Hamas terrorists in a cross-border raid, according to the JTA. They hope the measure passes before the fourth anniversary of Shalit’s kidnapping.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, whose district covers Jewish communities in Queens and Nassau County, chairs the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, and represents portions of Queens and Nassau County. Rep. Dan Burton, of Indiana, co-sponsored the resolution in his capacity as senior Republican member of the subcommittee; about 10,000 Jews are estimated to live in or near Burton’s district.
The timing of 1359 affords supporters of Israel an ideal opportunity to reassess efforts to seek Shalit’s release. No sustained drive to press for his freedom has ever been evident in the United States, though loosely organized efforts crop up every so often. Strong street protests in Israel may even be counter-productive, writes Haifa University Professor Steven Plaut.
Their common cause reflects the elementary injustice of Shalit’s plight. What Hamas persists in doing to the sergeant is intolerable. It is a compelling issue that ranks in priority close to Iran’s nuclear threat and the arms build-up in Gaza and southern Lebanon. Shalit’s kidnapping is a blatant act of war that justifies use of force by Israel. How can anyone dispute this?
Our protests in both America and Israel must be persistent, coordinated and full-throated, but we cannot be optimistic that it will spur Shalit’s release. That would be the best result, but at minimum we need to call the world’s attention to Shalit’s struggle. When critics pressure Israel, we should remind them of Ackerman’s words when he announced his legislation: “This outrageous and deeply immoral conduct is absolutely contrary to both international law and the most basic standards of human conduct.”
It is refreshing that the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism - the umbrella organization for the Conservative movement - announced its launch of a drive to raise awareness of Shalit’s plight.
As JTA reports, participants can join a Yellow Balloon campaign to mark the fourth anniversary by e-mailing virtual yellow balloons that say “Bring Gilad Home” and draw attention to the campaign over Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. The campaign, run by USCJ’s youth and young adult services department, urges the display of real yellow balloons in front of synagogues, affiliated organizations and private residences during the week of June 21.
“We know that it is only if the world is reminded of his plight that he stands any chance of being freed,” says Richard Moline, USCJ’s youth and young adult services director, as quoted by JTA.
USCJ also calls upon people to lobby their elected officials and write his parents to express support.
In this vein, we can all write to our representatives in Congress asking them to sign onto Resolution 1359, especially those members of Congress perceived as harshly critical of Israel.
Interestingly, some members of Congress called on Israel to expand access of supplies to Gaza without mentioning Shalit’s situation. That group includes Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania.
This is also an opportune time for Jewish organizations to demand that leaders of the Free Gaza Movement explain why they refused to deliver the Shalit family’s letter to Gilad.
Congress passed at least one resolution on Shalit’s behalf a few years ago. If you are learning this only now, you are not alone. Coverage of Shalit’s situation has been sporadic in the mainstream daily newspapers, and reporting in American Jewish newspapers has not been much better.
The media share the blame with Jews and other supporters of Israel who exerted limited effort to make news about Shalit. They were too busy pursuing less substantial matters such as disparaging Jimmy Carter, objecting to a potential Israel-bashing conference, slating a demonstration against a mosque near Ground Zero and hunting down Mel Gibson with the zeal of Tommy Lee Jones in “The Fugitive.”
These other concerns are important and should be addressed, but we are talking proportions here. We need to focus on what is most significant, and I think a soldier’s kidnapping qualifies.
Israelis have been active holding demonstrations, but Haifa’s Steve Plaut reports in a commentary that they may be hurting Shalit’s cause. He writes, “These protests issue demands to and put pressure on the Israeli government rather than on Hamas. Hamas is indifferent to the desires and passions of the demonstrators. By demanding that ‘everything’ be done to obtain Shalit’s release, the only real effect of the protests is to raise the price it will take to obtain Shalit’s freedom. The protests also make such a release more remote and unlikely.
“The terrorists understand perfectly well that all this only serves to increase the pressure on the Israeli government to offer ever-greater capitulations,” he adds.
Many people are appalled that Israel would even consider Hamas’ demand that it release 1,000 or more Arab prisoners including - perhaps especially - mass murderers in exchange for Shalit. Israelis correctly fear that releasing prisoners will only encourage Hamas and other terrorist organizations to abduct more Israelis.
Maybe there are other ways for Israel to retrieve Shalit. One suggestion: Perhaps Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can refer to the attack on Gaza last year by telling Hamas, “If you return Sgt. Shalit, we will not finish the job.”
Hamas may never give up Shalit no matter what we do. Yet if Jews do not show that we care, why should the rest of the world care?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Civil rights progress aids Jews
No wonder Rand Paul is horrified by the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Six months ago, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission posted a 10-page fact sheet on its Web site that should force any repugnant employer to cringe.
The fact sheet addresses concerns crucial to victims of workplace discrimination that have long been ignored by past administrations. The document impressed me since it appears to cover forms of possible anti-Semitic actions which affected me in the past. Some provisions specify protection for the disabled, older workers and speakers of a non-English language. The fact sheet is entitled “Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination - Questions and Answers.”
Paul, the latest Tea Party poster boy, upset people when he suggested that private businesses should not be subjected to government regulation over their civil rights practices, though he was not very clear beyond that. Maybe Paul’s Democratic opponent in the Kentucky Senate race will compel him to be more clear. I happened upon the fact sheet, dated last Nov. 21, while checking on the status of civil rights matters.
It is not unusual when a law created to right a wrong produces new complications. However, I know from personal experience that the Civil Rights Act is not sufficiently funded by Congress nor enforced by the EEOC and the network of state and local agencies charged with policing workplace discrimination. It was documented in news reports that the EEOC is understaffed and overwhelmed with complaints, and the state and local organizations have the same problem.
These agencies likewise have strange ways of interpreting the CRA. The Clinton administration apparently thought so when it introduced guidelines stating that religious harassment violates the CRA. Yet Clinton’s EEOC swiftly backed off this plan after Pat Robertson and the rest of the religious right launched a holy war to prevent the guidelines from going into effect.
Before President Clinton took office, an employer at a New Jersey company invited me to dinner along with a colleague when they both made remarks indicating that I should consider converting to Christianity. An investigator for New Jersey’s anti-bias agency informed me that my experience did not constitute a violation of the law.
The Obama administration’s new fact sheet lists the following as “discriminatory practices”: “Harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information or age.”
I can only speculate how this might have affected my complaint, but it gives me hope. This clause in combination with other new provisions might have strengthened a different complaint I filed in 2002 against a high-level manager, in a city agency no less, who posted a confusing poster on her bulletin board about Israel. Most Jewish employees along with union leaders interpreted the posting as blatant Israel-bashing.
The agency’s commissioner ordered the sign removed and the manager posted a similar sign two days later. The manager - let’s call her Vanessa, as in Redgrave - should have known that the first sign would infuriate her Jewish colleagues. If she was unaware, she had to know she was creating a “hostile environment” when she posted the second sign.
The EEOC determined that this was a “free speech” issue, and the investigator indicated that Vanessa might have been told by the commissioner in a memo not to repeat this action. She repeated this kind of action later and retaliated against me a few times. Retaliation was considered a discriminatory practice long before President Obama took office.
My take was that Vanessa deliberately produced a “hostile environment,” a term specifically employed in sexual harassment cases. Now “hostile environment” applies to all forms of discrimination covered by the CRA.
The revised provision reads: “Sexual harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The ‘hostile environment’ standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age and disability.)”
The fact sheet addresses employees who are ordered to speak English at work at all times. The document states: “A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.”
Paul can sigh with relief that the gay community is not covered in this fact sheet, but he and his allies know they cannot relax over that.
I do wonder why Paul would raise his concerns now. Perhaps he has always felt this way and brought it up as part of his introduction on the public stage. Or, business leaders have complained to him that Obama’s EEOC has intensified the pressure while investigating complaints.
If the EEOC has thrown offending employers off balance, that’s progress.
The fact sheet addresses concerns crucial to victims of workplace discrimination that have long been ignored by past administrations. The document impressed me since it appears to cover forms of possible anti-Semitic actions which affected me in the past. Some provisions specify protection for the disabled, older workers and speakers of a non-English language. The fact sheet is entitled “Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination - Questions and Answers.”
Paul, the latest Tea Party poster boy, upset people when he suggested that private businesses should not be subjected to government regulation over their civil rights practices, though he was not very clear beyond that. Maybe Paul’s Democratic opponent in the Kentucky Senate race will compel him to be more clear. I happened upon the fact sheet, dated last Nov. 21, while checking on the status of civil rights matters.
It is not unusual when a law created to right a wrong produces new complications. However, I know from personal experience that the Civil Rights Act is not sufficiently funded by Congress nor enforced by the EEOC and the network of state and local agencies charged with policing workplace discrimination. It was documented in news reports that the EEOC is understaffed and overwhelmed with complaints, and the state and local organizations have the same problem.
These agencies likewise have strange ways of interpreting the CRA. The Clinton administration apparently thought so when it introduced guidelines stating that religious harassment violates the CRA. Yet Clinton’s EEOC swiftly backed off this plan after Pat Robertson and the rest of the religious right launched a holy war to prevent the guidelines from going into effect.
Before President Clinton took office, an employer at a New Jersey company invited me to dinner along with a colleague when they both made remarks indicating that I should consider converting to Christianity. An investigator for New Jersey’s anti-bias agency informed me that my experience did not constitute a violation of the law.
The Obama administration’s new fact sheet lists the following as “discriminatory practices”: “Harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information or age.”
I can only speculate how this might have affected my complaint, but it gives me hope. This clause in combination with other new provisions might have strengthened a different complaint I filed in 2002 against a high-level manager, in a city agency no less, who posted a confusing poster on her bulletin board about Israel. Most Jewish employees along with union leaders interpreted the posting as blatant Israel-bashing.
The agency’s commissioner ordered the sign removed and the manager posted a similar sign two days later. The manager - let’s call her Vanessa, as in Redgrave - should have known that the first sign would infuriate her Jewish colleagues. If she was unaware, she had to know she was creating a “hostile environment” when she posted the second sign.
The EEOC determined that this was a “free speech” issue, and the investigator indicated that Vanessa might have been told by the commissioner in a memo not to repeat this action. She repeated this kind of action later and retaliated against me a few times. Retaliation was considered a discriminatory practice long before President Obama took office.
My take was that Vanessa deliberately produced a “hostile environment,” a term specifically employed in sexual harassment cases. Now “hostile environment” applies to all forms of discrimination covered by the CRA.
The revised provision reads: “Sexual harassment - This includes practices ranging from direct requests for sexual favors to workplace conditions that create a hostile environment for persons of either gender, including same sex harassment. (The ‘hostile environment’ standard also applies to harassment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, age and disability.)”
The fact sheet addresses employees who are ordered to speak English at work at all times. The document states: “A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.”
Paul can sigh with relief that the gay community is not covered in this fact sheet, but he and his allies know they cannot relax over that.
I do wonder why Paul would raise his concerns now. Perhaps he has always felt this way and brought it up as part of his introduction on the public stage. Or, business leaders have complained to him that Obama’s EEOC has intensified the pressure while investigating complaints.
If the EEOC has thrown offending employers off balance, that’s progress.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
'Advanced citizenship', at last
Americans bristled in 2000 when a collection of forces - the electoral college, a conniving governor and an intellectually dishonest Supreme Court - combined to expose many of the defects in our political system. Nothing happened.
We griped throughout the past year as a Senate minority repeatedly filibustered legislation that might benefit everyone. Again, nothing happened.
Same electoral college, same exploitation of the system, same Supreme Court and arrangement for choosing justices, same filibuster - among many chinks in the system that threatens to revert our political operation to tyranny.
Something happened in St. Petersburg, Fla., Trenton, N.J., and London that restores one’s faith and hope in how a democracy can be shaped. A fictitious president - Michael Douglas in “The American President” - declared that “America is advanced citizenship.” He is right.
Living with a democracy is like nurturing a child. One must take full advantage of its gifts to make it work. Voting is not sufficient. A citizen needs to become involved in the governing process in ways that fit one’s concerns - as examples, writing their representatives, submitting letters on issues to newspapers, attending demonstrations, campaigning for candidates.
In Florida, New Jersey and Britain, some citizens are acting to force democracy to better serve the public. Florida’s governor is running for the Senate as an independent, a move that can loosen the grip of the two major parties. In New Jersey, Democratic senators and many others are standing up to what they call the draconian policies of their new governor.
Britain’s new coalition government follows the Liberal Democratic Party’s demand for a preferential voting system, as has been proposed in the United States. The winning candidate in a three-way race can receive less than a majority of the total vote. In fact, the majority’s least preferred candidate can win.
In 2000, Al Gore and Ralph Nader won a combined majority of the electoral votes, but on their own they each fell short of George W. Bush’s percentage. Nader’s votes are believed to have eroded Gore’s voting total.
The Liberal Democrats are seeking a form of proportional representation based on a single transferable transferable vote. Voters under this system would rank candidates in order of preference, according to The New York Times. Votes for the lowest-ranking candidates are redistributed to the voter’s second choice.
That plan is targeted at increasing the number of parliamentary seats for a minority party, but it could result in allowing a voter’s second preference to win an election.
Across the pond, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is running for the senate as an independent after recognizing that he will likely lose the Republican primary to the more conservative Marco Rubio. After the party primaries are held, Crist is expected to run against Rubio and Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek.
What’s key is the concept of another independent senator, not necessarily this candidate; if Crist is the best candidate, let’s hope he can convince the voters of it. The addition of more independents in Congress and other offices will limit the power of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties have been positive forces in some ways, but more independents in office will inject more citizen participation into politics.
A successful independent presidential campaign is hard to envision because it is too mammoth to fund and organize. However, independent campaigns have already succeeded in two Senate and two gubernatorial elections.
Many New Jerseyans are livid about Gov. Christopher J. Christie’s policies which include sharp increases in transit fares, tax breaks for the wealthy, cuts in school programs and his refusal to reappoint liberal-leaning Justice John Wallace to the state Supreme Court.
Senate Democrats resent Christie’s attempt to conservatize the court and his sacking, in effect, of its only African-American justice. They responded by refusing to consider Christie’s nominee, white attorney Anne Patterson, to replace Wallace, the Associated Press reported.
There are conflicting arguments over Christie’s action, and he claims that the Senate is obligated to consider his nominee for appointment to the court. What really rankles is that Christie’s decision is a slap in the face to the black community, especially since Wallace must retire in two years when he reaches the mandatory age. If Democrats in the state legislature ignore the prescribed process, what can Christie do about it?
Maybe Christie can appeal to the court, but wouldn’t that court be the state Supreme Court?
New Jersey appears headed for a governing deadlock. Maybe Christie had not counted on his subjects to behave as if they live in a democracy.
We griped throughout the past year as a Senate minority repeatedly filibustered legislation that might benefit everyone. Again, nothing happened.
Same electoral college, same exploitation of the system, same Supreme Court and arrangement for choosing justices, same filibuster - among many chinks in the system that threatens to revert our political operation to tyranny.
Something happened in St. Petersburg, Fla., Trenton, N.J., and London that restores one’s faith and hope in how a democracy can be shaped. A fictitious president - Michael Douglas in “The American President” - declared that “America is advanced citizenship.” He is right.
Living with a democracy is like nurturing a child. One must take full advantage of its gifts to make it work. Voting is not sufficient. A citizen needs to become involved in the governing process in ways that fit one’s concerns - as examples, writing their representatives, submitting letters on issues to newspapers, attending demonstrations, campaigning for candidates.
In Florida, New Jersey and Britain, some citizens are acting to force democracy to better serve the public. Florida’s governor is running for the Senate as an independent, a move that can loosen the grip of the two major parties. In New Jersey, Democratic senators and many others are standing up to what they call the draconian policies of their new governor.
Britain’s new coalition government follows the Liberal Democratic Party’s demand for a preferential voting system, as has been proposed in the United States. The winning candidate in a three-way race can receive less than a majority of the total vote. In fact, the majority’s least preferred candidate can win.
In 2000, Al Gore and Ralph Nader won a combined majority of the electoral votes, but on their own they each fell short of George W. Bush’s percentage. Nader’s votes are believed to have eroded Gore’s voting total.
The Liberal Democrats are seeking a form of proportional representation based on a single transferable transferable vote. Voters under this system would rank candidates in order of preference, according to The New York Times. Votes for the lowest-ranking candidates are redistributed to the voter’s second choice.
That plan is targeted at increasing the number of parliamentary seats for a minority party, but it could result in allowing a voter’s second preference to win an election.
Across the pond, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist is running for the senate as an independent after recognizing that he will likely lose the Republican primary to the more conservative Marco Rubio. After the party primaries are held, Crist is expected to run against Rubio and Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek.
What’s key is the concept of another independent senator, not necessarily this candidate; if Crist is the best candidate, let’s hope he can convince the voters of it. The addition of more independents in Congress and other offices will limit the power of both the Democratic and Republican parties. Both parties have been positive forces in some ways, but more independents in office will inject more citizen participation into politics.
A successful independent presidential campaign is hard to envision because it is too mammoth to fund and organize. However, independent campaigns have already succeeded in two Senate and two gubernatorial elections.
Many New Jerseyans are livid about Gov. Christopher J. Christie’s policies which include sharp increases in transit fares, tax breaks for the wealthy, cuts in school programs and his refusal to reappoint liberal-leaning Justice John Wallace to the state Supreme Court.
Senate Democrats resent Christie’s attempt to conservatize the court and his sacking, in effect, of its only African-American justice. They responded by refusing to consider Christie’s nominee, white attorney Anne Patterson, to replace Wallace, the Associated Press reported.
There are conflicting arguments over Christie’s action, and he claims that the Senate is obligated to consider his nominee for appointment to the court. What really rankles is that Christie’s decision is a slap in the face to the black community, especially since Wallace must retire in two years when he reaches the mandatory age. If Democrats in the state legislature ignore the prescribed process, what can Christie do about it?
Maybe Christie can appeal to the court, but wouldn’t that court be the state Supreme Court?
New Jersey appears headed for a governing deadlock. Maybe Christie had not counted on his subjects to behave as if they live in a democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)