Cut and Walk?

"(Congresswoman Gwen) Moore repeated her claim that (her son) Omokunde had only been prosecuted because of her political prominence..."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jan. 20, page 10A

Before dawn on the day of the 2004 Election, tires were cut on about 40 vans that the Wisconsin Republican Party intended to use to ferry voters and pollwatchers to the polls in the morning. Sowande Omokunde, along with four other young men, were charged with felony (1) criminal damage to property in the case.
None of the defendants took the stand during the jury trial to deny under oath that they did it. When the jury reported it was deadlocked on Friday afternoon, January 20, Omokunde and three other defendants agreed to plead no-contest to a misdemeanor charge. The state promised to seek probation and restitution of $5,317, but no jail time. The fifth defendant declined the plea-bargain, and the jury quickly acquitted him.

It is natural for a mother to deny that her son could be guilty of any wrongdoing (just ask any teacher), but Rep. Moore went way beyond that in making the claim quoted above. Gwen, this is not about you! Maybe now that your son has pleaded no contest to the reduced charge, you understand that. Otherwise, consider the following:

The case was investigated and prosecuted by Assistant District Attorney David Feiss, and all charges had to be approved by DA E Michael McCann. If, as claimed above, Omokunde was charged only because of his mother's political position, both Feiss and McCann are guilty of misconduct in public office, a state felony, and depriving a citizen of rights "under color of law", a federal crime. Is this plausible?

No! It is more accurate to state that Omokunde and Michael Pratt (son of former Milwaukee Mayor Marvin Pratt) were charged despite their parents' political prominence, rather than because of it. To gague how preposterous Rep. Moore's statement is, take a quick look at alleged conspirators McCann and Feiss.

E Michael McCann, a lifelong Democrat, has been elected District Attorney every two-years since 1968, after he defeated Gerald P Boyle for the Democratic nomination for the office. He sought the Democratic nomination for Congress in 1984, but lost the primary. McCann and Moore shared places on the Democratic slate in 2004, when (ironically) she beat Gerald P Boyle, Jr., the Republican candidate for Congress in the Fourth District. McCann has recently declined to seek re-election, and has taken a teaching job at Marquette Law School. He would thus have no political motive to discredit Gwen Moore by prosecuting her son. (2)

Asst. DA David Feiss is a former president of the Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations, a strongly liberal (though non-partisan) group. Feiss has proved his support for electing black people to public office, as the following story shows.

In 1999, there were two openings in the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County: Branches 33 and 47. Fellow Asst DA Carl Ashley, an African-American, declared his candidacy for Branch 33, while (white) County Treasurer John Seifert and Atty. Anne Bowe sought the Branch 47 seat. To any observer it was obvious that the Branch 47 contest would be much tougher than that for Branch 33. Feiss knew that Seifert, a former Milwaukee Municipal Judge, would be harder to beat than Ashley, but chose the Branch 47 contest anyway because he did not want to oppose a black candidate. As it turned out, Feiss washed out in the primary, Seifert beat Bowe, and Ashley was elected unopposed. Would such a man prosecute Rep. Moore's son "because of her political prominence?" I don't think so!

Judge Michael Brennan is not bound by the plea-bargains, and I hope he jails each convicted defendant for about six months, still well under the nine-month maximum authorized by law. The crime was deliberate, pre-meditated, and adversely affected people seeking to exercise their political rights. This was far more serious than a mere prank, and restitution alone is insufficient punishment for it.

The defense Dream Team has earned congratulations for beating the felony charges. No doubt they will all attract numerous guilty clients who would prefer little or no penalty.

McCann and Feiss, already vilified by Gwen Moore for prosecuting these five men, will now be berated mercilessly by right-wing talk radio for offering the defendants a no-jail plea deal. (Otherwise, the jury may well have acquitted all of them.) A prosecutor's lot is often not a happy one, since he cannot please everyone involved. It is no wonder that McCann would rather teach law school and Feiss would rather be a judge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------(1) Under Wisconsin law, criminal damage to property is a felony if damages exceed $2,500, and a misdemeanor otherwise. If all the accused had acted together to cause the $5,317 damage, each would be guilty of a felony. Had each man acted independently in slashing a few tires, each would be guilty of only a misdemeanor. Prosecutors were blasted by relatives and friends of the accused men for choosing the more severe option.

(2) McCann was lambasted daily by rightwing talk-radio for about two months before he decided to issue charges in the case. If he had caved into this pressure for political reasons (as Rep. Moore and others claimed), and issued charges he did not believe could be proven, such an act would have been both cowardly and thoroughly reprehensible.

King Without Tears

Monday, January 16, was the federal holiday celebrating the birth of Rev. Martin Luther King (1929-1968). He is one of only three Americans so honored (1), and he is treated like a secular saint by the media, schools and most politicians. Though an avowed liberal and absolute pacificist, confrontational and controversial during his lifetime, his memory is honored by public figures of all ideologies today. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964.
Let us take a dry-eyed look at the man and his legacy.

Q1.: What was Rev. King's philosophy?
He believed that since people were basically similar, all forms of racial discrimination were morally wrong. He also considered all violence, including self-defense, wrong too. He was inspired by the examples of Jesus, Henry David Thoreau, and Mahatma Gandhi.

Q2: How did Rev. King try to attain his goals?
He used boycotts, mass demonstrations, and sit-ins to attract attention to what he considered injustices. These activities attracted big-time media attention, especially when violence was used against his followers. The news coverage would pressure politicians to take sides on the issue King was advocating.
Although he was opposed by state and local officials in the South, national figures (notably Presidents Kennedy and Johnson), under the influence of the national press and the black vote (2), would usually come around to King's side of the question eventually.
Rev. King understood that although most white Americans were raically prejudiced, most of them also were motivated by desires for fairness, justice, and benevolence. King's speeches invoked both Biblical calls for justice and citations from American documents such as the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. King won substantial white support for his initiatives by appealing to the better aspects of the American character.

Q3: What was Rev. King's relationship to Jews and Israel?
He was always supportive of Israel, and had many Jews among his major supporters, including Rabbi A. J. Heschel. King understood that the Jews were the only white ethnic group to support the Civil Rights Movement, and he was the last national black leader to value this relationship.

Q4: What were Rev. King's major accomplishments?
He fought for federal laws to prohibit racial discrimination in public accomodations, employment, education, voting, and housing. Under the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, two federal civil rights acts were passed during King's lifetime (3) and one shortly after his death.(4) These three laws banned all of the forms of discrimination King opposed.

Q5: How did King respond to the Vietnam War?
As a pacificst, he opposed all wars. However, since he valued the support of President Johnson for the bills listed above and the War on Poverty, King withheld criticism of the Vietnam War until early 1967. Once he broke with LBJ on Vietnam, he lost all influence with the Administration. He rejected calls from anti-war activitsts to run for President.

Q6: What was Rev. King's greatest failure?
In 1966 he led his followers to Chicago to struggle against slum-conditions and housing discrimination. Unlike the clueless sheriffs he confronted in the South, Mayor Richard J Daley welcomed King and endorsed all his goals. At the time, black politicians allied with Daley controlled two (of seven) congressional districts in the City, and had no need for King or his organization. After about a year of frustration, King moved on.
Today Chicago has a street named for Martin Luther King (5), and Daley's son runs the City.

Q7: Why was Rev. King assassinated?
Martin Luther King was shot to death on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee, on the evening of April 4, 1968. James Earl Ray, who had escaped from the Missouri State Prison, was convicted of the crime and died in prison in 2003. Ray was apparently told that a wealthy racist would pay $25,000 to whoever would kill the civil rights leader. He never collected anything.

Q8: Would America be wise to embrace Rev. King's philosophy of non-violence today?
It took one war to win American independence, another to eradicate slavery, and the most destructive war in human history to save the world from Nazism and fascism. No amount of eloquent oratory, demonstrations, or sit-ins could have achieved these victories.
In an ideal world, everyone would be a pacificist, and the scourge of war would be eliminated forever. But the real world in which we live is populated by millions of people more than willing to use all forms of violence, including terrorism, to subjugate others to their will and beliefs. The price of freedom is the willingness to fight for it when necessary.
On this point, Martin Luther King was wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Preidents Day celebrates the births of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in February.
(2) Although the black vote in the South was suppressed until 1965, it was an important factor in large northern states such as New York, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan. It was crucial in John Kennedy's close victory in 1960.
(3) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (accomodations, employment, and education) and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(4) The Civil Rights Act of 1968 banned discrimination in housing. It was passed in April, 1968, as a type of memorial to Rev. King
(5) Formerly known as South Parkway, it is about a mile east of South State Street.