The Glazerbeam

Hard Bargaining

2011-02-21T09:31:00.000-06:00

As this is written, Madison, Wisconsin, is convulsed in the biggest protests since the Dow riots of September, 1967. (1) The issue is Governor Scott Walker's proposal that public employee unions (except for police and firefighters) be denied the right to bargain over anything but wages. Although Walker has linked the issue to his demand that state workers pay more for their retirement and health insurance, it is the bargaining question that has brought angry mobs to the Capitol, including a minority who support the Governor. But is he right?

Wisconsin law permits collective bargaining by employees of state and local governments, and requires binding arbitration in cases of deadlock. In today's economy, public sector unions are the only ones that are still growing;   the percentage of unionized business employees peaked in 1956, and has been declining ever since. Some argue that public officials who won their offices with labor support face a conflict-of-interest in bargaining with the unions that helped elect them.

There can be no doubt that unionization of public employees has led to higher labor costs for state and local governments. But if you accept the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively (which has been enshrined in federal labor law since the 1930's), it is hard to justify excluding government employees.   Walker's plan, which would allow unlimited bargaining by police and firefighters (the two unions in Milwaukee that endorsed him, coincidentally) is especially unfair to other groups of public employees, such as teachers, librarians, lawyers and so on.

Even if public employees have better pay, benefits and job security than similar workers in the private sector, the arbitration rule (which settles disputes in accordance with prevailing wages) prevents drastic disparities.
Also, in those fields where governments and private entities compete for the best employees (such as doctors, nurses, accountants and such) the advantages of public employment will attract the most capable applicants to public service jobs, so market forces serve the public interest.

Labor support is a significant factor in many elections, including the one I am in right now. Public employee unions, like the Realtors, florists, bankers, undertakers, and military contractors are self-interest groups, all of whom seek favorable actions by government officials.   Right-wing critics single out the unions, but all these groups make campaign contributions to candidates (usually incumbents) who are sympathetic to their causes.   Conscientious public officials should not favor groups that have helped them get elected, but as long as contributions are properly reported and spent only for political purposes, there is no practical way to prevent them from affecting the judgment of elected officials. (2) Voters who don't like unions are free to vote against politicians who have accepted their support.

The political atmosphere inside the Capitol is just as ugly as that in the streets.   Democratic state senators are holed-up in Illinois to prevent a vote on Walker's bill, in a state version of the filibuster. There is talk of recalling senators for their stands on this issue. If we ever needed cooler heads to prevail, we need them now.
---------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The issue then was recruiting on the UW campus by Dow Chemical Co., which made the napalm used in the Vietnam War.

(2) It is illegal, however, for an official to promise to vote or take any other action in exchange for a contribution, which is known as "quid pro quo", Latin for "this for that." It is a hard claim to prove, and very few politicians are ever prosecuted for it.

Executive Action

2011-02-13T16:17:00.000-06:00

"Vemen tzu nemen, un nisht farshemen?"
(Whom to take, and not be ashamed?)
Balalaika, Yiddish folk song

Of course these lyrics refer to Milwaukee County voters who must select the next County Executive from five candidates ( Chris Abele, Lee Holloway, Jim Sullivan, Jeff Stone and Ieshuh Griffin) on this Tuesday, February 15. The top two candidates from this primary will run-off on April 5.

Sunday morning, February 13, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endorsed Abele for the job.   The editorial noted that "he has the real world experience of running a business" and that "Abele hasn't paid state income taxes." (1)   But if his business ventures were successful, would he not have a state income tax liability? And if they lost money, is that a good sign for how he would manage the County? If all the residents of Wisconsin, of whom the vast majority have far less than Abele (a multi-millionaire), could arrange their financial affairs so as to legally avoid paying the state income tax, the receipts from that tax would be zero.

Ironically, the same issue of the paper noted on page 2A, in the Rulings Roundup of the Politifact column, that   Abele's claim that "Property tax exemptions can be granted to small businesses that move into Wisconsin" was "False," because the state constitution requires uniform taxation of real estate.   Politifact has previously determined that Abele's claim that he saved the County $200 million was also "False."   It is indeed amazing that the Journal Sentinel would endorse someone whom the paper itself had found to have made two major false claims during a short campaign.

But Abele is clearly the choice of the City's downtown Establishment (Bud Selig, Sheldon Lubar, etc.); he always got invited to the right cocktail parties, joined the right charity boards, hob-nobbed with the right people and served on the Greater Milwaukee Committee.   The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, a longtime pillar of that Establishment, could not be expected to reject one of their own just because he paid no tax and lied   twice to win the election.

Chris Abele has spent about $800,000 on the primary, mostly his own money (that he never had to earn), so he will probably finish first on Tuesday.   Of the remaining candidates, Stone is the darling of the Republicans, Sullivan of the Democrats, Griffin of the angry black females and Holloway of the slumlords. Stone and Sullivan have both served honorably in the Wisconsin legislature, and Sullivan has also served in the military. Both are capable and have good records.    Holloway is the most experienced of all the contenders in County affairs, but has proved himself a terrible manager. If he cannot manage 15 properties without incurring 200 charges of building code violations, I would not trust him with the $1.5 billion budget of Milwaukee County.

Since Miss Griffin has neither political experience nor wealth, she cannot win. But her race has not been in vain: in her next campaign she can run as "NOT the County Executive."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feb. 13, 2011, page 3J.

Divide Milwaukee Public Schools?

2011-02-10T10:53:00.001-06:00

"WEAC's third proposed reform involves breaking up the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) district into smaller, more manageable components."
Wisconsin Education Association Council website, posted Feb. 9, 2011

WEAC, the state's major teachers' union, claims that "This bold action is designed to drive greater accountability....make the system easier to manage, give students more opportunities and choices....deepen the engagement of parents,....since it will be easier for them to navigate through a smaller district."   Although some of these points are certainly valid (a smaller entity is easier to manage than a larger one, and parents would have more input in a small district),   I conclude that the drawbacks of dividing up MPS far outweigh these advantages.   Here is why:

Cost: The WEAC position paper does not specify a number of new districts, but let us analyse the plan on the basis of four districts.   Each would need a superintendent, and of course every superintendent needs a secretary, maybe even one or more assistants or deputy superintendents. Various educational specialists would be needed, as well as elected school directors.   All of these people must be paid, and   decent office space would be needed for them. Even if not one more teacher is hired, the cost of running four districts would be larger than running one, which now costs $1.3 billion per year.

Transfers: Milwaukee families move around a lot within the city, and their children usually change schools when they move. Even within the current single MPS system, changing schools means adjusting to new teachers. But if a pupil's move means changing districts, these adjustments will be more difficult, as each district may vary in   curriculum, textbooks , and rules.

Teachers: New York City experimented with a similar plan by establishing three decentralized districts in early 1968, each with a local board empowered to hire and remove (1) teachers and principals. The mostly-black board in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville district of Brooklyn promptly removed 13 teachers and six administrators, all white, mostly Jewish, in May of that year.   The dismissed teachers appealed to the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), which struck NY public schools for a total of 36 days in the Fall of 1968, after which the aggrieved teachers were reinstated.   The entire city became embroiled in a bitter racial and religious feud, which persisted for years.(2)

Although I favor experimenting with new ideas in education, I also contend that we can learn from the bitter experience of New York City, and not repeated a failed experiment here.   The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, an affiliate of WEAC, is also against this proposal.

On this question, I say MTEA is right, and WEAC is wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Teachers "removed" from a district school by the local board were not fired, but were told to report to NYC Board of Education headquarters in Manhattan for re-assignment.   Even though they were paid while awaiting re-assignment, the forced removal still violated the UFT contract.

(2) Wikipedia.

Taking Carter to Court

2011-02-06T07:09:00.001-06:00

A class action suit on behalf of buyers of former President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine:Peace, Not Apartheid   (hereinafter "The Book") claims that Carter and his publisher, Simon and Schuster, deliberately defrauded the buyers by including numerous false statements in the book. (1)  The plaintiffs, who seek both compensatory and punitive damages, are represented by the Israel Law Center of Tel Aviv and Atty. David Schoen of Montgomery, Alabama.

Since I read The Book at the Chicago Public Library, and would not have paid a nickel for it, I am not eligible to join the class of cheated buyers.   I have not been able to get list of alleged lies in the book, but there may be plenty. Most of the controversial statements in the Book are opinions and conclusions by the author, who contends that Israel wants to "colonize" the West Bank and has not been negotiating in good faith. However, there may also be provable false claims in The Book as well.   But even so, can the plaintiffs win this case? Should they?

First. does the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees "freedom of the press" preclude this type of suit?   The publisher has the unquestioned right to print anything the firm sees fit to publish, and this suit does not infringe on that right. If The Book were given away free, as propaganda pamphlets often are, there would be no basis for the suit at all. But when a book is offered for sale, it becomes a product, like a TV or box of cereal, and is subject to consumer protection laws, such as New York General Business Law 349, which prohibits deceptive acts in marketing products. This may be the first time such a law has been invoked against a book or any other form of expression.

For example, when the publisher of a book about Howard Hughes by Clifford Irving learned that the book falsely claimed to be based on personal interviews with the subject, the book was withdrawn and all printed copies were trashed.   Had that book been sold, the publisher could have been sued for false advertising and forced to refund all proceeds of sale received. (Even in this outrageous case of false advertising, I doubt that punitive damages were warranted, let alone in the Carter case.)

But is Carter's book in the same category? Unless the plaintiffs' attorneys can convince a jury that Carter and the publisher set out to deceive the buyers, a very steep hill to climb, I do not believe that any damages will be awarded.   First, the buyers could have easily learned that Jimmy Carter was not an objective scholar on Middle East matters, but an advocate of the Palestinian cause for decades. Any book by him on this question would likely be strongly biased in favor of the Arab side. Moreover, the   incendiary   word "apartheid" in the title, which recalls the "Zionism is Racism" UN resolution of 1975, was a clear signal that the book would castigate Israel.   I say that the buyers were not cheated; they got exactly what they paid for.

A verdict in favor of the plaintiffs would have a "chilling effect" on the freedom of the press in this country.   Major corporate publishers would hesitate to publish any controversial non-fiction for fear of a lawsuit.   Courts would be placed in the untenable position of determining the truth of   controversial claims about all kinds of issues such as evolution, global warming, abortion and so on.   Accordingly, I contend that even if the plaintiffs win in the US District Court, the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

I was in the position of the plaintiffs myself recently, but reacted differently. I paid $ .25 for a copy of Betrayal by Robert Morrow at the Menomonee Falls Library used book sale last year. The cover claimed the book presented new facts about the JFK assassination, but when I read it, I concluded the book was mainly fiction. So did I return Betrayal to the Falls Library and demand my quarter back, or threaten to sue for fraud? No way! I brought the book to the January 31 book swap at Marquette University and eschanged it for a collection of old columns by Chicago journalist Mike Royko.   "Let freedom reign!"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Unterberg et al vs Jimmy Carter et al., (11 ev 0720), filed in the Southern District of New York.

Democracy for Muslims?

2011-02-02T15:22:00.000-06:00

Just a year and a half ago mobs were raging through Tehran demanding the ouster of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had claimed re-election after a dubious vote-count. Today mobs are fighting in Cairo over whether President Hosni Mubarak should resign. Mobs in Tunisia have already ousted the dictator there, and unrest threatens other Arab countries.

The American response to all these upheavals has been consistent: allow peaceful demonstrations, avoid violence, exercise restraint and move toward real democracy.   Until President George W Bush started urging democracy on Arab countries, the American policy was simply to deal with whoever held power and not meddle in internal affairs.

But we face a clash between American interests and American values. Except for Iran, the regimes threatened by the massive protests have been friendly to the United States.   Egypt, which had been aligned with the Soviet Union from about 1955 through 1973, switched to the American side after US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger brokered a separation of forces deal with Israel after the Yom Kippur War that saved an Egyptian army division. As the first Arab state to sign a peace treaty with Israel, Egypt has been a valuable ally in keeping the Middle East from exploding for nearly forty years.

But Egypt was never a democracy. The Free Officers Association, which overthrew King Farouk, established military rule, first under Gamal Abdel Nasser, then under Anwar Sadat and now under Hosni Mubarak.   Nasser suppressed the Muslim Brotherhood and executed its founder, but the group survives to this day and has inspired Hamas and Al Qaida.   Polls and results of legislative elections indicate that radical Islam has mass support in Egypt, and if the military would surrender power, the Muslim Brotherhood and perhaps other Islamist forces would be major players in national politics. This could mean the end of the peace treaty with Israel, more arms for Hamas, perhaps even war.

So we Americans are on the horns of a cruel dilemma: our values favor democracy for Egypt and all other countries, but our interests favor backing the authoritarian regimes friendly to us and not too hostile to Israel.   The Shah of Iran said that under similar circumstances "The Americans threw me out like a dead mouse." (1)

We Americans must first recognize that we cannot impose a government on any country against the will of its people. Under President Bush we were able to depose Sadam Hussein and conduct elections, but the winners were not the Iraqis that the Bush Administration had supported. Similarly, we deposed the Taliban in Afghanistan, but are still fighting them today, almost ten years later.   We can provide arms and military intelligence to friendly governments, but   the Islamic Revolution in Iran showed that these may not be enough to keep power.

But we are also not obligated to throw Mubarak (or anyone else) out "like a dead mouse."   If that is how we treat our friends, we will not have many friends, nor will we deserve many. The US did not "lose" China, Cuba or Iran and we are not responsible for "losing Egypt" now; these countries never were ours to lose. The more we try to influence events, the more we are blamed for how things turn out----which is often badly. Just look at Gaza, where American-inspired fair elections resulted in a Hamas victory, later implemented by force.

So we must tread a fine line between advocating human rights for all and unwelcome meddling.   Stability that rests on raw power is inherently unstable, while stability that rests on democracy (such as in Israel, Europe and most of Latin America) is durable.  Of course we should advocate democracy, but recognize that it must arise from the will of the people, and their will is often very different from our own.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)   My Turn to Speak by Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr, MacMillan, 1991.

Identity Crisis

2011-01-31T15:15:00.000-06:00

Republican legislators are poised to pass a bill that would require all Wisconsin voters to display a photo-identification card every time they vote.   The original bill specified that only a valid driver's license, state ID or military ID would suffice, but proposed amendments would add student ID's and passports.   Free state ID cards would be provided to anyone who needed one to vote.

The ostensible purpose of the law is to prevent people from voting under a phony name. But is this going on now?

Suppose that someone I will call Harvey Schmidt wanted to vote as me in the November, 2010, election, when no ID was required. He could have simply gone to the Sherman School polling place and identified himself as Gerald S Glazer of 2944 North 50th Street.

But what if the real Gerald Glazer had already voted? (I usually vote around 8 AM) The ruse would be exposed, and Schmidt would have been arrested.   But what if he came so early in the day (say, at 7:30 AM) that the real Gerald Glazer had not yet voted?    All he would have to do was to convince Chief Election Inspector Cissy Glazer that he was her real husband.

Of course most voters are not married to or otherwise related to a poll-worker, but there is still a good chance that someone at the polling place would know the voter whose name the impostor was using.   So the risk of arrest is substantial, especially in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. Someone might even recognize the impostor!

On the other hand, the benefit to the faker is not very great. While a crook might garner thousands of dollars by cashing a stolen check, and a terrorist may believe he will earn 70 virgins in Paradise by destroying a plane full of infidels, the most Harvey Schmidt could take by posing as someone else at the polls is one vote for some candidate for elective office. Big deal!   Would you risk a felony conviction record and maybe a year in prison just to cast one illegitimate vote?  Would your favorite politician risk jail for you? Why would anyone try to vote with a fake name, when most people don't even bother to vote at all?

Although identity theft is a major problem in our society, I do not believe it is a significant factor in vote fraud.   The use of absentee ballots, which can be sold or used in the presence of someone offering a bribe, is a much bigger threat to the honesty of elections, but no one seems to worry about that.

The truth is that even if state ID's are free, many voters who lack a driver's license will not bother to go to the Courthouse to get one. Poor people are less likely to have a driver's license, although some do drive anyway. Even now, poor people vote at a lower rate than middle-class people, and the photo ID requirement will reduce their participation even more.   And that is the real reason that Republicans are keen on requiring a photo ID.

Holloway Channels Pratt

2011-01-26T12:07:00.000-06:00

In some respects, the race for Milwaukee County Executive seems like a replay of another election. Mayor John Norquist resigned in January, 2004, and was succeeded (on an interim basis) by the black leader of the Common Council, Marvin Pratt, who then sought the office in the spring election.

County Executive Scott Walker resigned in January of this year, and was succeeded (on an interim basis) by Lee Holloway, the black leader of the County Board, who is now seeking the office in a special election.

But there is a twist: under state law, the Chairman of the County Board appoints a new Executive to serve until the election. He can appoint himself; but if he does, he must relinquish his seat on the County Board. Holloway, in a master political move, has appointed former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt to this position.   This choice should virtually guarantee that Holloway will be a finalist for the job on April 5.   Let's look at a little history:

As alderman, Marvin Pratt was never a racially polarizing figure, like his colleague   Ald. Michael McGee (senior or junior, take your pick.) He was known as a conciliator, which is how he became President of the Common Council. But as a candidate for Mayor, he used the ambiguous slogan "It's Time" , which presumably meant "It's time that Milwaukee had a black mayor."   With massive black support, Pratt finished first in the 10-person primary, with 38% percent of the vote. Former US Rep. Tom Barrett came in second, with 32.6%. (1)

Although neither candidate "played the race card" in the hotly-contested general election campaign, a geographical analysis of the vote shows that the contest was highly polarized along racial lines. For example, in the overwhelmingly black Sixth District, Pratt garnered 89% of the vote, while in the white Eleventh District, Barrett took nearly 88.5%.   Barrett won that contest with 86,493 votes (53.5%) over Pratt, who received 74,361 votes (46%). (The other 0.5% of the vote went to write-ins.)

By appointing Pratt as interim Executive, Holloway is capitalizing on Pratt's popularity with the African-American population of the City, no doubt expecting that it will rub off on him in the crucial February 15th primary. Although there is another black on the ballot in that election by the name of Ieusha Griffin (2), the Pratt connection should be enough to solidify the black vote behind him.

About 60% of the population of Milwaukee County lives in the City of Milwaukee, and about 40% of City residents are black, so African-Americans constitute nearly 25% of the population of Milwaukee County.   If they turn-out on Feb. 15 in the same proportion as whites (about 35% in my estimation), and they are solid for Holloway, he could sail through the    5-candidate primary on the strength of their support. My guess is that Chris Abele will take the other spot on the general election ballot with humongous spending on TV ads, which no one else can afford to match.

But unless Holloway can generate major support from the County's   Caucasian voters, he will face a very difficult uphill battle on April 5.   And for that, his alignment with Marvin Pratt will not help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Election Commission Report: 2004-2005.

(2) After losing her court battle to be identified on the ballot for State Representative as "Not the White Man's Bitch", she   received only 7% of the vote in November, 2010.

Five for Exec

2011-01-21T15:47:00.000-06:00

    Five names will be on the February 15th primary ballot for Executive of Milwaukee County. All of them participated in a candidate forum at Marquette University Law School Friday, January 21. Questions were posed by four journalists, and an audience of about a hundred other people were present.   Here are my impressions of the candidates:

Lee Holloway arrived early, and spent about 15 minutes shaking hands with everyone in the room. He lost the primary for Mayor in 1988, but has won every   county supervisor election he entered since, including an unsuccessful attempt to recall him. He is the epitome of a black, urban politician.
Holloway answered most questions by referring to his 18 years on the County Board and his one month as Acting County Executive. Although he was very knowledgeable about all the issues, he does not speak well; he drops final "g's" from words ending in "ing" and frequently makes grammatical errors, such as "what you and them have in common."   Holloway blamed his well-known problems with his apartment buildings on the bad economy, which resulted in his tenants' inability to pay rent. He said he is curing all his building code violations.

Chris Abele, a thin young man with glasses, long hair, a moustache and goatee looks like a "computer nerd."   Although very well-informed about county affairs, he lacks the commanding presence one would expect in an executive. He noted that he doesn't need the job, and will not accept PAC money, if any is offered. Abele emphasized his independence from political parties, and stressed the need for co-operation between government entities and politicians of different parties.

Jim Sullivan, tall, muscular and crew-cut, looks about 19 years old, but is really in his early thirties. Unlike Abele, he is a partisan Democrat, and lobbed a number of verbal grenades at Scott Walker for "8 years of decay and neglect." Although he is supported by former Exec Tom Ament, he declared that the County was already "moribund" when Walker took over.
Sullivan favors a small county sales tax dedicated to transit cost.   As if to emphasize his youthful appearance, he spoke often about his late father's service in the Coast Guard. He declined to answer a hypothetical question about whether he would be in this race if he had been re-elected to the State Senate.

Jeff Stone, a Republican state representative from Greenfield, is also tall, but looks about 40 years old. Stone stressed his background in business, as well as in the Greenfield city council and state legislature. Stone promised not to raise taxes. At all. Period. He spoke well, but is not an exciting speaker.

Ieusha Griffin, a young black paralegal who won fame last year for trying to run for the Assembly on the slogan "Not the White Man's Bitch", explained that she did not mean the slogan racially, but only as metaphor for the power structure. ( She is not using the slogan in this campaign.)   Although she spoke well and showed good command of financial matters, she could not cite any experience that would prepare her to administer the $1.5 billion county budget.

I predict that Holloway will survive the February 15 primary, mainly on the strength of the black vote.   If Abele really spends a million dollars of his own money on the primary, he will probably get through it, too.   Sullivan and Stone both have an electoral base (Wauwatosa and Greenfield, respectively) and a party base (Democratic and Republican, respectively), but I doubt that either one can match Abele in crucial TV advertising. Griffin cannot possibly survive the primary, but if she gets more than about 10% of the vote, she just might be able to sink Holloway into third place.

But even if Holloway comes in first in the primary, I contend that he has too much "baggage"   (which the Journal Sentinel will keep on Page One) to win over any of the possible rivals on April 5.

From Hate Speech to Hate Crime

2011-01-16T11:11:00.000-06:00

      Ever since the tragic shootings in Tucson last week, people have been discussing the possible link between hateful political messages (nowadays disseminated primarily on the Internet) and physical attacks on public officials.   Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin denounced such connections as a "blood libel," an unfortunate choice of words. But is she right?

     Since the end of World War II, the United States has endured the murder of one President (John Kennedy), the shooting of another (Ronald Reagan), the attempted assassinations of Presidents Truman and Ford, and the shootings of two presidential candidates (Robert Kennedy and George Wallace).    Major public figures who never sought elective office (such as Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and John Lennon) were also shot to death during this period, and several members of the House of Representatives were wounded by gunfire right in the House chamber in 1954.

      Of course, there have also been assassinations of national leaders in other countries such as Egypt, Israel, Sweden, South Africa and India during this time, but of these, only India has lost more top leaders than the US (1).    Why is the United States especially vulnerable to political assassinations, and are they driven by extremist political rhetoric?

      The fact that guns more readily available in this country than in most others cannot be ignored as a factor. All the attacks mentioned above, in addition to the killings of three previous presidents (2), an attack on President-Elect Franklin Roosevelt (3)  and the wounding of a former president running for another term in the office (4) before World War II were all committed with guns. (Significantly,  some of the foreign assassinations did not involve guns.   Prime Minister Verwoerd of South Africa was killed with a knife and Prime Minister Ragiv Gandhi of India with a bomb.) The Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees access to guns, and political violence is one price that we pay for it.   As Nevada Republican senatorial nominee Sharron Angle put it last year, some people she knows are looking at "Second Amendment" solutions to political problems not solved to their satisfaction by elections.

      Hate-filled political rhetoric is not new in this country; the history books are full of it.   Actually major American newspapers today are more moderate in tone than some that were published in the 1800's, which carried vicious cartoons and attacks on Abraham Lincoln and subsequent presidents.   But not everyone gets quoted in the newspapers; if you are not a prominent current or former official, the best you can hope for is a letter to the editor, which will be purged of incendiary language.

     The difference today is the Web: anyone can write on it, and anything can be published (like the Glazerbeam!) The blogs and tweets and other electronic messages are subject to no quality or even sanity control, so the most irresponsible and outrageous stuff goes out and gets read.

           But do hateful messages on the Web inspire actual violence?   Although there is no known connection between the shootings in Tucson and any political rhetoric anywhere, the general answer is that it can. Although American assassins are usually characterized as "deranged loners", even deranged loners are often affected by what they hear and read.   A message that a certain politician is a traitor, a baby-killer or whatever evil monster may focus the rage of a psychopath on a particular target For example, there is no question that Timothy McVeigh in the US and Yigal Amir (who shot Yitzchak Rabin) in Israel were influenced by the vitriolic rhetoric of others.

           Today's Internet facilitates contact between like-minded people, so that no matter how absurd their conspiracy theories may be, they are comforted by the knowledge that they are not alone. A person is more likely to commit a violent act if he (or she) believes that many others will approve the crime.

           Those who spew vile verbiage about public figures on TV, radio or the Web are not legally liable if some nut with a gun acts on it. But they should be considered morally accountable if   their words lead to criminal deeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Although Mahatma Gandhi never sought or held public office, he had hundreds of millions of followers in India at the time of his murder in 1947. Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and her son Ragiv were also assassinated.

(2) Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William McKinley.

(3) A bullet fired at Franklin Roosevelt in Miami in early 1933 instead killed Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, who was seated next to him in an open car.

(4) Theodore Roosevelt, who was shot in Milwaukee during the 1912 presidential campaign, died in 1919.

Let Them Be Schools Again

2010-12-31T14:28:00.000-06:00

"27 school buildings are vacant, and district restrictions prevent sale to possible competitors."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 31, 2010, front page

Many, if not all, of these vacant structures could be sold to private schools were it not for a deed restriction imposed by Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) that bars use of these buildings for non-MPS schools.   The estimated market value of these properties is about $34.7 million. It costs MPS about a million dollars per year just to maintain them.

The only apparent reason for the restriction is to prevent the former schools from becoming sites for the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, which is partially funded by a deduction in state aid to MPS based on enrollment in Choice schools.

If the buildings were located in "hot" development areas of the city, such as Water Street or the Third Ward (southeast of downtown), the   deed restriction might be defensible. But about half are between Capitol Drive and I-94 and between the Milwaukee River and Sherman Blvd.   None are east of the River. Developers are not avid about turning any of them into lofts or condos.

Most of the buildings are old, several more than a century, and are typically two or three stories high. The schools were closed as MPS enrollment dropped from an all-time high of about 120,000 in the late 1960's to about 85,000 today. The decline has been due to both a decline in city population (from just over 700,000 in 1960 to about 600,000 now) and about 20,000 students opting for the state-funded voucher program. Even in the unlikely event that MPS enrollment bounced back up, many (if not all) of the vacant buildings would be unsuitable for use by MPS due to their present condition and obsolete designs.   If more space is needed in the future, it would make more sense to build new schools using the latest  green technology and electronic connections, rather than try to rehab these vacant buildings.

Even so, apparently some private and charter schools want to buy the vacant former schools. For example, Milwaukee College Prep, a charter school, tried to buy the old 38th Street School (2623 N 38th St.) Given the paucity of  buildings in the city suitable for school use, many private schools are now housed in  structures built for other uses, such as stores and churches. For these, a rehabbed closed school building would be an improvement.

It is time for the Milwaukee Board of School Directors to drop the deed restriction that makes it virtually impossible to sell the vacant schools.    Incumbents that prefer to "squat" on these old structures just to prevent other schools from using them should face the wrath of the voters on April 5.

Tulsa, not Tehran

2010-11-12T11:02:00.003-06:00

"(Proposition 755) forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia law."
Oklahoma Referendum, passed November 2, 2010

The constitutionality of this amendment to the Constitution of Oklahoma is being contested by Muncer Awad, a Muslim resident of the state. US District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order that prevents the amendment from taking effect until after a hearing in her court on November 22.

1. What would be the effect of this amendment, if upheld?
Decisions of foreign courts are never binding on American courts. However, sometime American judges will cite foreign decisions or foreign laws to shed light upon some contested question. Since American common law stems from Britain, British laws and decisions are cited more often than any other. (1) Since "international law" generally applies to the acts of nations, rather than individuals or corporations, it would be very rare for a state court to apply international law, even without Proposition 775. Thus, the first sentence of the Proposition would have virtually no effect on jurisprudence in Oklahoma.
It is possible that a dispute between two or more Muslims in Oklahoma could be settled by binding arbitration, with agreement by all parties that the arbitrator decide according to Sharia (Islamic) law. If so, an Oklahoma judge may have to enforce a ruling by such an arbitrator. The amendment would not bar this from happening, since the judge would not be considering the ruling in the light of Sharia, but merely enforcing an agreement for binding arbitration. The same would be true of a dispute between Jews in the state being arbitrated by a "Beth Din."
The amendment would foreclose the possibility of Oklahoma adopting legislation that would criminalize the sale of food forbidden by Muslim law that was advertised as compliant under such law (bilal), since a judge would have to consider Sharia in deciding whether a particular piece of meat was "kosher for Muslims" or not (2). Since Muslims comprise less than one percent of the population of Oklahoma, laws of this type are not likely to pass anyway.

2.Does Proposition 755 violate the US Bill of Rights?
Plaintiff Awad claims that it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but I say he is wrong. Actually, the amendment forbids the establishment of Islam in Oklahoma, which is forbidden by the First Amendment to the US Constitution anyway. Prop 755 does nothing to bar the "free exercise" of religious rights by Muslims (or anyone else).
However, it just might run afoul of the "Equal Protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since it specifically bars courts from considering Sharia, while (by implication) permitting courts to consider Biblical, Talmudic or other religious-based canons of law. The authors of the amendment could have easily avoided the Equal Protection problem by barring courts from "considering or using any foreign or religious law." But they chose to single-out Sharia.

3. Then why amend the Constitution of Oklahoma in this way?
My guess is that the authors of Proposition 755 did not care if state courts applied principles of Christian or Jewish law, but wanted to show their special hostility to Islam. As noted in our posting titled "Vilifying Islam", there is a lot not to like about Islam. Apparently the 70% of Oklahoma voters who approved 755 November 2 agreed. This can be fairly termed "Islam-bashing."

Although I would not want to live under Sharia myself, I consider the prospect of American courts imposing it on us so remote as to be absurd. How would we feel if the Wisconsin legislature passed an amendment to forbid our state courts from "considering or using the Talmud" in rendering decisions? Would we be relieved that our judges were not going to base their rulings on Nzikin(3), or would we consider singling-out of the Talmud to be anti-Semitic? Ask ADL!(4)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A decision on capital punishment of minors referred to the practices of foreign courts that considered the execution of minors a violation of human rights.

(2) The State of New York prohibits sale of treif as kosher.

(3) The book of the Talmud that deals with damages.

(4) Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith, a national organization devoted to exposing and fighting anti-Semitism.

Palestine Pales

2010-11-09T08:58:00.005-06:00

"The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
Abba Eban

"We hold him (Netanyahu) fully responsible for the collapse of these negotiations."
Saeb Erekat of the Palestine Authority (PA), Nov. 8, 2010 (1)

The prospects for setting up a Palestinian state were never better than in the early months of 2009. The new American President Barack Hussein Obama, the first such ever raised as a Muslim (2), had been elected with 53% of the popular vote and had both houses of Congress controlled by his party. He went to Cairo and promised the creation of a state of Palestine, and was determined to put "some daylight" between the US and Israel to achieve it. Obama even obtained a ten-month freeze on settlement construction from the Netanyahu government to create the atmosphere for successful negotiations.

President Abbas of the PA should have exclaimed, " Yes! Let's begin serious talks at once and keep negotiating till we get our state!" Instead , his attitude seemed to be "Hang tough and we will get everything we want!"

At first he was not ready for any talks with the Israelis, then only agreed to "proximity" (indirect) talks with them, then finally met face-to-face . When the ten month freeze expired, he asked for its extension. Now that construction is resuming, the PA is threatening to walk away from the talks altogether. (1) Like a winning football team that "eats up the clock" in the final minutes of the game, the Palestinians have dithered and stalled for the first two years of the Obama presidency. But all they have to show for it is a well-chewed clock.

Meanwhile, changes in the American political dynamic have undermined President Obama's ability to pressure Israel into making the kind of concessions necessary to garner Arab agreement (if that were possible at all):

1. The 2010 Congressional elections
The Democrats lost the House, and have about a 6-vote majority in the Senate. According to AIPAC, the present Congress is pro-Israel, and the next one will be even more so. But more important is the fact that a Democratic-led House would never repudiate the efforts of a Democratic president, but a Republican-led one just might! Obama will have to be very friendly to Israel in 2011 and 2012 to avoid such a humiliation.

2. It's almost 2012.
So far the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination is Obama's for the asking. But if he does something outrageous enough, such as souring our relationship with Israel, an ambitious Democrat could challenge him for the nomination. The first primaries and caucuses are just over a year away, and candidates will be gearing-up their campaigns by mid-2011. Although a challenging an incumbent president for the nomination of his party is usually unsuccessful, a serious challenge could split the party so deeply that the nominee loses the general election. (3)
All the serious potential Republican candidates (Gingrich, Palin, Romney, etc.) are pro-Israel. So even if Obama is the unanimous choice for the Democratic nomination, anything he does that can be characterized as even remotely anti-Israel can and will be used against him by the Republicans in the 2012 campaign.
However, if Barack Obama declines to seek re-election, he can mess with Israel all he wants during his remaining months in office, and Congress may not be able to stop him. But since he will then be a "lame duck", no one will listen much.

So the Palestinians blew their big chance. But in early 2013 the President will revive the "peace-process" and the game will be on again.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, quoted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, page 4A.

(2) His Indonesian stepfather Loto Soetero was a Muslim, and presumably raised Barack as one. He converted to Christianity in Chicago around 1992.

(3) In 1952 and 1968 the incumbent Democratic president lost the New Hampshire primary and withdrew from the race. Both times the Republicans took the presidency.
In 1884 the Republican Party denied the incumbent (Chester Alan Arthur) the nomination, and the Democrats took the presidency for the first time since 1856.

Reflections on Elections

2010-11-03T08:58:00.006-05:00

So the 2010 election is now history, but what have we learned from it?(1)

1. The "Bitch" loses big
In the 10th Assembly District (north side of Milwaukee) Iesha Griffin, who failed to have the words "Not the White Man's Bitch" printed under her name on the ballot, received only 973 votes versus 11,137 for Democratic nominee Elizabeth Coggs. Had the federal court ordered the state to include the phrase (as I incorrectly predicted), I doubt that the outcome would have been different. I would prefer a state representative who is not a bitch at all, but then I don't live in the 10th district.
The lesson: If you run as an independent, don't even think of including "bitch" in your five-word statement of principles. I won't.

2. Straight Vote Folly
About a million Wisconsin voters wanted David King to replace incumbent Douglas LaFollette as Secretary of State, and they almost got their wish. King , a north side Milwaukee preacher, went bankrupt in 2003 and subsequently failed to pay a $10,000 judgment for utility bills at his church. He is also facing a suit by a woman who claims the GOP nominee got her drunk and impregnated her. And those are just his good points.
Wisconsin allows voters to cast a single "straight-vote" for all nominees of a particular party, and I contend that David King was a big beneficiary of the huge Republican straight vote Nov. 2. If this option were eliminated, voters could still vote for every candidate nominated by their party, but they would have to think about each vote. And what could be better than that?

3. Endorsements Were Useless
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the only newspaper of statewide circulation, endorsed Scott Walker for Governor and Russ Feingold for senator. But Walker got about the same number of votes (just over a million) as fellow Republican Ron Johnson, who was running against the paper's endorsed candidate. Had the endorsements swayed any signficant number of voters, Walker would have out-polled Johnson.
Verdict: The endorsements meant nothing.

4. New County Executive
When Scott Walker resigns his present post to become Governor, Lee Holloway will be his interim successor, until a new County Executive is selected April 5. I predict that County Clerk Joe Czarnezki will win that election. Remember that this is where you saw it first.

5. 2012
Senator-Elect Rand Paul of Kentucky will be a serious contender for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, with support of the Tea Party. He combines the Paul family libertarian brand with youth and a statewide base.

------------------------------------------------------------

(1) All election results from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Nov. 3, 2010

Lethal Injection Could Be Dangerous

2010-10-28T12:49:00.006-05:00

"There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the drug obtained from a foreign source is unsafe....."
Decision by US Supreme Court regarding a lethal-injection drug (1)

The 5-4 decision quoted in part above reversed the orders by a federal judge in Phoenix, Arizona, and the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that temporarily halted the execution by lethal injection of Jeffrey Landrigan, who had been convicted of murder in 1989.

The issue was the drug sodium thiopental, a poison no longer manufactured in the United States. Arizona prison officials had obtained the drug from a British manufacturer. Lawyers for Landrigan sought to halt the execution on the grounds that the foreign drug was "unsafe" for its intended use. The US District Court in Phoenix agreed, as did the 9th Circuit.

Since I am not a lawyer, I cannot fathom how a drug made to kill people could be "unsafe for its intended use." Since the lawyers for the condemned man had no evidence that the drug would not work as intended, the majority (2) of the Supreme Court let Arizona go ahead and use it . Guess what? It worked perfectly! ( Even so, Landrigan lived 21 years after being sentenced to death, over two decades more than his victim had.)

Wisconsin abolished the death penalty in 1853, and I do not advocate re-instating it. If I could be shown that the death penalty saves the lives of innocent people by deterring murder, I would be for it. But the evidence from other states indicates that it has no appreciable effect. It does not even draw serial killers to Wisconsin; Ted Bundy killed 12 women in Texas and Florida, the states with the highest execution rates in the country, and he died for it. (Had he done so only in Wisconsin, he might still be alive.) Jeffrey Dahmer killed 18 men here, but he was from Milwaukee originally, and was murdered in prison.

But the death penalty is constitutional, and most states and the federal government still use it. Lethal injection, even using foreign drugs, is actually less cruel than any of the methods used when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were adopted (mostly hanging and shooting.)

To me the appeal based upon the questionable "safety" of the British thiopental is absurd. It reminds me of the story about how a rat poison was taken off the market because laboratory tests proved that a red dye ingredient caused cancer-----in rats.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) McClatchy News Service, October 28, 2010.

(2) Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia voted to reverse the stay of execution; Justices Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan voted to uphold it.

w

Keep Senator Feingold

2010-10-24T11:43:00.004-05:00

US Senator Russell D Feingold has served the people of Wisconsin since 1983: first in the State Senate for ten years, then as US Senator since 1993. He has been a thoughtful and independent voice in both legislative bodies, and has earned re-election next week.

I do not agree with every position or vote he has taken, maybe no one does. For example, the Senator opposed the Clinton-era free-trade agreements,such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which I think were basically good. But he has been right more than wrong:

USAPATRIOT Act: Feingold voted against this major intrusion of Big Government into the lives of Americans, and it was passed over his objections. Later many members of Congress recognized its faults.

Iraq: Feingold was always against this war, and today we know that it was sold to the nation on false pretenses (remember Sadam's WMD?). With American troops on the way out, the new Iraqi government is turning to Iran for guidance and political support. How many American lives was that worth?

Campaign Finance: Feingold joined with Republican Senator John McCain to draft a bill limiting and regulating spending in federal elections, which was signed into law by President George W Bush. Some provisions have been ruled unconstitutional, but I contend it was a worthy bi-partisan effort to deal with the problem of buying political influence, which is as serious as ever now.

Congressional Ethics: Feingold sponsored the toughest restrictions ever on the acceptance of gifts (even free meals) by members of Congress.

Wasteful Spending: He is now working with Rep. Paul Ryan (R, Wisconsin) to craft a presidential line-item veto. (1)

Healthcare Reform: Feingold voted for this bill that regulated, but did not take-over, the health-insurance business. He is proud of his vote, and so am I.

The Republican nominee, Ron Johnson, is making his first try for public office, so he has no record of public service to evaluate. His campaign statements indicate that he is highly partisan (2) and has only superficial knowledge of the workings of the federal government.(3) He has spoken of cutting "billions of dollars" from the federal budget (1), but won't say what he wants to cut. He believes that the Obama Healthcare bill was a federal takeover, but the final bill did not even include a "public option".

If Johnson were elected, it is hard to imagine him partnering with a Democratic senator to craft legislation, something he has never done at all. He should stick to plastics.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 24, 2010, page 3J.

(2) Johnson told a Tea Party rally that he would have gladly given President George W Bush the enhanced presidential powers in the USAPATRIOT Act, but did not want Obama to have them.

(3) Johnson claimed that the money in the Social Security Trust Fund was "gone", while in reality it is guaranteed by federal bonds, the world's safest interest-bearing investment.

Elect Barrett and Nelson

2010-10-19T15:29:00.003-05:00

On November 2 the people of Wisconsin will choose between the Democratic ticket of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and State Representative Tom Nelson and the Republican ticket of Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch for Governor and Lieutenant Governor, respectively.

Scott Walker was elected to his present post in 2002. Since then he has been in continuous dispute with the County Board over his efforts to hold the tax levy to its current level. Each year he has vetoed increases in the budget passed by the Board, and each year he has been overridden. He has resisted the efforts of unions representing County employees to secure higher wages and better benefits, and has imposed layoffs and unpaid furloughs instead. Although the tax levy has increased during Walker's term of office from $218.7 million to $262.3 million (nearly 20%), County services have been understaffed and the quality of parks and County facilities have declined. Moreover, the Greater Milwaukee Committee issued a report this month that suggested that the County may need to file for bankruptcy soon.

If elected Governor, Scott Walker has proposed cutting state taxes by about $4 billion, which would necessitate massive cuts in state spending, especially in Badgercare, the state health insurance program.(1) He is opposed to building a high-speed rail system linking Milwaukee with Madison and the Twin Cities, even though the federal government has already allocated over $800 million for the project. (Walker would like to spend it on Wisconsin roads and bridges, but if Wisconsin rejects the rail line, the money will be re-assigned to other states that want it. )

Since Tom Barrett became Mayor of Milwaukee in 2004, the city tax levy has increased from $199 million to $246.8 million, an increase of about 24%, about 4% more than that of the County. But Barrett has honored agreements with city employees, and the city does not face bankruptcy. His relationship with the Common Council has been cordial overall, in marked contrast to the constant battles between Walker and the County Board. By nature, Barrett is a compromiser and conciliator, while Walker is confrontational.

As Governor, Tom Barrett would cut the state budget by $1.1 billion, primarily by reducing management staff in state agencies and abolishing the elective offices of state treasurer and secretary of state. He favors joint bargaining for health insurance by state and local government workers to secure lower premiums for the same coverage. Barrett favors the rail connection discussed above, even though he admits that it will require an annual subsidy from the state.

The Democratic nominee for Lieutenant Governor has been a state legislator for six years and is a leader in the Assembly; the Republican candidate has never held public office.

Those who want lower state taxes above all else will prefer Walker, whose main goal appears to be reducing government and taxes. But I prefer Barrett's approach, both on the issues and how he deals with a legislative body. Also, as a former congressman (1993-2003), Barrett has first-hand knowledge of how the federal government works, and would be better prepared to garner federal dollars for Wisconsin. Walker would not even accept federal dollars if offered.

In summary, I contend that the Barrett-Nelson ticket offers the better prospect of enlightened and successful leadership for the state of Wisconsin for the next four years.
-----------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Shepard Express, October 14, 2010, page 10.

Let Them Serve

2010-10-17T06:45:00.003-05:00

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday (Oct. 13) of 'enormous consequences' for men and women in uniform if a judge's order abruptly allowing gays to serve openly in the military is allowed to stand..The Obama administration may well ask for a stay of the ruling while it appeals...."
Associated Press, Oct. 14, 2010

After a federal judge in California found that the 1993 "don't ask, don't tell" policy infringes on the fundamental rights of homosexuals, Gates said that complying with the ruling "requires careful preparation and lot of training." Gates, who has been Secretary of Defense since his appointment by then President George W Bush in 2007, has had three years to prepare and train the military to halt all discrimination against homosexuals, but apparently waited until now to even begin.

Unlike Secretary Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder, I favor immediate compliance with the order and oppose appealing it. I contend that a person's sexuality has no bearing on military service, so the policy of excluding homosexuals from the service was wrong-headed from the start. In fact, during the years of the draft (1941-1973, with a brief postwar gap), the policy discriminated against straight men by forcing them to serve while excusing homosexuals.

As Commander-in-Chief of all American armed forces, President Barack H Obama could issue a general order halting all actions based on homosexuality in accordance with the court order. I do not believe that any other party would have the standing to appeal the decision. Then we would see if the "enormous consequences" envisioned by Secretary Gates really occurred.

One might contend that unless the decision is upheld by the US Supreme Court, a future president could reinstate the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in which case the question could be re-litigated in a different federal district court, perhaps with a different outcome.

I would respond that once the practice of allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the armed forces is established for several years, their service will be accepted without dispute, and the whole issue will disappear. Future presidents will have no incentive to re-ignite the controversy. If this prediction turns out wrong, there will be plenty of time then to pursue the issue through the courts, this time based upon actual evidence of consequences, not mere opinion.

If President Obama is really as radical and leftist as some say, why doesn't he just let this ruling stand and implement it now?

Cellular Politics

2010-10-11T15:45:00.004-05:00

"Scott Walker would ban stem cell research."
Barrett campaign TV ad

The truth is that Walker supports adult stem cell research, but not embryonic. (1) Does the difference matter? Is there a difference between penalizing drunken driving and penalizing driving?

All tissues contain adult stem cells, which can regenerate that type of tissue. For example, if your skin is cut, your skin stem cells will regenerate new skin and close the wound. But embryonic stem cells can generate any kind of tissue: skin, muscle, bone, nerve, etc. Although all current treatments use adult stem cells, researchers contend that "embryonic stems cells ...have a much greater development potential than adult stem cells." (2)

But how do researchers get embryonic stem cells? When an infertile couple choose in vitro fertilization, eggs removed from the wife are fertilized in a test tube (in vitro) and a large number of embryos are generated. Of these, one at a time are implanted in the wife's uterus until an implantation is successful and pregnancy ensues. The vast majority of embryos are never implanted, and are often donated to research labs. It is important to note that no embryos are ever removed from a pregnant woman for stem cell research, and a non-implanted embryo cannot develop into a fetus. (3) This is not abortion.

A single embryo can generate millions of stem cells, which have the potential to regenerate healthy tissues and organs in patients whose own organs have failed.

Like President George W Bush, Scott Walker has a moral problem with using stem cells from embryos, because the embryos are destroyed in the process. But unused embryos die or are destroyed anyway, since they cannot morph into a fetus without implantation. Tom Barrett, like President Obama, has no moral problem with using embryonic stem cell embryos. Given the substantial potential for life-saving treatments, I agree with Barrett on this issue.

But since the TV ad cited above gave the false impression that Walker opposed all stem cell research, The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel rated the ad " FALSE." Unlike a remark at a debate or press conference, this misrepresentation of the opposing candidate' s actual position cannot be excused as a mistake: the author of the ad had plenty of time to check Walker's actual statements on the subject.

But this ad could easily have been made correct by merely changing the statement quoted above to read "Scott Walker would ban embryonic stem cell research, while Tom Barrett favors using all available stem cells. Since I am convinced that embryonic stem cells have great therapeutic potential, I think that Barrett is right and Walker is wrong."

Maybe the Barrett campaign staff does not consider Wisconsin voters smart enough to deal with the real difference between the candidates on the issue, so they opted for a simplistic distortion of the other guy's position. Although I contend that Barrett is right on the issue itself, he was wrong to use this ad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) "Stem cell ad lacks detail" in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 10, 2010,page 2A.

(2)"Stem cell information" on the website of the National Institute of Health.

(3) With today's technology. In Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, all babies are "hatched" in government labs. The story takes place around the year 2500.

Vilifying Islam

2010-10-06T09:11:00.004-05:00

1. "Today Muslims and their religion are being increasingly and unfairly vilified......"
Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee (1)

2. " Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun....We are only Muslims trying to defend our religion, people, homes and land....we will keep on terrorizing you until you leave our lands and people at peace..The Quran gives us the right to defend. And that's all I'm doing."
Faisal Shahzad, at sentencing for rigging a car bomb in NY (2)

According to Shahzad it was his religion, embodied in the Quran, that spurred him to try to kill people in Times Square in May of this year. Moreover, he claimed that Muslims commit terror in defense of their religion, along with their " people, homes and land." But if Islam inspires people to commit barbaric acts against their fellow citizens (as well as others), then Islam deserves to be vilified, and the Interfaith Conference is wrong to say that it is "unfairly vilified." But is Shahzad right, and does he speak for Islam?

If Shahzad were nothing but a "deranged loner" (like most American assassins), we could dismiss his claims as the rant of a lunatic. But he is not a loner----he was trained for his mission at a jihadist camp in Pakistan. Moreover, since the bombing in Oklahoma City in 1995, every significant terrorist act and attempt in the US (September 11, Fort Hood, shoe-bomber, underwear bomber, etc.) was committed by a Muslim. In addition, all the major terror attacks in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Mumbai, Madrid, London, Israel, Jordan and other countries were also perpetrated by groups of Muslims. Police investigating a series of crimes look for a common link; is there one here?

The nexus between Islam and world terrorism is too obvious to be ignored. Although the vast majority of Muslims have no connection to terrorism, most of those who do embrace terrorism today are motivated by Islam. But what about Islam, as opposed to Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism, impels people to commit these crimes? Are not all religions intolerant of other faiths? Why not Buddhist terror?

Islam teaches that all people should be Muslims, and those who reject Islam should be subservient (dhimmi) to Muslims. The struggle between Islam and the forces opposed to the faith is called jihad, and every Muslim is obligated to participate in jihad until the final victory of Islam over all other ideologies. These principles are not iconoclastic, or held by only one sect or group, but are at the very core of Islam itself, as expressed in the Quran and the hadiths (apocrypha). The idea that Western Civilization is inherently the enemy of Islam was taught by Sayid Qutb, the founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which inspired both Hamas and Osama bin Laden.

The United States is deeply involved in conflicts in the Muslim world: the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in particular. Although we are allied with moderate Muslim leaders in each country, the most vehement Islamicists are always our enemies. Therefore, we, along with the European democracies, are faced with the twin threats of external terrorism and violence perpetrated by Muslims within our own countries who sympathize with our enemies.

We must tread a fine line between legitimate defense against terrorism and religious discrimination. I do not agree with those who would have us adopt Saudi limitations on religious freedom, but apply them to Muslims; we must adhere to our own principles of religious freedom and equal protection of the laws. We have prevailed over the threats of secession, Fascism and Communism without abandoning these principles, and we will prevail against Islamic terrorism as well.

At the same time, we must draw a clear line between denouncing Islam for its triumphalism and intolerance (which is not bigotry) and denouncing certain people who happen to be Muslims (which is). There are plenty of good Muslims, and they deserve all the rights of American citizens, but there is no good Islam.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Quoted in the Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, October, 2010, page 4.

(2) Associated Press, October 6, 2010.

Let's Elect Tech Boards

2010-09-27T15:51:00.003-05:00

Republican State Senator Alberta Darling of River Hills announced that she will re-introduce a bill calling for making memberships on the boards of directors of Wisconsin technical colleges elective offices, rather than appointed positions, as they are now. (1) She introduced similar bills in the last three sessions of the legislature, but none even made it out of committee.

Do you know how members of the board of MATC and similar institutions are chosen? ( Most people have no idea.) Each board must include two employers, two employees, a K-12 school administrator, and three other members. The boards must be balanced in terms of gender, minorities and geography. The appointments are made by representatives of the school districts in the tech-college district. Members are appointed for three years and receive no pay. (1) Moreover, prospective MATC board members are interviewed on Saturdays (there is no alternative day), so Sabbath-observers (Jews or Adventists) have no chance of being chosen.

Apparently the present method was devised so that both employers and employees would be represented. But an employer need not be a CEO of a big factory; a lawyer with a secretary qualifies. Since unions are virtually guaranteed a voice on each board, Democratic legislators have been unwilling to change the current process.

But publicity about high salaries at MATC, which have led to a major financial problem for the school, has drawn attention to the fact that the board is not directly answerable to voters. Faculty at MATC (where I taught part-time for several years in the 1980's) are paid more than at any UW campus except Madison, even though their academic credentials are far lower (2). But, unlike university professors, MATC teachers are covered by a contract with a union affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

Since most people would like to have some say in how the tech schools are run, I contend that Darling's bill would enjoy massive support, if the public even knew about the issue. This is an opportunity for the Republican Party to offer the voters a clear choice between accountability to the people through direct elections and the present cozy arrangement between management, labor and school officials.

I urge readers who attend candidate forums during the next few weeks to ask office-seekers if they support Senator Darling's bill. I do!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) " Legislator calls for tech board elections " by Karen Hertzog in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 25, page 1B.

(2) Nearly all tenured university faculty must have PhD, JD or MD. while tenured faculty at tech colleges need only a bachelor's degree or trade certification.

Game Changers

2010-09-20T09:14:00.004-05:00

During this political year, in which Americans will elect the House of Representatives, one third of the Senate and many state officials, several important changes have been urged in our election process:

1. Switch to non-partisan primaries
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel urged on September 15 that Wisconsin join California in making primaries for state offices and congress essentially non-partisan.
Under the present system, adopted in 1905 , each voter in the September primary selects a party and then votes for one candidate for each office seeking that party's nomination. (1) The nominees for each office then appear on the November ballot with their party designations; voters have the option of casting a single "straight ticket" vote for all nominees of a chosen party.
The trouble with this system is that is places partisanship above support for a particular candidate. For example, suppose that two Democrats (we'll call them Smith and Jones) and one Republican (Richards) seek a legislative seat in a heavily Democratic district. In the primary Smith gets 5,000 votes, Jones gets 4,890 and Richards gets 2,000. Even though Jones has much more support than Richards, Jones is eliminated and voters in November get to chose between Smith and Richards.
There is no way for moderate candidates to appeal to voters of both parties (or independents) at the primary stage; in the November general election the straight vote option makes the election of an independent or minor party candidate virtually impossible. Since district lines are drawn so as to minimize inter-party competition (by legislative leaders of both major parties), the winners tend to be stalwarts of their parties. This remains true even as polls indicate that most Americans are independents and hold both parties in low repute.
Instead, we should have the top two candidates in the primary advance to the general election, regardless of party. Candidates should have the option of including a message of up to five words under their name, which could be a party label or other identifying message (e.g. "Cut taxes" or "Not the White Man's Slavegirl"). This change would also mean eliminating the straight vote option, so that voters would actually have to consider the candidates in each contest rather than blindly backing one party.
Since the Wisconsin Constitution does not specify the primary format, this change could be made by law.

2. Let state legislatures select US Senators
The original US Constitution states that "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state chosen by the legislature thereof..." (2) But the Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in
1913, changed the latter clause to "elected by the people thereof..." Now leaders of the Tea Party movement have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which would restore the right to select senators to the state legislatures. US Rep. Louis Gohmert (R, Texas) has introduced a bill in the House to do just that. In Idaho Tea Party candidate Raoul Labrador won a Republican congressional primary mainly on this issue. (3)
The Tea Party, founded less than two years ago (April 15, 2009), has had enormous impact on many Republican nominations. Republican Senators Bennett (Utah) and Murkowski (Alaska) have been ousted by Tea Party favorites; GOP officials have fallen to Tea Party challengers for senate nominations in Kentucky, Delaware and other states.
But most American voters do not find repeal of the 17th "their cup of tea." Popular election of senators was one of the major victories of the Progressive Movement of the early twentieth century, and most of us want the right to pick our senators ourselves rather than leave it to state legislators. Moreover, legislators and other political insiders would have a big advantage in winning senate seats for themselves.
Another problem is that a party that won legislative contests four and two years ago would control the selection of the next senator, even if the party had lost support. For example, if the Wisconsin legislature had the right to pick the next senator, the winner would certainly be a Democrat, since the party controls both houses of the state legislature. Even if the state were now overwhelmingly Republican, a Democrat would still hold the seat for the next six years.

Since the repeal of the 17th Amendment would require a Constitutional Amendment, that is not going to happen. The change in the Wisconsin Fall Primary, although only requiring a simple change in one statute, will not happen either, if only because legislators chosen through the present system are not likely to want to try their luck with a more competitive alternative.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Before 1905 party nominees were selected at conventions.

(2)Article I, Section 3, paragraph 1.

(3) The Revisionaries by Bradford Plumer, in the New Republic, Sept. 23, 2010, page 18.

Ron is Wrong

2010-09-16T09:49:00.003-05:00

"Russ Feingold and politicians from both parties raided the Social Security Trust Fund of trillions and left seniors an IOU. They spent the money. It's gone."
Ron Johnson, Republican nominee for US Senator from Wisconsin (1)

Annual revenues from Social Security taxes now exceed the annual payout to seniors and disabled people, and the surplus is invested in special US treasury bonds. These bonds, like US savings bonds and treasury bills sold to the public, are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Since this government started borrowing money during the Revolutionary War, the US has never defaulted on a debt. That is why American treasury securities are considered the "gold standard" of a safe investment by investors and foreign governments all over the world. China is not our best friend in the world today, but it holds more US debt than anyone else.

So is the money gone, as Ron Johnson says? Only if the federal government defaults on the treasury bonds, which is unlikely, since the treasury can simply print more US currency whenever needed. (2)

What would Johnson do with the surplus Social Security revenue? Keep it in a vault in Fort Knox or similar storage facility? That way it would not be spent, but it would not provide any interest either, so less money would be available to pay future benefits. Invest it in bank accounts, stocks or corporate bonds? That would be more risky than using treasury bonds!

The Republican nominee is also willing to consider voluntary partial privitization of Social Security. (1) The trouble is that too many people would make bad investments with their retirement money, and would be destitute in old age. The public pressure to bail them out would be irresistible, so the taxpayers would probably be stuck with the cost of their benefits.

Johnson's campaign commercials say he is for less government, and no wonder. As a straight, white, male Christian, he never encountered discrimination, so government civil rights laws did him no good. As a business owner, he did not need the Wagner Act to protect his right to join a union. As a multi-millionaire (at least before he bought all those TV ads), he has no need for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Badgercare, food stamps, or even public schools. For wealthy people like Ron Johnson, the federal government means regulation and income taxes, so the less the better.

Wisconsin's other senator, Herb Kohl, is vastly richer than Ron Johnson, so he certainly has no need for all those government benefits. But the difference is that Kohl cares about the well-being of those much less fortunate, so he wants government to be big enough to help them.

Ron Johnson is good at running a plastics company (3), and I hope that he continues to do that well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sept. 16, 2010, page 5B (continuation of page 1B story).

(2) The benefits would then be paid in ruinously inflated dollars, but they would be paid.

(3) Johnson's firm Pacur started operations after a man in The Graduate urged Dustin Hoffman to pursue "plastics." Coincidence? Maybe.

Keep Walker County Executive

2010-09-06T12:02:00.004-05:00

It is essential that Scott Walker completes his four-year term as Milwaukee County Executive. Not because he is doing a great job (actually county facilities and services have declined on his watch), but because the alternative is far worse.

If the office of County Executive becomes vacant, the Chairman of the County Board, now Lee Holloway, would become acting Executive for 30 days, then he would appoint an interim Executive until a special election would be held, probably in April. If the incumbent runs in this election, he would enjoy a substantial advantage. Here are three reasons why Holloway should not have this office, even for a short time:

1. In 1988, Lee Holloway lost the primary for Mayor of Milwaukee to Martin Schreiber and John Norquist. He then convened a "Black Political Caucus" to endorse one of the nominees for Mayor. Participants were required to pay an admission charge to Holloway's political committee. The rules of the Caucus assured that Holloway would make the final choice himself. (Only Schreiber asked for the endorsement, got it, and then lost to Norquist).

2. Lee Holloway was charged with 39 building code violations on his apartment house at 2041 W Atkinson Avenue plus additional violations for property on 7th Street in March of 2009.
Previously, he accepted $165,000 from the Opportunities Industrialization Center (OIC) for rent for a property at 2100 W Atkinson, which OIC never used. Meanwhile, Holloway voted for $1.8 million of county funding for OIC. He paid a fine of $3,000 for filing false ethics statements with the County from 1998 through 2003, on which he failed to note that he still owned this property.

3. Holloway supported a notorious redistricting gerrymander in 2004 that included some absurdly-contrived districts to virtually guarantee the re-election of some incumbent supervisors, including his ally Michael Mayo in the weirdly-configured seventh district (1).

I will not even mention the vote-fraud cases from his 2003 recall election (2). OK, I could not resist mentioning them. In my view, Lee Holloway gives "political sleaze" a bad name.

Barring a revolution on the County Board, Holloway will be chairman through 2012. So the only way to keep him from becoming the next Milwaukee County Executive will be to keep Scott Walker in that job for the rest of his term.

There are two ways to do that:
1. The Republicans could nominate Mark Neumann for Governor on September 14. Neumann is just as strong a candidate for Governor in the general election, and would make just a good a Governor, so why not?
2. If Walker is nominated, Wisconsin could elect the Democratic nominee (presumably Tom Barrett, although there is another candidate in the Democratic primary) Governor in November.

Would Scott Walker abandon his ambition to become Governor of Wisconsin just to save this county from Lee Holloway? NO WAY. But we can do that for him.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The 7th District is U-shaped: it extends from 24th and Congress on the NE to 78th and Silver Spring on the NW, but does not include most of the land in between, which is assigned to the 2nd district.

(2) Holloway was never charged in these cases, and there is no proof he was involved in any election fraud.

Unnecessary Elective Offices

2010-09-02T10:01:00.002-05:00

"Yes, we can do without the offices of state treasurer, secretary of state and lieutenant governor."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, Sept. 2, 2010 (page 10A)

Wisconsin voters will be nominating Democratic and Republican candidates for these (plus other) state offices Tuesday, September 14. But should these three offices continue to be elective?

Lieutenant Governor
The only real role of this official is to succeed the governor in case he or she cannot complete the term of office. The governor may also assign duties to the LG. Our posting of August 29 recommended that each nominee for governor nominate a running-mate, instead of leaving the selection to a primary; the present system allows the selection of a nominee for LG that the governor can't stand, or one that would effectively sink the ticket. (1)
But if the office were eliminated, as suggested by the JS editorial, who would succeed the governor? The Constitution could be amended to designate some other official, such as the Attorney General or Speaker of the Assembly. The trouble is that the successor may be a member of a different political party, so that a change in the office of governor would also lead to massive changes in the entire executive branch. Moreover, if the legislature were led by the opposite party, there would be a perverse incentive to impeach and remove the governor from office.
The only way to guaranty a successor from the same party is to have the successor selected on the same ticket, as is the LG today.

State Treasurer and Secretary of State
These officials are responsible for distributing abandoned bank accounts, notarizing acts of the governor, appointing notaries, and other mundane tasks, none of which involve making policy. The JS is right that there is no need to elect them at all, especially on a partisan ballot.
All of these duties can be handled by the Department of Administration, which is controlled by the governor.
Incidentally, the Secretary of State (now Douglas J LaFollette) is second in line to become governor in case both top jobs are vacant at the same time. If this elective job were eliminated, the governor should be authorized to nominate a new LG if that office became vacant, subject to confirmation by both houses of the legislature. This would parallel the process used to fill the office of Vice President of the United States in case of a vacancy.

Let's demand the new legislature in 2011 begin the process of amending the state constitution to make these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For example, if Republicans voted en masse for Spencer Coggs for LG in the Democratic primary, they would virtually assure the election of the Republican ticket. (Don't tell them!)

Nominate Nelson

2010-08-29T05:42:00.004-05:00

Of the four candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Wisconsin in the September 14 Primary Election, only two have legislative experience: State Senator G Spencer Coggs of Milwaukee and
Assembly Majority Leader Thomas Nelson of Kaukauna. Here is why each man claims that he would do more to enhance the Democratic ticket in November than any of his rivals (1):

Coggs says that he would "deliver the minority vote ....he would counter the negatives (Milwaukee Mayor Tom) Barrett has accumulated through his pursuit of a mayoral takeover of the Milwaukee Public Schools and backlash over the July floods."

Nelson says, "I'm the only one running who has any experience taking on a tough Republican opponent and beating them (sic) in their own backyard."

So, who has the better case? Let's evaluate Coggs' claim first: his presence on the ticket would be a significant factor in getting "minority" (i.e. black) votes for the Barrett ticket. In 2006, Milwaukee's overwhelmingly black First Aldermanic District gave the Democratic nominee Governor Jim Doyle 8,950 votes to 1,339 for the Republican Mark Green. Of Doyle's vote, 5,999 was straight Democratic, while only 284 of Green's was straight Republican. ( In partisan elections the tendency of blacks to vote Democratic is even stronger than their tendency to "vote black." (3) ) Doyle did not need a black running-mate to run-up this lopsided result, so why does Barrett?

Perhaps Coggs is right about the lack of enthusiasm for Barrett among black voters: after all, he defeated the first black Mayor of Milwaukee, Marvin Pratt, in 2004. But I contend that even if Coggs loses the LG primary, very few black voters will back the Republicans. That is because blacks are disproportionately poor, and so depend more on social welfare programs (such as Medicaid, food stamps, etc.) that the Democratic Party supports. They are not so sore at Barrett that they would prefer a candidate likely to cut state spending on these programs. Moreover, if Barrett becomes Governor, Common Council Chairman Willie Hines will become the city's second black Mayor! That is a huge incentive for blacks to vote for Barrett, no matter who is nominated for LG.

I will concede that having Coggs on the ticket might "goose-up" turnout among black voters, and thus increase the Democratic vote, but that effect may be more than offset by the number of whites who would vote Republican if he were slated.

Since Coggs introduced the "race card" into this contest by implying that his race would help the Democratic ticket, it is only fair to also consider the downside of nominating him for LG. In the entire history of the State of Wisconsin, only one black candidate, Vel Phillips, has ever been elected to statewide office, Secretary of State OK, Barack Obama carried Wisconsin in 2008. But Louis Butler was the only incumbent Justice of the State Supreme to lose an election since 1967, and his race probably worked against him.

Although nominating Coggs would balance the ticket racially, it would severely unbalance it geographically: both Barrett and Coggs live in the City of Milwaukee. No one from Milwaukee has been elected Governor of Wisconsin in about a hundred years, and even incumbent (Acting) Governor Martin J Schreiber of Milwaukee could not win a term of his own in 1978. Maybe voters from other parts of the state suspect that a Milwaukeean would show preference for his home town in allocating state resources, but the bias against our fair city is undeniable. (4) To nominate another Milwaukeean (regardless of race) for LG would place the ticket at an insurmountable disadvantage.

On the other hand, Tom Nelson, who defeated a Republican incumbent in 2004 in Kaukana, would bring some needed strength to the ticket in the Fox River Valley, a "swing district." It is significant that in less than six years Nelson rose to the position of Majority Leader of the Assembly; although Coggs has been in the State Senate one year longer, he is not a leader of that chamber.

Comparing the competing claims of these two rivals for the nomination indicates that Nelson's claim to enhance the electability of the ticket rings true, while Coggs' does not. But beyond that, note that Nelson's claim is based on what he has done, while Coggs' claim is based on who he is. Every politician is a member of some ethnic or religious group, but only some trade on their identity. I prefer those who do not.

The name "Nelson" has been lucky for Wisconsin Democrats in the past, and I hope that they will go with it again now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 28, 2010, page 3B.

(2) Election Commission of the City of Milwaukee, 2006-07 Report

(3) In 1988 a black businesswoman named Helen Barnhill was the Republican nominee against white Democratic Congressman Jim Moody in the old 5th District, then the northern half of Milwaukee. Moody trounced Barnhill in every black neighborhood of the district.

(4) However, Herb Kohl of Milwaukee was elected US Senator in 1988 and ever since. Unlike Schreiber, Kohl never represented Milwaukee in the legislature or Congress, so many voters either did not know or did not care what city he lived in. Also, US senators have no role in allocating state resources.

Losing Lebanon

2010-08-23T09:51:00.003-05:00

"Those who want to help the Lebanese Army , but place conditions on how their funds or weapons are used (i.e. not against Israel), should keep their money."
Elias Murr, Defense Minister of Lebanon (1)

"We..believe that investing in the Lebanese.... military serves as a stabilizing influence and strengthens Lebanon's sovereignty."
Phillip J Crowley, spokesman for the US Department of State (1)

The first quote indicates that our side has lost the struggle to keep Lebanon out of the Arab-Iranian alliance against Israel, and the second quote shows that our government does not yet know it.

Since 2005 the US has provided the Lebanese military with over $400 million in military aid, about $100 per citizen, a figure second only to per-capita military aid to Israel. (2) Congress cut-off military aid to Lebanon earlier this month after a Lebanese soldier killed an Israeli soldier and wounded several others in a border clash. But just what military threat does Lebanon face?

Lebanon is on Israel's northern border and is otherwise surrounded by Syria and the Mediterranean Sea. Syria, which has treated the tiny republic like a wayward province, occupied Lebanon's Bekaa Valley with over 15,000 troops until pressured to withdraw by the Western powers in 2005. However, Syria still wields major political influence in the country through its non-uniformed agents and Hezbollah (the Party of Allah), the militia of the Shiite population. Since Hezbollah is a major factor in the Lebanese government (a Hezbollah-led alliance finished second in the 2009 parliamentary election), the use of Lebanese armed forces to disarm or otherwise restrain Hezbollah would rekindle the Civil War, which tore the country asunder between 1975 and 1990. Similarly, the prospect of the 75,000-man Lebanese Army defending the country against Syria, the top supplier to Hezbollah, is absurd.

So why does the Lebanese military need hundreds of millions of dollars worth of American arms and ammunition? The answer, unfortunately, is on the sole remaining border: that with Israel. While the US government has considered the Lebanese military a counterweight to the growing power of Hezbollah and other Muslim militias in the country, the statement by the Defense Minister shows that the present government will use its arms only against its real enemy: Israel. The border clash noted above, combined with the abject failure of Lebanese forces to keep Hezbollah out of the southern zone that borders Israel, confirms this conclusion.

Lebanon is a deeply divided country: about 28% Sunni Muslim, another 28% Shiite, 39% Christian (mainly Maronite) and 5% Druze. (2) During the late 1970's Israel tried to form an alliance with Lebanese Christians against the Palestinians and other Muslims, but that effort failed. Today, most Lebanese Christian politicians are aligned with Syria or Hezbollah. Although large numbers of Lebanese resent Hezbollah for starting a war with Israel in 2006, I believe that most hate Israel even more for the extensive bombing of the country, whose effects remain to this day in many southern villages.

If the Lebanese Army will do nothing to restrain Hezbollah, there is no reason to resume military aid to the country, which will just be used against Israel in case of another war. Although I pray for peace three times a day, I believe that Hezbollah will launch a rocket attack against Israel in the near future. That is because the Shiite militia has acquired about 40,000 rockets, and the impulse to use them cannot be resisted indefinitely. However, I also believe that the IDF will use any Hezbollah attack as a pretext to bomb Iran's nuclear reactors and missile sites, triggering a full-scale Mideast war that will probably involve Syria as well.

Our only hope for peace is that Iranian and Syrian leaders will use their influence to restrain Hezbollah, if only to prevent Israeli bombs and missiles from landing on their heads. This situation is eerily similar to the that of the summer of 1914, when the party with the least to lose (the Bosnian Serbs) were able to spark a terrible war with just one act of violence.

I just hope I am wrong!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) National Council of Young Israel, Aug. 18, 2010 e-mail.

(2) Wikipedia article on Lebanon.

Mosque Madness

2010-08-18T10:02:00.005-05:00

"There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York as long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."
Newt Gingrich on his website

And there should be no women drivers in NYC as long as there are no women drivers in Riyadh. Moreover, there should no elections for President of the United States as long as there are no elections for the head of state in Saudi Arabia. After all, what's good for the Saudi goose is good for the American gander, right?

Unlike former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R, Georgia), I am not inspired by the Saudi example of human rights or principles of governance. Instead, I want the controversy over the erection of an Islamic Center, including a mosque, at 51 Park Place, about two blocks from the former site of the World Trade Center, to be decided on the basis of American legal principles.

Whether you like Islam or not (and I don't like it much), the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution prohibit local governments from treating Islam any differently from any other religion practiced in America. Local governments may restrict the building of churches and other houses of worship by zoning and building codes, but they cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. The fact is that the area of the proposed mosque is zoned commercial, and there are churches nearby. As both Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and President Obama have noted publicly, the Muslims have the right to build a mosque in that location.

But in the toxic atmosphere of contemporary American politics, if you are not on the side of the "9/11 Families" who are outraged by the proposed mosque, you are on the side of the Muslims, the very group whose members destroyed the World Trade Center in the name of "jihad" (holy war). And didn't the leader of the Muslims behind the project say that US policies "were an accessory to 9/11?" (1) And won't the new building be named "Cordoba House" after the city in Spain in which Muslims converted a church into a mosque?

Osama Bin Laden, whose terrorist group carried-out the 9/11 attacks, is by no means the acknowledged leader or spokesman for Islam. In fact, no one is. Rather he is the charismatic leader of a religious homicidal/suicidal cult, an Arab Jim Jones or David Koresh. He issued a fatwa (psak) in 1996 declaring America the enemy of Islam, and called upon all Muslims to commit jihad against this nation. Although millions of Muslims admire Bin Laden, only a few actually put his words into action. And those who seek to build the Cordoba Mosque are not among them.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin implored peace-loving Muslims to "refudiate" (sic) the proposed mosque because it would "stab hearts." But even the peace-loving Muslims (if she can find them) know their rights and intend to exercise them.

About 70% of Americans are against a mosque on Park Place, so the politically popular stance is to oppose it. I do not endorse or support building a mosque there either. But on matters of religious expression in a free country, the majority does not rule, and so the Cordoba Mosque will be built, even though most Americans find it insensitive or even offensive.

The Cordoba Mosque will not loom over Ground Zero, no matter what is ultimately built there. The Cordoba Mosque will be on the other side of West Broadway and two blocks north of Vesey Street, the northern border of the World Trade Center site; aerial photos of the area show numerous multi-story buildings between the two more than two blocks to find it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)AssociatedContent, Aug. 17, 2010.

Have Record, Will Work

2010-08-12T11:02:00.005-05:00

"Companies using criminal records ...to screen out job applicants might run afoul of anti-discrimination laws.....according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)"
Sam Hananel, Associated Press, Aug. 12, 2010 (1)

The EEOC, created by President Lyndon B Johnson as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is considering filing discrimination complaints against several firms that reject all ex-convicts, since the policy has a "disparate impact" on black and Hispanic job-seekers. The incarceration rate for blacks is six times that for whites and that for Hispanics is 2.3 times as high. (1)

"Disparate impact" is considered discriminatory if the policy has no bearing on job performance. For example, requiring proficiency in French for a janitorial job would be discriminatory. But is criminal conviction a reasonable disqualification for any job?

Consider this fact: Of persons released from American prisons, about 68% are arrested for a new crime within 3 years of release. (2) Since not all crimes result in arrest, and not all arrested people are actually guilty, this figure does not equal the percentage of ex-cons that re-offend. However, in my judgment, more unsolved crimes are committed than innocent people are charged, so the actual recidivism rate is really higher than 68%.

Job performance depends on following directions, but the essence of criminal behavior is ignoring rules. Crime is spurred by greed, addiction, impulsiveness and a general disregard for the rights of others. Although we would like to believe that our prisons encourage inmates to repent and "go-straight" after release, the facts indicate that at least two-thirds of them commit new crimes. This means that if a business hires an ex-con, the odds are more than two-to-one that the new employee will offend, possibly at the workplace. This risk is borne by the other employees, customers and the business itself.

Accordingly, I contend that the EEOC would be wrong to charge an employer with discrimination for rejecting all ex-convicts. I understand that if this policy is widespread, released it will be more difficult for convicts to get jobs and become law-abiding citizens. But that is their problem, it should not be that of prospective employers. Many Americans are out of work nowadays, and most of them (including most minority-group members) have never committed any crime.

A policy that shows preference to applicants with a clean record is just one more reason that crime does not pay.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Aug. 12, 2010, page 3D "Job Screening tactics assailed."

(2) Wikipedia: Recidivism.

Bogus!

2010-08-11T14:43:00.003-05:00

"Fool me once, shame on you!
Fool me twice....that's the whole point, you can't fool me twice!"
George W Bush

I walked up to the teller window at the Pelham Parkway branch of the Bank of America on August 5 and presented a check. The check was made payable to Gerald S Glazer in the amount of $3,550 and drawn on an account at a Fifth Avenue (Manhattan) branch of the Bank, signed by Pam Daniel of Informa Economics, 775 Ridge Lake Blvd, Memphis, Tennessee. The check included a security watermark and routing digits.

I had received this check by FedEx on July 22 from Patricio Anita of 3716 10th Avenue, Rochester, NY, along with a letter:
"Hello Candidate, Please follow the instructions below carefully, complete the transactions. 1. All you need to do is get the payment cashed at your bank and deduct your commission from it and send me the rest of the money via Western Union Money Transfer. Send the rest of the money to Barbara Jones, 40-A Garden Village Drive, Apartment 3, Cheektowaga, NY 14227."

Since I never heard of any of these people, I became suspicious. I called Bank of America to find out if the check was real, but was told I would have to present it in person. Since I was planning to visit New York in early August, I decided to bring it along and present it there.

But the next day I received an e-mail from one Jacob Clark telling me to send the money to Shu Ping Liang in Guangzhou, China. Clark also asked for my phone number "ASAP". The following day Clark e-mailed me again, this time writing, " My good friend, what the position? Have you sent our money? Please, I need an update ASAP."

I replied that I was going to verify that the check was good before sending money to anyone. I added, "I do not give out my home phone number, but if you want to talk to someone, feel free to call Mr Behr at 414-771-3040."
Milwaukee readers will recognize that as the number of the County Zoo, and I hope that Mr Clark called long-distance and asked to speak to Mr Behr.

It did not take long for the teller to determine that the check was bogus. She asked if she could send it to the Bank of America Security Department, since the Bank was trying to determine who was printing these bogus checks. Since the Bank of America has more resources to investigate this scam than I do, I let her keep the check.

I have not received any further communications from Jacob Clark. But I did get an e-mail yesterday from an African bank employee asking me to help him smuggle "11.5 million USD" into the US in exchange for a share of the loot, allegedly from an abandoned bank account that would otherwise be seized by his corrupt government.

I did not reply, and have not seen any of the 11.5 million USD.

Confirm or Reject?

2010-07-29T09:42:00.004-05:00

"..I'm afraid we have a dangerous, progressive, political-type nominee"
Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, July 28, 2010

I presume that Senator Sessions means to distinguish Elena Kagan from previous nominees such as John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who must have been non-polltical. They certainly were not progressive. But really that is the whole point: judicial nominees tend to share the general political orientation of the President who appoints them, or at least the President thinks so.

Unlike Senator Sessions, I have no problem with a "political-type" nominee, even one whose political ideology is very different from my own. One of the consequences of a presidential election is the philosophy of the federal judges that the new president will appoint. If liberal presidents appoint qualified liberals and conservative presidents appoint qualified conservatives, over time the courts will be filled with qualified people with varying viewpoints; I believe that this is the way our system should work. Since most policy-making decisions are made by appellate courts with three to nine members participating, these decisions will reflect a broad consensus of judicial philosophies.

It has become customary in recent decades for Supreme Court nominees to say as little as possible about their political or judicial views at confirmation hearings, promising only to render fair decisions based upon the law. The truth is that anyone in public life long enough to be nominated to the Supreme Court would have some well-considered opinions about how the Constitution should be understood and applied, and I would prefer that nominees would be more open about them. For example, if a nominee were asked whether Brown vs Board of Education (1) should be affirmed or reversed, I would prefer the nominee to respond without hesitation, "I would vote to affirm Brown!" Recent nominees have refused to comment on cases that may come before the Court.

If Supreme Court nominees should not be rejected for their judicial philosophies, then when should a nominee be rejected? During my lifetime only three nominees were rejected by the Senate (Haynsworth, Carswell and Bork) while three other nominations were withdrawn ( Thornberry, Ginsburg, and Miers). I wish the Senate had also rejected Clarence Thomas, who shamelessly played the "race card" by labeling his confirmation hearings a "high-tech lynching." Thomas, who had been accused in sworn testimony of repeated acts of sexual harassment, was confirmed anyway.

The Bork story is a good example of a justified rejection. Older readers will recall that Bork was US Solicitor General during the Watergate era. When President Richard Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Special Counsel Archibald Cox (despite pledging not to interfere with his work), Richardson resigned rather than carry out the reprehensible order. Nixon then ordered Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, and he, too, resigned rather than comply. But when Nixon then ordered the Acting AG Robert Bork to fire Cox, Bork fired him. This outrageous act ultimately brought Nixon down.(2) Fourteen years later, Democratic senators remembered this when they voted to reject President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Bork to the Supreme Court.

Of course Elena Kagan is a liberal, as would be anyone that Barack Obama could conceivably nominate. (In his later years retiring Justice John Paul Stevens was also often aligned with the liberals, although I doubt that President Gerald Ford considered him one when he appointed Stevens to the Court in 1975.) Maybe Senator Sessions and most of his fellow Republicans are so intent on beating Obama on something that they would vote to reject any Obama nominee. But Kagan's credentials are solid, and her closet has no skeletons. Four Republican senators are already committed to voting for her, and that is more than she will need for confirmation.

Mazel Tov!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) This decision ruled that segregation of public schools in Topeka, Kansas, was unconstitutional. It was a landmark ruling in breaking down segregation and white supremacy in the South.

(2) The Cox dismissal spurred calls for impeachment hearings by the House Judiciary Committee, which voted to impeach Nixon in early August, 1974. Nixon resigned August 9.

The B Word on the Ballot

2010-07-22T09:05:00.004-05:00

"NOT the whiteman's bitch"

Wisconsin permits independent candidates in partisan elections to display a phrase of up to 5 words under their names on the ballot to indicate the "party or principle represented." Usually it is something like "Socialist Party" or "Cut Taxes." This year Ieushah Griffin, an independent candidate for the Assembly in the 10th district on the north side of Milwaukee, wants to have the phrase above (hereinafter "The Phrase") under her name on the November General Election ballot. But the staff of the Government Accountability Board, which is in charge of elections in this state, has determined that The Phrase is "derogatory," and so banned it from the ballot. The candidate appealed the ruling to the Board, which voted 3-2 to restore The Phrase. However, four votes are required to override a staff determination, so the decision to ban The Phrase stands. Griffin filed suit in federal court on July 22 to force the Board to allow The Phrase under her name. (1)

The Board has the right under state law to ban obscene and derogatory statements from the ballot. The word "bitch" (literally,female dog) is highly pejorative when applied to a woman, but is not obscene. (2) But is The Phrase derogatory?

One may argue that The Phrase implies that the Democratic nominee (presumably Elizabeth Coggs), unlike Griffin, is "the whiteman's bitch," a "ghetto-slang" epithet for "under white control." Ms Griffin is trying to "play the race card" on the ballot with The Phrase, just as the Democratic Party of Alabama did with its symbol: a white rooster bearing a banner with the words "White Supremacy." The name "Black Panther Party" does the same thing. (3) I consider all pandering to racial and ethnic hostility in politics reprehensible, and would certainly vote against a candidate like Ieshuah Griffin that used it. But, since The Phrase does not name any other candidate or party, I cannot agree that it is derogatory of anyone. Rather, it makes a political statement about the candidate herself, albeit in a very negative and offensive way. That is no more deragotory than "the honest candidate" or " the patriotic candidate" which also imply that rival candidates are dishonest or unpatriotic, but I believe these phrases would have been allowed.

Living in a vibrant democracy entails being exposed to offensive speech now and then, and our courts have given maximum leeway to political messages, like The Phrase, which does distinguish the candidate from her rivals on the ballot, in the sense that she considers herself somehow "more black." Accordingly, I predict that she will prevail in federal court. At the very least, the Court will instruct the state to permit a less offensive version of The Phrase under Griffin's name. (How about " Not controlled by white people?")

If I lived in the 10th Assembly district, I would vote for the "whiteman's bitch." But then, I am not the epitome of her intended constituency.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 22 and 23 , 2010.

(2) Names of female animals applied to women such as bitch, cow, and vixen, are considered pejorative, but names of male animals such as bull, buck and tomcat applied to men are not. Double standard, again!

(3) Since all panthers are black, the term Black Panther is redundant, but emphasizes the blackness of the party. The name "Panther Party" lacks the intensity desired.

Picking the Lt. Governor

2010-07-14T11:41:00.004-05:00

One of the people on this list will become the second highest elected official of the State of Wisconsin: Lieutenant Governor (LG):
Spencer Coggs, Tom Nelson, Harry Sanders, James Schneider,Brett Davis, Rebecca Kleefisch, Robert Lorge, Dave Ross, Terry Virgil and Nick Voegeli. The first four are seeking the Democratic nomination, the next four are running as Republicans, Virgil is a Libertarian and Voegli is an independent. The field is crowded this year since incumbent Barbara Lawton (like Governor Doyle) has declined to seek re-election.

The Lieutenant Governor becomes Acting Governor if the Governor is disabled or out of the State (except while commanding the Wisconsin National Guard), and becomes Governor if the incumbent dies or otherwise leaves office . (1) Martin Schreiber and Scott McCallum both became Governor this way, but neither one could win the next election to keep the office.

Until 1979 the LG presided over the State Senate, but no longer. While waiting for the Governor to "buy the farm" or otherwise leave office, the LG has no powers or duties of office. In practice, recent Governors have assigned their LG's honorific roles such as leading task forces, making speeches, and so on. But the Governor is under no legal obligation to give the LG any work at all, and if he does assign the LG a project, the LG is under no legal obligation to do it. For this reason, it is essential that the Governor and LG work as a team; otherwise, the office is totally useless. (2)

Under current Wisconsin election law, the nominee of each party for LG is selected at the September Primary, then the nominees for Governor and LG run as a team in the November General Election. This method is a recipe for political disaster, since the nominees might be political foes. (3) A ticket like that would probably lose, but if it were elected, the LG could spend the next four years doing nothing but undercutting the Governor and working for his ouster. Even if the nominees are friends, they might come from the same county, so the ticket would be geographically unbalanced. (4) Of course, the winner of the LG primary might also be a total idiot, which would also drag down the ticket. (OK, this could happen for any office, but the difference is that the LG nominee also drags down another, perhaps far better, candidate as well as himself. This is only true for Lieutenant Governor, and no other office.)

I propose that Wisconsin abolish the primaries for LG. Instead, each nominee for Governor should file a Certificate of Nomination for Lieutenant Governor within 10 days after winning the primary, and that the LG nominee should be required to sign an acceptance of the nomination at the same time. Here are the advantages of this plan, which resembles that used to select nominees for Vice President of the United States:

Party Unity: After a hotly-contested gubernatorial primary, the winner might offer the runner-up the LG nomination, thus unifying major sectors of a fractured party. Even if the two candidates had been bitter rivals, the offer of the second spot on the ticket could go a long way toward healing the rift. If this plan were in effect now, the Republicans could field a Walker-Neumann ticket (or the reverse). None of the four contenders for the GOP nomination (listed above) brings any political strength to the ticket.

Better Candidates: The nominees for Governor will have a strong incentive to choose a credible candidate for LG, since they will be on the ballot together.

A More Useful LG: Since the LG will owe his office to the Governor, he or she will be a more loyal and useful member of the administration. Should the Governor leave office, the transition will be smoother.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wisconsin Constitution, Article V, Section 7.

(2) Significantly, if the office of LG becomes vacant, it stays vacant for rest of the term. The Secretary of State is next line for Governor if there is no LG.

(3) This happened in Illinois, which has the same procedure as Wisconsin. When a supporter of fascist Lyndon LaRouche won the Democratic primary for LG, the gubernatorial nominee (Adlai Stevenson III) resigned from the ticket, which then lost the General Election.

(4) If State Senator Coggs wins the Democratic LG nominee, and Tom Barrett is nominated for Governor, both candidates on the ticket will be from the City of Milwaukee, a weakness that could sink the ticket.

Deal or No Deal?

2010-07-11T14:40:00.005-05:00

Consider the following Game Theory problem:

Mr A and Mr B have a dispute, and decide to negotiate directly to settle it. Mr A is extremely anxious to make a settlement, but Mr B is not. Mr A proposes a compromise under which both sides get about half of what they want; B declares that he will not settle unless virtually all his demands are met. Either B wins the negotiation, or there is no settlement at all.

Now Mr C, who can influence, but cannot control, either party, enters the picture. C has no particular stake in the terms of a settlement of the dispute, except that he considers it urgent for his own interests that some settlement be made, on whatever terms. C offers to be an "honest broker" between A and B, relaying their proposals to each other, and sometimes offering suggestions of his own. But all the while, C is urging the parties to settle their dispute already.

Even if C is scrupulously "even-handed" between A and B, it is easy to see that C's efforts actually serve the interests of B, because no settlement can be made except upon B's terms. Thus C's urgency in finding a settlement, no matter how well-intentioned, works in favor of the more demanding party.

Readers will recognize that this abstract problem is a paradigm of the efforts to negotiate a settlement of the dispute between A (Israel) and B (the Palestinians) by C (the United States). But today there is a new player : J, which stands for "J Street", the mostly-Jewish lobby that pushes for stronger US efforts to create a "two-state solution" to the Israel-Arab dispute. A recent publication by the group entitled "Turning No into Yes on a Two-State Solution" dated July 9, 2010, illustrates how the efforts of J Street objectively serve the Arab cause, despite the group's claim to be "pro-Israel."

The document includes 9 talking points, but let us zero-in on point 7: Jerusalem. J Street writes, "Jerusalem will ultimately be shared in some manner and it will be a good thing for Israel......the two-state solution is only possible if both Israeli and Palestinian claims to Jerusalem are reconciled.....This must mean finding a way for Israeli Jerusalem ...to be recognized as Israel's capital, and Palestinian Jerusalem....to be recognized as the capital of Palestine. This is the only way forward....."

On this point J Street has bought the Palestine Authority (PA) position hook, line and sinker, so "J" is actually sitting on B's side of the negotiating table while prodding C to push for a settlement. But why is a " two-state solution only possible" if Israel cedes part of Jerusalem to Arab rule? Because the Palestinians (B) won't settle otherwise! Actually a Palestinian state is possible without Jerusalem; the capital could be Nablus or Ramallah or Jenin. But the Palestinians are not so anxious for a deal that they would accept a state without at least part of Jerusalem, so the alternative capitals are out of the question.

By the same token, the Palestinians will not accept a state with Jewish settlements, so no solution is possible unless the settlements are "dismantled" and residents evicted. Those who buy this perspective consider every settlement, including every Jewish-occupied apartment in East Jerusalem, an "obstacle to peace." They are obstacles only because the Arabs say they are obstacles, and that is that. But no one says that Arab homes in Israel are obstacles to peace. (1)

If peace between Israel and the Arabs is possible only if Israel gives away East Jerusalem, the settlements, and whatever more, then there should be no peace in the Middle East today, since Israel has these assets. But ----mirable dictu (2)--- Israel does have peace today (July 11, 2010 at 3:21 CDT, k'eineh horah) without making the concessions demanded. No thanks to self-restraint on the part of the enemies of Israel (Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc.), but thanks to the the Security Fence, which has actually worked well to keep terrorists out of the country. (Remember the claims that no fence could protect Israel from terrorism, but a peace treaty could?)

Israel continues to face threats to its security today and tomorrow---from Iran and its surrogates on the country's borders, but neither Iran nor the surrogates support a negotiated two-state solution. Thus the Palestine Authority lacks both the power to make war and the power to deliver a real peace. So why the urgency in negotiating a peace agreement with the PA, especially when their terms are so unreasonable?

In any negotiation, the party that feels free to walk away wins and the party that must have a deal at any price loses. If agreement is only possible on Arab terms, Israel should feel free to walk away. No deal is better than a bad deal, especially to the party that doesn't really need one.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Rabbi Meir Kahane claimed that the Arab population of Israel was a demographic threat to the Jewish nature of the State, but he was excluded from the Knesset for that position, and was subsequently assassinated in New York. No Israeli party today takes that stance.

(2) Latin for "miraculous to speak of", a favorite phrase of former Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

US vs Arizona

2010-07-07T17:47:00.005-05:00

The US Justice Department, led by Atty. General Eric Holder, filed suit in a Phoenix federal court to stop the Arizona law on immigration enforcement from taking effect July 28. The Government, which only targets drug dealers and violent criminals for deportation, claims that the new state law would capture " a flood of illegal immigrants who pose no danger." (1)

The Attorney General said that "Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration law is a federal responsibility.....A patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves." The Government brief contends that "A state may not establish its own immigration policy.....immigration remains the exclusive province of the federal government."

Recall that the new Arizona law only applies when police have probable cause to believe that a person is engaging in a crime, such as drunken driving or drug smuggling. If the officer has "a reasonable suspicion" that the suspect is an illegal alien, the officer must then ascertain if the suspect really is one. Those who cannot prove they are in Arizona legally would then be charged under state law. If convicted, they could be sentenced to fines and even jail. After that, they would be turned over to federal immigration officials. But Arizona has no power to require the Government to deport any of these people; the immigration officials could simply release them all.

There are many areas of criminal law in which state and federal law overlap such as drug dealing and identity theft. Thus we already have " a patchwork of state laws" that cover the same activities as federal laws. In some of these areas the US Justice Department chooses to prosecute only large interstate activities, leaving smaller cases to the state and local authorities. By the same token, the fact that the federal government has no interest in deporting most illegal aliens should not be a bar to arresting and prosecuting them on the state level.

At the heart of this dispute is the desire of President Obama to allow illegal aliens to remain in this country while they apply for citizenship. Republican Senators John McCain (AZ) and Lindsey Graham (SC) have also endorsed bills that would permit this, but they have "flip-flopped" on the issue since it became ballot-box poison. When nearly ten percent of the American workforce is unemployed, most Americans see no benefit in allowing large numbers of illegal aliens to remain here and compete for whatever jobs become available. Thus the President's support for "amnesty" for illegals is both courageous and politically clueless.

I believe that the US District Court in Phoenix will find the case is "not ripe for decision at this time" because so far no harm has been done to anyone, and it is not certain that any harm will ever be done. The Court could either dismiss this suit without prejudice (2) or delay decision until after the law has become effective. Until the Government can present facts based upon the actual implementation of the law, the Court will have no cause to invalidate it.

If only President Obama and Atty. General Holder would read the Glazerbeam, the Government and lawyers for Arizona could be spared this pointless litigation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) McClatchy News Service, July 7, 2010.

(2) A case dismissed without prejudice can be refiled later. In this case, the Government could refile a few months after the law becomes effective if the abuses and problems predicted by opponents of the law actually occur.

Camp Clarke

2010-07-05T11:39:00.004-05:00

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for another term in September, plans to establish a military-style "boot camp" program in the Correctional Facility (former House of Correction) in Franklin this year. (1) The program, to be entitled "Discipline, Order, Training and Structure " (DOTS) would include a heavy regimen of work, exercise, and classes. The classes would include anger management and Bible study. The program would take 90 days.

1. Does Clarke have the authority to establish DOTS?
Since the Sheriff was given the power to run the Correctional Facility in 2009, he can set up a training program in accordance with state law and county ordinances.

2. Can inmates be required to participate in DOTS?
Probably not, but incentives (such as earlier release) may be sufficient to attract participants. For example, a judge could sentence a miscreant to 180 days, but permit release after successful completion of the DOTS program in 90 days. The Sheriff already has the power to provide some inmates with better housing and various privileges, and these could also attract participants.

3. Can Bible study be required of DOTS participants?
No, this would be a violation of the religious rights of inmates. Chaplains are free to offer Bible (or Koran or Talmud) courses, but participation must be strictly voluntary. Unfortunately, Clarke is already known for a tendency to "push the envelope" on using the powers of his office for evangelizing; about five years ago he permitted Christian preachers to evangelize deputies at roll call. (2) This aspect of the program should be carefully monitored by outsiders to prevent any coercion of inmates.

4. Will DOTS do any good?
I think it is worth a try. Although drug treatments and training classes (in welding and printing) are offered at the Correctional Facility now, most inmates spend most of l their time sleeping, watching TV or playing games. I surmise that there are many younger inmates who are interested in changing their lives, and would appreciate an opportunity to become more physically fit and prepared for a life without crime and incarceration. Even if only a minority of the jail population ever participates in DOTS, and a minority of those benefit from the program, it would still be worthwhile. Consider it an experiment in corrections.
I suggest that the Criminal Justice Department of one our local colleges should evaluate the efficacy of the DOTS program. If the program works, it should be continued by future sheriffs. Otherwise, forget it.

David Clarke has a highly authoritarian personality, which perhaps led him to a career in law enforcement. His new program fits that profile perfectly. But discipline and structure are exactly what the men who break the laws and are sentenced to jail need, so I think the idea has a good chance for success.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 5, 2010, page 9A.

(2) See the Glazerbeam of Dec. 6, 2009 entitled "Preaching to Police".

Exposing A Lie About Milwaukee

2010-07-02T12:52:00.003-05:00

Mr Charles Sykes
WTMJ-TV
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Dear Mr Sykes:

Enclosed please find a clipping from the June 30, 2010, issue of the Milwaukee Community Journal entitled "Signifyin': The New Racism" by your Sunday Insight panelist Mikel Holt. I draw your attention to the last page of this piece, in which Mr Holt discusses his participation in open-housing marches in Milwaukee, which occurred in 1967 and early 1968. The section I have enclosed in red ink reads as follows:

"At the time it was illegal for Black Milwaukeeans to live in certain areas of the city-----north of Keefe Avenue, or south of downtown."

You know, as I do, that this statement is demonstrably false. There was never a law on the books of the City of Milwaukee or the State of Wisconsin barring Blacks (per Holt's capitalization) or anyone else from living anywhere in the city. Since Mr Holt had ample time before publishing this statement to check the city law books of that time, it is either a deliberate lie or, at best, a statement made with reckless disregard of its truth. Either way, tens of thousands of readers of the Milwaukee Community Journal will never look up the city ordinances in effect in 1968, and will come away from reading this column believing that Milwaukee had racist laws on its books some 42 years ago.

Lies like this fan the fires of racial animosity in this city, especially when they are not confronted with the truth. If the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or another "mainstream media outlet" had printed this pernicious lie, I am confident that you (along with others) would call them on it and demand a retraction. But are you willing to confront your own panelist on your show with this quote and demand either proof that it is true or a public retraction in the Community Journal?

As a reader of two of your books and viewer of Sunday Insight, I respect your commitment to honest dialogue. I hope you will not disappoint me by ignoring this blatant lie.

Gerald S Glazer
2944 N 50th Street
Milwaukee, WI 5321
GSGlazer@sbcglobal.net

An Open Letter on the Arizona Boycott

2010-06-20T06:16:00.004-05:00

Hon. Tom Barrett, Mayor of Milwaukee
Hon. Scott Walker, Executive of Milwaukee County

Gentlemen:

Resolutions are now pending in both the Milwaukee Common Council and the County Board calling for boycotting Arizona because of the new law which requires police to check on the immigration status of people suspected of criminal activity. I am writing to urge you both to VETO these measures.

1. Validity of the Arizona Law
The Obama Administration is determined to test the new law in the federal courts, and the case will probably be argued all the way to the US Supreme Court. If so, I predict that the Court will uphold the law, which would undermine the case for a boycott. If, on the other hand, the Court overturns the law, no boycott will be needed.

2. Consistency
The human rights situation in China, Zimbabwe, Sudan and a lot of other countries is much worse than it is in Arizona, even if the new law is applied in a discriminatory way. Yet we do not boycott any of these countries. (I do not plan to visit any of them anytime soon, but that is a personal choice.)
But should we not hold American states to a higher standard than foreign countries?
Even if we do, consider these cases:
When many southern states systematically barred black people from voting, we did not boycott them.
When Nevada legalized gambling and prostitution (1), we did not boycott Nevada.
When Oregon legalized assisted suicide, we did not boycott Oregon.
So, we do not routinely pass judgement on the morality of the laws or acts of other states. Yet the proponents of the Arizona boycott would have us impose this drastic penalty on a state that merely requires people to produce a card (such as a driver's license or state ID) to prove that they are in the state legally.

3. Risk of Retaliation
If the proposed boycott takes effect and seriously affects the economy of Arizona, do not be surprised if Arizona responds by boycotting Milwaukee and its industries. Ask local manufacturers if their businesses would be adversely affected if they lost all customers in Arizona. Ask hotel owners if they would not mind losing all visitors from that state. Consider these possible consequences before approving a "trade war" with one of our sister states.

I understand the political pressure that you face from the Latino community to boycott Arizona. Yet I believe that the majority of your constituents do not support the boycott, although the intensity of sentiment on the Latino side is clearly greater . Again, I urge you both to say NO to the boycott.

Gerald S Glazer
2944 N 50th Street
Milwaukee, WI
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Nevada state law does not prohibit either activity, but permits individual counties to ban them.

Candid Candidates

2010-06-17T10:10:00.006-05:00

Candidates for Congress in the coming election are speaking their minds in a more candid way than has been common for politicians. While politicians have been criticized for concealing their true feelings behind bland boilerplate, here are some Republicans who let us know the truth about their gut-feelings, and it is not always pretty:

1. Ron Johnson, endorsed by the Wisconsin Republican Party for US Senator (1)
Regarding the USAPATRIOT Act, Johnson told the Rock River Patriots that "I certainly share the concerns on civil liberties now that you have Barack Obama in power....I wasn't overly concerned with George Bush in power." (2)
Even if you believe that Republican presidents can be safely entrusted with intrusive power over individual Americans, but Democratic presidents cannot, when you vote to increase presidential powers, you do so for all future presidents, unless and until the law is repealed or amended. Johnson admitted to the group that he is not a scholar of the Constitution. Fortunately, incumbent Senator Russ Feingold (Harvard Law, 1979) is one, and voted against the overly-intrusive bill.

2. Sharron Angle, Republican nominee for US Senator from Nevada
Former Nevada State Rep. Angle is a big fan of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Not only does this provision of the Bill of Rights protect the rights of Americans to use guns for hunting and self-defense, but she considers it the ultimate shield against oppressive government, like the present federal government.
She told radio interviewer Bill Manders in January of this year that "I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for Harry Reid problems." In case you think she was kidding or misspoke, Angle told the Reno Gazette in May that "They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment ways....If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?" (3)
It appears that Sharron Angle will not accept defeat graciously, as I have several times. Like the Weathermen, Malcolm X, Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael and many others, Angle is warning that if her faction cannot achieve its political agenda at the ballot box, they will turn to violence. In other words, "The Fire Next Time." Like her predecessors on the Left, she is personally opposed to violence (although she does carry a gun, legally), but will be unable to prevent others on her side from resorting to it. Perhaps her slogan should be "Vote Republican, or else!"

3. Rand Paul, Republican nominee for US Senator from Kentucky
Shortly after winning the GOP nomination for senator, Dr Paul told TV interviewer Rachel Maddow that he believes that business owners should not be coerced by the federal government into serving people (i.e. minorities) they do not want to serve. This libertarian position is precisely that taken by US Senator Barry Goldwater (R, Arizona) when he voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (4) After this quote "hit the fan", Paul modified his remark by asserting he was against racial discrimination and does not advocate repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Given his staunch libertarian stance, I believe that his first statement represented his real feelings on the matter, and that he backpedalled to conform to the contemporary Republican consensus. Sure, he does not advocate repealing what has been settled law for 46 years, but if a bill were introduced today that would limit the rights of business owners to discriminate against some group, I would bet that he would be against it.
Although his biological father is US Rep. Ron Paul (R, Texas), he is an ideological son of Barry Goldwater.

In this highly politicized year, no rumor is too outrageous or absurd to be sent around the Internet at the speed of light. No lie is too vicious to tell. But at least these politicians have told us openly where their hearts are, and if they win, their constituents will get exactly what they bargained for.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) He is opposed in the September primary by Dave Westlake of Watertown. Johnson's party endorsement and his vast wealth (over $10 million) are expected to garner the official nomination. Westlake is opposed to the Patriot Act.

(2) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, June 17, 2010, page 5B.

(3) Las Vegas Sun, June 17, 2010.

(4) Goldwater was the Republican nominee for President in 1964, and lost to incumbent Lyndon B Johnson. His opposition to the Civil Rights Act spurred many southern white Democrats (such as Senator Strom Thurmond) switched to the GOP. Of the six states carried by Goldwater, only Arizona and Louisiana had ever previously voted Republican in presidential elections. Since then, most of the electoral votes of southern states have gone to the Republican nominee.

Inside Iran

2010-06-08T09:28:00.004-05:00

My Turn to Speak by Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr

Brassey's (subsidiary of Macmillan Publishing), 220 pages

In early February, 1979, Abol Hassan Bani-Sadr was an Iranian refugee living in Paris, a top advisor to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. By the end of July, 1981, he was again a refugee in Paris, this time fleeing the wrath of the Ayatollah and his more fanatical disciples. But during the 29 months in between, Bani-Sadr was elected the first President of Iran with nearly 80% of the vote and commanded the Iranian Army in the early months of his country's war with Iraq. What a ride!

The story of his presidency is told in this memoir, and it offers a rare glimpse into the ruling circles of Iran during the first two years of the Islamic Republic. Although he was forced from office nearly 30 years ago, the current Leader (1) Ali Khameini and major politician Ali Akbar Rafsanjani play important roles in Bani-Sadr's story. The book also sheds some light on historical events such as the Hostage Crisis, the Iran-Iraq War and the Arms-for-Hostages trade

Gaza or Paradise!

2010-06-04T09:13:00.004-05:00

Looking back on the Israeli boarding of the Turkish-flagged ship Marmara on May 31 in which soldiers were injured (some seriously), nine Turks were killed and Israel was condemned around the world, some questions persist:

1. Why weren't the militants aboard the Marmara armed with guns?
Everyone aboard knew that the ship was running an Israeli blockade, and was likely to be boarded by soldiers. Yet the defenders of the vessel used nothing more lethal than sticks and knives; you would find more firepower in the typical Milwaukee bar any Saturday night than on the Marmara. Why didn't the militants pick up firearms in Cyprus before sailing?
One possibility is that the group sponsoring the flotilla, the so-called Humanitarian Relief Foundation ( or IHH, the Turkish acronym) banned firearms because enforcing the blockade on an unarmed ship would maximize the outrage aimed at Israel . It is also possible that the men who attacked the Israeli commandos sought martyrdom (shahida) by dying in jihad against Israel. They were either going to Gaza or Paradise, and the most fanatic Muslims prefer the latter destination. Perhaps they learned that one can harm Israel more by provoking its defenders to slaughter unarmed people than by killing Israelis with bombs or bullets. In the court of world sentiment, the former activity elicits sympathy for the Arab cause, while the latter elicits sympathy for Israel.

2. What were IDF leaders thinking?
On Jan. 3, 2002, IDF ships captured the Karinne A, a vessel loaded with arms for the Palestine Authority, without firing a single shot. Faced with overwhelming force and taken by surprise, the crew surrendered without resistance. There were no casualties, and no international repercussions.
This time the IDF chose to board the Marmara from a helicopter. If any man on deck were armed with so much as a rifle, he could have picked-off the soldiers one-by-one as they descended; worse yet, a single rocket fired from the deck could have destroyed the helicopter and killed everyone on it. By the grace of God, no one on the ship had any of these weapons, so the IDF was spared a massacre. But the IDF strategy was based upon the presumption of no resistance at all, and that was a mistake that could have had tragic consequences.
When the US blockaded Cuba in October, 1962, American naval commanders were determined to disable any Soviet ship that crossed the blockade line by firing a single shot into its rudder underwater. Blockading ships have also fired warning shots over the bow of any vessel trying to run the blockade, and then sinking any that were not deterred. Israel could have easily sunk the Marmara without endangering its own soldiers at all, but chose the far more risky course of boarding it from a helicopter. I have yet to hear any nation praise the Jewish state for showing admirable restraint by not firing on the Marmara, and thereby endangering its own soldiers rather than the passengers and crew of the hostile vessel. Don't hold your breath.

3. Has Turkey gone Islamic?
Turkey, the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel, has cancelled joint military exercises with the Jewish state and withdrawn its ambassador. The decision of the Turkish government to allow the IHH Flotilla to sail from the Turkish ports on Cyprus precipitated the entire crisis, which Ankara now blames entirely on Israel.
As a member of NATO, Turkey is aligned with the United States. Yet Ankara refused to allow American and allied forces to use Turkish territory for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today Turkey is governed by the Islamic Justice and Development Party, which has ties to IHH, which in turn has ties to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists . Although Turkey had been hosting talks between Israel and Syria, its support of the pro-Hamas blockade runners has negated its role as a neutral party to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Unfortunately, Turkey today must be viewed as in the camp of Iran, Syria , Hezbollah and Hamas. (1) This is a serious loss for both Israel and the United States, whose influence in Ankara is low and falling.
The angry mobs in Istanbul chanting hate-Israel slogans indicate that the policies of Prime Minister Recip Erdogan are popular in the Turkish street. But how do they sit with Turkey's military leaders? It was a military commander named Mustapha Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) that seized power in 1923 and turned the nation into a secular pro-western country. His successors have deposed several elected governments in an effort to prevent the nation from sliding into an Iran-style Islamic republic. If Ergodan over-plays his hand and makes a total break with the US and NATO, he risks another military takeover.

As this is written, plans are underway for another Gaza-bound flotilla, and diplomats are working to prevent another lethal confrontation. Israel has proposed that an international naval force inspect future aid ships bound for Gaza, and allow non-military cargoes to proceed, but Hamas insists that "the aid must arrive complete." (2) Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Benny Avni in the NY Post, June 2, 2010.

(2) NY Times, June 4, 2010.

Liberalism vs Zionism

2010-05-26T10:44:00.003-05:00

"The Declaration of the State of Israel is a schizophrenic document!"
Rabbi Meir Kahane

Most Jews are liberals, and most Jews love Israel, so most are also Zionists, even if they do not describe themselves with that word. The trouble is that it is increasingly difficult to be both, so many Jews are conflicted about developments in Israel.

Among the core principles of liberalism are:

1. There should be no legal distinctions among citizens on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity.

2. Government policies should not be based on religious beliefs.

Before the 1967 Six Day War, in which Israel seized the West Bank (including Jerusalem), Gaza, the Golan Heights and the Sinai, there was minimal conflict between these two principles of liberalism and strong support for Israel. Major non-Jewish American liberals, such as Senator Hubert Humphrey, were staunch supporters of the Jewish state, then threatened by Egypt and Syria, both aligned with the Soviet Union. The appointment of Arthur Goldberg to represent this country at the UN by President Lyndon B Johnson in 1965 was an unmistakable sign of American solidarity with the Jewish state.

Today, only the West Bank and the Golan remain in Israeli hands. It is in the West Bank that "the rubber meets the road" in the conflict between liberal principles and Zionism. The unpleasant fact is that Israel is ruling over a hostile foreign people who want the Israelis out. Moreover, about a quarter of a million Israelis now live in the area seized from Jordan in 1967, and they show no signs of leaving.

From a liberal perspective, Principle 1 would indicate that Israel should treat Jews and Arabs equally. Indeed, Arabs living within the "Green Line" (1948 border) are citizens of Israel and some even serve in the Knesset. The trouble is that they increasingly view themselves as Arabs who happen to live in Israel, rather than Israelis who happen to be Arabs. To the extent that Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Arabs are like "guest workers." Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman urged that Arab members of the Knesset who met with Hamas should be executed, and all Arabs in Israel should be required to swear allegiance to this country to keep their citizenship. (1) (His views have not been adopted by the Government, but he is still in the governing coalition.) Except for the Druze, Arabs are not generally accepted (let alone drafted) into the Israeli Defense Forces. Distinctions based upon ethnicity prevail in Israel, in defiance of Principle 1, as they must if Israel is to be a Jewish state at all.

Although Israel has accepted the concept of setting up a Palestinian state in the West Bank, opinion within the country remains deeply divided. For example, Effi Eitam, Prime Minister Netanyahu's special emissary to American youth, proposed that most West Bank Arabs be expelled from the territory and Israeli Arabs be "removed from the political system." (1) Neither of these things are going to happen, but it is just as unrealistic to try to absorb over a million Palestinians into Israeli society, which they hate with a passion. The only real alternative to establishing some kind of Palestinian state (even with limited sovereignty) is ruling the West Bank by force indefinitely, which is repugnant to most Israelis, most American Jews and the international community.

But this where the faith of the settlers (shared by many other Israelis) that the West Bank is part of the land promised to the Jewish people by God in the Torah crashes head-on into the practical necessity of ceding at least some of this land to Arab rule. Not all the settlers are orthodox, but most of them are, and the orthodox are the most determined to hang on to their homes. Liberal Principle 2 would impel Israel to ignore Torah in setting public policy (as many secular Israelis insist), but the fact is that orthodox power within the Israeli government has been growing. While secular Zionism is fading fast among younger Israelis (as well as among Jews in the US and Europe), the desire to settle in the Biblical Holy Land (including East Jerusalem and the West Bank) has drawn religious Jews from around the world. The trend is for religious Zionism to become the only Zionism around.

The effect of this split between orthodox and secular is also felt here in the United States: 79% of orthodox Jews under 40 feel "very close to Israel", while only 16% of non-orthodox in the same age cohort feel that way. (2) This implies that in the near future, American Zionism will also be increasingly religious Zionism, which means more solidarity with the settlers and other orthodox factions ("haredim") in Israel.

This is not your father's AIPAC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment, by Peter Beinart in the NY Review of Books, May, 2010.

(2) Survey by the American Jewish Committee in 2006, quoted in the article (1) cited above.

The New Jewish Justice

2010-05-10T15:31:00.005-05:00

President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the seat on the US Supreme Court now held by Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring. If confirmed ( a "slam dunk"), she will be the eighth Jew to serve on the Court and will increase the Jewish share of the Court to one-third, an all-time high. Obama, in less than two years in office, will have appointed more Jews to the Supreme Court than the last six Republican presidents combined.

Here is a brief look at the history of Jewish members of the Supreme Court:

In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson appointed prominent Jewish attorney Louis D Brandeis to the Supreme Court. At that time Jews were routinely excluded from most law firms, corporations, resorts and suburbs. This appointment showed the Jews that the Democratic Party was especially favorable to their ambitions in American politics.

President Herbert Hoover appointed Benjamin Cardozo to the Court in 1932. After he died in 1938, President Roosevelt appointed Felix Frankfurter to the seat, which later became known as the "Jewish seat" on the Court. He was succeeded by Arthur Goldberg in 1962. When President Lyndon Johnson appointed Goldberg to be the US Ambassador the to UN in 1965, Johnson then appointed Abe Fortas to the seat. However, Fortas was forced to resign in 1969.

Then the "Jewish seat" vanished as President Richard Nixon nominated one gentile after another to fill the seat until finally Harry Blackmun was confirmed. (1)

In 1987 President Ronald Reagan nominated Jewish federal judge Douglas H Ginsburg to succeed Justice Lewis Powell, but the nomination was withdrawn after it was revealed that Ginsburg had been smoking marijuana.

Both current Jewish Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were appointed by President Bill Clinton .

Could the need to placate Jewish voters (and donors) before the 2010 congressional elections have been a factor in the selection of Elena Kagan? While Jews were more supportive of Barack Obama for President than any other white (non-Hispanic) ethnic group in 2008, many have turned against him over his hostility towards Israel. For example, publishers Mort Zuckerman (US News & World Report and NY Daily News) and Martin Peretz (The New Republic) both endorsed Obama for President, but have soured on him over Israel.

Although Jews comprise less than 3 percent of the US population, they vote and participate in politics at a higher rate than other ethnic groups. Morevoer, they are concentrated in big states in which the two major parties are highly competitive. For instance, this year the Jewish vote will be crucial in senate races in New York and Florida.(2) Jews can also tip the balance in a number of suburban congressional districts. That is also why Republicans will not filibuster the Kagan nomination: GOP senators from swing states will not dare antagonize their Jewish constituents. Whatever votes are cast against confirmation will be from hard-core Republican states in which the Jewish vote is insignificant.

Some will complain that Kagan has no judicial experience, but if Obama wanted a Jewish woman with that experience he might well have picked Judge Judith Scheindlin. Her confirmation hearings would have made great TV!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Tapes of his conversations prove that Nixon disliked American Jews, except for Henry Kissinger. His first choice to succeed Fortas was Clement Haynsworth, who was rejected by the Senate. His second choice, Harold G Carswell, was also rejected. Blackmun had no problem.

(2) Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania is also facing a tough race, but since he is Jewish himself I believe he would garner the Jewish vote anyway. Since the Florida race features three serious candidates, even a small group can make a big difference!

Voting for Judge

2010-05-07T11:05:00.004-05:00

"(Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day) O'Connor said states need to develop merit selection systems in which judges are appointed after a panel screens their credentials."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, May 7, 2010, page 1B

"Should we cancel Summerfest because there is too much loud obnoxious music?"
"Art Kumbalek" in the Shepherd Express

Although the last couple of Wisconsin Supreme Court races have included the "loud obnoxious music" of distortions and character-assassinations, I am not persuaded that we should cancel our 150+ year tradition of electing judges in this state.

Addressing the Wisconsin State Bar annual convention on May 6, former Justice O'Connor asked, "How can people have faith in the (legal) system, when such large amounts of money are used to influence elections?" She has as valid point: millions were poured into Supreme Court races in this state by special-interest groups, and the contests are becoming increasingly nasty. Raising money is not a good test of who will be a good judge. (Under a new law, state money will also be available to candidates for the Wisconsin Supreme Court who agree to limit campaign spending, but O'Connor insisted that appointing judges would be a superior reform. )

In my view, the suspicions of bias that arise from the raising and spending boatloads of cash for judicial campaigns are still outweighed by the benefits of electing our judiciary. Judges are very powerful people: they can jail people for contempt of court, impose (or decline to impose) prison sentences on people convicted of crimes, and even declare state laws unconstitutional. Their decisions can be overturned (1), but only by judges of higher courts, who are even more powerful. It is the essence of democracy that those who exercise power should be answerable to the people periodically in elections.

Here are some important facts to consider:

1. Even with the present system, most judges have been initially appointed to the bench by the Governor, so appointments play a major role right now (although the Governor need not listen to any panel, as proposed by Mrs. O'Connor.)

2. Very few judges are ever defeated for re-election. In the 28 Supreme Court elections held in Wisconsin since 1967, only one appointed Justice (Louis Butler) was defeated. Incumbency is even more important than money in these contests, so appointed judges start every contested race with a big advantage. (2)

3. Only lawyers can be judges (above the municipal level), so all the voters can do is choose one lawyer over another. Since the Bar Association publicly rates judicial candidates, and newspaper endorsements often follow these ratings, the lawyers of the state have substantial influence over which lawyer becomes (or remains) a judge.

If former Justice O'Connor's plan were implemented, the judicial selection panels would certainly be dominated by lawyers. If so, the vast majority of citizens (who are not lawyers) would lose even the modicum of power they have now to determine who should make the decisions that are so important to both individuals and entire communities.

The people do not always choose the best candidate, so some "rotten apples" have become judges. But even so, I trust the people of this state to make better choices than any panel of lawyers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Except that if a judge excludes certain evidence in a criminal trial, and the defendant is then acquitted by the jury, the acquittal cannot be appealed because of the rule against "double jeopardy." On the other hand, convicted defendants can appeal decisions to admit evidence.

(2) For example, Christ T Seraphim was appointed a Milwaukee County judge by Governor Gaylord A Nelson in 1959. Despite a record of grandstanding, bigotry and abusive behavior on the bench, he was re-elected five times before he was suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court for misconduct. Only then did he lose a bid for re-election. His example shows that a bad judge can be both appointed and elected.

Papers, Please!

2010-05-05T09:12:00.005-05:00

"As American Jews,.....we must be alarmed at the notion of Arizona police officers stopping Latinos and asking , 'Papers, please.'....Not long ago in Europe, Jews were forced to carry identification papers and lived in fear of being stopped and questioned. The singling out of Jews in Europe led to a horrific end. What will become of immigrants in this country?"
Editor's Desk Column by Elana Kahn-Oren in Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle, May, 2010, page 4.

Since all decent people, especially Jews, hate the Nazis, one way to turn people against a particular policy is to link it somehow to Nazism. Recall Rush Limbaugh's "feminazis" and the hideous Hitler-style moustache on photos of Barack Obama flaunted by protesters just a year ago.

In the same spirit, Mrs. Kahn-Oren would have us abhor the new Arizona law that requires police to enforce immigration law, since officers would ask to see "papers" just like the Nazis did in occupied Europe. (Actually, even the term "papers" reeks of World War II; Arizona officers would be satisfied with a driver's license, state ID or immigration "green card", none of which are really "papers." The same laminated ID cards that we all use to board a plane, rent a car or cash a check will verify American citizenship, should it be questioned.)

A Jew without the right paper (such as a certificate of Swedish citizenship) in Nazi-occupied Europe would be deported to Auschwitz, whereas an illegal (aka "undocumented") alien caught in the US would be deported back to his home country. Is that a distinction worth mentioning? The quoted column does not.

Instead, Mrs. Kahn-Oren goes on to write, "We Jews have an obligation to stand up for others....register our protest to this new law and work to prevent other such attempts to harm undocumented immigrants." By her own estimate, there about 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, nearly the population of Milwaukee. Since they cannot get jobs with legitimate businesses (per federal law since 2006), most of them subsist in the "underground economy" of day labor for cash, which means they pay no income tax. But they do place a strain on the public services provided by the taxpayers of Arizona (and the nation): education, medical, water, and the criminal justice system. The presence of a large unskilled workforce also tends to depress wages for labor, which hurts the native working class of the state.

At the end of the column, Mrs Kahn-Oren calls for "comprehensive and compassionate reform" of our immigration code, without specifying the details of the reform she wants. In other words, we Jews should be "on the side of the angels" in our compassion for the illegal immigrants, and oppose a law intended to alleviate the burden that they have placed on the citizens of our sister state. I have more compassion for the people of Arizona.

Don't Cross Me!

2010-04-29T09:02:00.003-05:00

The US Supreme Court ruled April 28 in Salazar vs Buono that the US District Court for Central California must review its 2005 ruling that the transfer of land in the Mojave Desert bearing a metal Latin cross from the federal government to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) was unconstitutional. The land was given to VFW by Congress in 2004 because the Court had ruled in 2002 that the placing of the cross on federal land by VFW in 1934, to honor American soldiers killed in World War I, was a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. The Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals had upheld the decision in the case brought by Frank Buono, a former employee of the National Park Service.

Speaking for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, " Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles..." Justice Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

In a dissent joined by Associate Justices Ginzburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the government "cannot lawfully (honor fallen soldiers) by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message." (1)

The court should have applied the famous "Lemon Test" (2) to this case. In this 1971 ruling, the Court held that every valid law must have a "secular legislative purpose." Since the Court did not reverse Lemon in the Buono decision, the Court must have considered the transfer of the land bearing the cross to the VFW to have had a "secular purpose;" in the words of Justice Kennedy, to evoke the crosses on American military graves.

The trouble with his reasoning is that not all of these graves bear crosses; Jewish soldiers have died in every major war that America fought since the Civil War, and recently Muslims have also perished in combat for the USA. The graves of these soldiers bear the Magen David or the Crescent. Moreover, a large (but unknown) number of fallen American soldiers held no religious beliefs at all. (3) The cross, which symbolizes the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, is the logo of Christianity, and of no other religion or system of philosophy. As such, it should never be used by the federal government to honor the sacrifice of fallen soldiers, many of whom were not Christians.

Those who oppose the intrusion of the federal government into the lives of Americans should deplore the Buono decision, since the promotion of any particular religion is clearly outside the proper role of that government. This is my view.

It is particularly noteworthy that the only justice appointed by President Barack Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, voted to affirm the ruling of the district court that the cross must go. Readers will recall that the central reason given by the Glazerbeam to prefer Obama over John McCain for president was that Obama was more likely to appoint judges more supportive of civil liberties and the separation of church and state. (4) Justice Sotomayor has confirmed this expectation in this case. Had the election gone the other way, I believe the vote cast by the newest justice would also have gone the other way.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Associated Press, April 29, 2010.

(2) Lemon vs Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971).

(3) I would suggest the Question Mark (?) as the symbol for agnosticism. However, agnostics are not organized enough to get together and adopt a symbol.
Empty space might be a good symbol for atheism, but I cannot draw or model it.
For Wicca, how about the Broomstick?

(4) See "Reject McCain and Palin", October 6, 2008.

Moore in the Middle

2010-04-25T16:14:00.004-05:00

The US House of Representatives voted 403-11 to support a bill banning the shipment of gasoline to Iran to protest that nation's refusal to allow international inspection of its nuclear reactors. Two of the votes against the bill were cast by the two women representing Wisconsin: Tammy Baldwin of Madison and Gwen Moore of Milwaukee. (1) Readers will recall that Rep. Moore was one of only five members of Congress to oppose a resolution supporting Israel in the conflict over Gaza in January, 2009. (2)

Hoping to find out why my representative has taken these often lonely positions, I attended a town hall meeting with Rep. Moore and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio) at the Laborers Union building Sunday morning, April 25. The meeting was hosted by the Democratic Party of Milwaukee County and Peace Action Wisconsin. Although the location was in a very integrated part of the city (63rd and Appleton Avenue), the audience (not including the congresswoman's assistant) was about 99% white and mostly middle-aged or older. Demographically, the audience looked like a Tea Party crowd. (See if the media ever mentions that about peace-rallies!)

Most of the discussion was about the war in Afghanistan, to which Kucinich was totally opposed and Moore was more ambivalent. Kucinich mentioned that his father had served in World War II, but later said that "war doesn't work." I did not get a chance to ask him whether anything but war would have worked against Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. Although the audience was always polite to Rep. Moore, it's heart was clearly with Kucinich, who received tumultuous applause for his many strident declamations.

After one questioner contended that Israel had committed crimes against the Palestinians, Gwen Moore mentioned that she had voted against the resolution supporting Israel in the Gaza war because Israel had committed "overkill." However, she noted that she had also voted to shelve the UN Goldstone Report on the conflict because it was so totally one-sided against Israel. For example, the report said that Gaza police should have been treated as civilians, even though they were (some of the time) fighting alongside Hamas soldiers. Moore said she had been lambasted by her friends in the peace movement for that vote, some implying she had caved in to AIPAC. "But check my financial records," she added, " I don't get much Jewish money! (With these votes) I managed to (expletive)-off both sides! (3)....Nobody (in the Middle East) has clean hands!" Moore noted that she was opposed to building Israeli housing in the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

Kucinich said that the creation of Israel in 1948 was "great", but he disapproved of much that the country had done since the 1967 take-over of the West Bank and Gaza. Unlike Rep. Moore, Kucinich was proud to have voted to endorse the Goldstone Report, which he found balanced and factual. The crowd loved his remarks, while giving only tepid approval to those of the congresswoman.

After the public meeting I asked Gwen Moore why she had opposed trade sanctions against Iran. She told me that since China and Russia would continue to trade with Iran, the sanctions would do no good. When I asked her what measures, if any, she would support against Iran, my representative (cued by her assistant) cut-off our conversation to meet with reporters.

I think she is exactly wrong about Iran-----sanctions are the only step short of war that have any chance of dissuading the Tehran regime from pursuing nuclear weapons. The US should do what it can, even if other nations do not follow. Defeating sanctions (as her vote would have done) would have undercut the efforts of President Obama to get Russia, China and others to pressure Iran.

Apparently, Rep. Moore has chosen to take a middle position on the Israel-Arab conflict, sometimes siding with one side, sometimes the other. She knows that she does not need either the Jewish community or the peace activists (who are overwhelming sympathetic to the Arab cause) to get re-elected. Her base of support is Milwaukee's large black population, far more numerous than the Jews and the peaceniks combined. Since she is politically invincible, no one has her vote in their pocket.

I would prefer a representative more like Henry Reuss, Jim Moody or Tom Barrett, all of whom supported Israel consistently. But Gwen Moore is not going anywhere except back to Congress for the foreseeable future.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 25, 2010, page 19A.

(2) See "The Gaza 5" January 18, 2009.

(3) Although she denied being influenced by Jewish money in her congressional votes, she never mentioned that her own brother (Atty. Gerald McKinney) considers himself a convert to conservative Judaism and was married to a Jewish woman. Some of her nieces and nephews are Jews. Wouldn't that connection to the Jewish people influence her more than campaign contributions? Maybe not!

Slamming Islam

2010-04-21T09:31:00.003-05:00

"We're not attacking Islam, but Islam has attacked us...and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion."
"But true Islam cannot be practiced in this country. You can't beat your wife. You cannot murder your children if you think they have committed adultery.....its a very violent religion."
Rev. Franklin Graham

"Given the heinously hurtful, bigoted statements of Mr Graham against ...Islam, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Foundation (MRFF) demands that the Pentagon Chaplain Office immediately rescind the invitation to Mr Graham (to speak at National Prayer Day observance)"
Letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, signed by Michael L Weinstein on behalf of MRFF,
(upon request of several Muslim Defense Department employees)

As noted in our April 16 posting, the US District Court for Western Wisconsin has declared the law that directs the President to declare a National Prayer Day unconstitutional. But the ruling does not bar the President from doing so on his own volition, and he intends to sign the proclamation designating May 6 for that purpose. I consider any government sponsorship of religious activities, such as the Pentagon ceremony in which Rev. Graham is to speak, inappropriate.

The MRFF is dedicated to fighting the efforts of some military officers to subject thei soldiers to Christian evangelizing on base. On this point, I totally agree with Mr Weinstein and his group. The letter, quoted in part above, also objects to the participation of a Christian ministry led by Mr Graham in planning and conducting the Pentagon National Prayer Day observance. But I would like to focus on the claim that Graham's bashing of Islam is sufficient reason to rescind the invitation for him to speak there.

I am not defending all the statements quoted above; I do not believe that Islam mandates beating wives or killing children, and anyone can certainly practice "true Islam" legally in the US and elsewhere. Crimes of this type have been committed by Muslims, some even "in the name of Islam", but Islam does not command, or even condone, violence against family.

Yet the nexus between political terrorism in the world today and fervent Islam cannot be denied. Noted Israeli scholar Benny Morris wrote, " ...almost all the world's terrorism emanates from Muslim societies and is directed against non-Muslims (in the Philippines,Thailand, Nigeria, Sudan, Chechnya, India, London, Spain, the United States and Israel) or against other Muslims seen as collaborators with the infidels (in Pakistan, Gaza, Afghanistan and Indonesia." (1) Would Mr Weinstein object to Mr Morris speaking at the Pentagon, too?

Since the perpetrators of all the terrorism noted by Benny Morris have nothing in common but their Islam, there must be an aspect of that faith that impels some of its most fanatical adherents to strap-0n explosives and kill themselves and others after crying out "Allah hu akhbar!"(2) I find the common thread in these actions to be the Muslim concept of "jihad", the struggle between the forces of Islam and the enemies of Islam, which can be just about everybody else. Islamic literature and culture glorify those who give their lives for their faith ("shaheedin"). One Muslim prophecy even says that someday rocks and trees will call out to Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them.

Perhaps great world religions go through phases of development like people do. When Christianity was the age that Islam is now, that is the Fourteenth Century, Christian firebrands went about killing and burning Jews, Muslims and even allegedly errant Christians in the name of Christ. ( Maybe if we only wait about six hundred years, Islam will have mellowed so much that the top ayatollahs will sound like Pope John XXIII. ) But right now, Islam is in a phase of self-righteous intolerance, and even of those who do not commit violence in its name, many will cheer it on from the sidelines.

So, when Franklin Graham says that "Islam has attacked us" there is a big grain of truth in that pithy remark. All our major enemies today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran are fanatical Muslims. So are Hamas and Hezbollah, who threaten Israel. The Pentagon is one place in this nation where this truth should trump political correctness, and pointing this out merely acknowledges reality.

But when you introduce religion into a venue that is dedicated to national security, you bring religious antagonisms into the discussion. That is why the whole idea of a National Prayer Day ceremony at the Pentagon is bad, whether the speaker is Franklin Graham, Shmuely Boteach or Louis Farrakhan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The New Republic, April 29, 2010, page 42.

(2) Arabic for "God is Supreme!"

Admit It, Already!

2010-04-19T09:29:00.004-05:00

"An Iranian-hosted ...conference ...demanded that Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to ensure a nuclear-weapons free Middle East."
Nasser Karimi of the Associated Press, April 19, 2010.

The NPT, which became effective on March 5, 1970, recognized five countries as "Nuclear Weapons States" : the United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), Britain, France and China. Another 184 nations signed-on as "Non-Nuclear Weapons States" (NNWS). The treaty requires that the states having these weapons will not provide them to any NNWS, and the latter group agrees not to acquire them. Moreover, the NNWS signatories also agree to inspection of their nuclear facilities by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear materials to weapons production.

Three nations declined to sign the NPT: Israel, India and Pakistan. Although the NPT was signed under the authority of the Shah of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran (established in 1979) claims to adhere to the NPT, but has refused to allow IAEA inspections of some reactors. North Korea signed the NPT, but withdrew in 2003 after admitting that it had built atomic weapons and openly testing them.

India and Pakistan have also tested nuclear weapons, and show no signs of giving them up. Israel has neither admitted nor denied having "nukes", but a 1991 book entitled "The Samson Option" by Seymour Hersh (1) disclosed that Israel has been a nuclear power since late 1966, years before the NPT was even enacted. Since the book was published, former President Jimmy Carter has confirmed that Israel had nuclear weapons during his presidency (1977-1981); unlike Mr Hersh, Carter had access to CIA intelligence at the time. In 2008, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a Texas congressman, estimated that Israel had about 200 atomic bombs.

In light of all this evidence, it is absurd for the Israeli government to continue the pretense that it may not be a nuclear power. Instead, I contend that Israel should offer to sign the NPT as a Nuclear Weapons State, if the treaty can be amended to permit the addition of new ones. Signing on this basis would encourage India and Pakistan to also sign-on as nuclear powers, which would subject them to the obligation not to transfer atomic weapons technology or materials to any NNWS.

Of course, if new nations were added to the five recognized nuclear powers of the NPT, that would be an admission that the NPT had failed in its core mission of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But, since none of the three (India, Israel and Pakistan) had ever agreed to be bound by the NPT at all, bringing them in as nuclear powers would actually increase the jurisdiction, as so the binding force, of the treaty. It would also acknowledge reality, which is always an improvement over illusion.

Of course the Iranians will ask, "If its OK for Israel to have the Bomb, why not Iran?" (But that is equivalent to asking. "If its OK for China, why not Israel?" Israel's strategic position is a lot more perilous than China's, and so it has a greater need for the ultimate "Equalizer" weapon.) A facile answer is that Iran agreed to be bound by the NPT, but Israel did not, which is why the UN has sanctioned Iran for refusing IAEA inspections but never sanctioned Israel ( or India or Pakistan, for that matter. ) But a more realistic answer is that Israel has had the Bomb for more than forty years and never used it, despite repeated threats and missile attacks. Israel does not threaten to destroy any other country, even those that have threatened its very existence. Iran, on the other hand, is led by a man who has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel. Such a nation cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel can. This reasoning will not sit well in Tehran.

In today's world, power is respected more than any other attribute of a nation. Even rogue North Korea, a very small nuclear power widely reviled in the civilized world, is apparently to be spared the kind of "regime change" that was inflicted upon NNWS Afghanistan and Iraq. With Israel as an acknowledged nuclear nation, those leaders who threaten it will have to face down their own countrymen who would rather not be incinerated in return.

In his book The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli concluded that it was better to be feared than loved. Since Israel is certainly not loved in this crazy world, I ask only that it be feared.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Published by Random House, New York.

Uncle Sam, Don't Preach!

2010-04-16T13:24:00.003-05:00

US District Judge Barbara Crabb of Madison ruled April 15 that a 1988 law requiring the President to declare the first Thursday in May as National Prayer Day is unconstitutional. (1) The case was brought by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison.

Those who are most vehemently opposed to the intrusion of the federal government into the lives of individual Americans can be expected to applaud this ruling, though so far they have not been heard from. Certainly, if any area of a person's life should be off-limits to government, it would be that of religious belief and practice. Rev. Billy Graham suggested a national day of prayer in 1952, and the Campus Crusade for Christ urged the passage of the bill that made it official. But the US Supreme Court has ruled that every law must have a secular purpose, and Judge Crabb found that this one does not. Rather, its sole purpose contravenes the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Now, I am not against prayer; in fact I pray every day. I have been praying since about 1952, and have never needed the slightest reminder from any government official to do so. The issue is not prayer itself, but rather whether a government official should officially advocate it.

While the Justice Department is considering whether to appeal the decision, the White House indicated that President Obama will issue the proclamation on May 6, as previously planned. Judge Crabb has stayed enforcement of her decision pending filing of an appeal. Given the rock-solid legal basis for the decision, it is hard to believe that either Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder have any enthusiasm for appealing it. ( 2) Even a pro-forma appeal will give private groups that favor public prayer an opportunity to file an amicus brief supporting the law. Although President Obama could simply accept the decision and cancel the proclamation, only a decision by the Supreme Court would be clearly binding upon future presidents. Accordingly, I would favor cancelling the proclamation but appealing only for the purpose of securing a binding decision at the highest level.

The National Prayer Day law is not coercive, but merely symbolic. The symbolic meaning is that it is right and proper for the federal government to recommend that Americans pray. To do this I say, "Thanks, but no thanks, I will decide that for myself on the first Thursday in May and every other day of every other year." I trust that the US Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court will say the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, April 16, 2010, page 1.

(2) Unlike his predecessor, Obama's religious beliefs do not appear to have any noticeable influence on his official actions.

Casting a Paul on GOP

2010-04-11T10:08:00.004-05:00

A straw poll taken at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference (SRLC) in New Orleans April 8-10 indicated the following preferences for the 2012 presidential nomination:
Mitt Romney 439
Ron Paul 438
Sarah Palin 330
Newt Gingrich 331 (1)

The big surprise was that Rep. Paul (R, Texas), who lost every primary in his quest for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, was virtually tied for first place with Governor Romney, a top-tier contender in that contest. Those who attend party conferences are not representative of the rank-and-file voters in primary elections; they are the party activists, the very people who are most likely to pick a candidate early and really work for him or her.

Ron Paul is not a typical Republican congressman. He is extremely conservative on federal spending and isolationist in foreign policy, putting him at odds with former President George W Bush on both the budget and the Iraq War. Paul always votes against foreign aid and was the only Republican (along with only 4 Democrats) to oppose the House Resolution supporting Israel in the Gaza War of December, 2008. He is also notorious for his affinity for "Bilderberg-type" conspiracy theories. In short, he is on the kooky-fringe of the Republican Party.

No, I d0 not believe he has any chance of winning the 2012 Republican nomination. If he runs again then, he will be trounced again. But the size of his support at the SRLC is a sign that a substantial segment of the Republican Party activists are receptive to a message that combines vehement hostility to the federal government with xenophobia and credence in big conspiracies. Parties that have just lost the White House are especially vulnerable to ideologue movements, such as those who engineered the disastrous nominations of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George McGovern in 1972.

Meanwhile, Rep. Paul's son Rand, an ophthalmologist, is making a serious bid for the Republican nomination for senator in Kentucky, where the incumbent Jim Bunning has declined to seek re-election. The younger Paul claims the support of the Tea Party Movement, and his endorsement by Tea Party darling Sarah Palin appears to confirm the connection. (2) Paul proposes cutting Medicare and Social Security, and amending the Constitution to require a balanced federal budget.

He has also called for closing the US Detention Center at Guantanamo, and repatriating all prisoners who cannot be convicted of a crime to Afghanistan.(3) Largely because of this stance, former Vice President Dick Cheney is supporting his rival, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, for the senate nomination. Grayson also has the backing of the state's senior Senator Mitch McConnell and the GOP establishment.

If young Paul wins the May 18 primary, his drastic positions may endanger the ability of the Republican Party to hold onto this seat. The conflict between Rand Paul and Trey Grayson nicely illustrates the double-edges of the Tea Party sword: the movement attracts highly-motivated people to join the Republican Party and become active, but also may result in the nomination of unelectable fringe candidates.

Like Ambassador Joseph P Kennedy, Ron Paul will never achieve his dream of becoming President of the United States, but he is "kvelling" that his son is on his way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press, April 11, 2010.

(2) Kate Zernike of the NY Times, same day.

(3) A CIA intelligence analyst who interviewed Guantanamo detainees estimated that about a third had no connection to terrorism at all. A subsequent study by the Seton Hall Law School found that most of them had not committed any act against the United States, and only about 8% were Al Qaeda fighters. (Jonathan Chait in the New Republic, April 8, 2010, page 2). According to author Jane Mayer of The Dark Side, Bush administration officials found evidence that about 200 detainees were innocent.

Hillary on Truth Serum

2010-03-23T08:33:00.003-05:00

"Clinton told (AIPAC) that provocative Israeli land policies in areas claimed by the Palestinians are not in Israel's long-term interests."
Associated Press, March 23, 2010

During the heyday of the Soviet Union, KGB agents would close-in on an enemy of the regime on a busy street and use an umbrella point (or the like) to inject poison into the victim. Imagine for a moment that an equally unscrupulous person today could obtain a powerful truth serum and inject it into an important public figure, making it impossible for the victim to lie for hours. For example, if this had been done to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just before her AIPAC speech, would the speech have been any different?

I surmise that the speech would have more like this: (edited to preserve the Glazerbeam's G-rating)

" I am supposed to say that I'm so pleased to be here today, but the truth is that I would rather be undergoing a colonoscopy with a rusty roto-rooter right now. That is because you all hate what the President, Vice President and I have been saying these past few days about Israeli plans to build Jewish housing in East Jerusalem.

Now you know and I know that the more Jews live in an area, the less likely that area is to wind-up in a Palestinian state. So, the more solidly- Jewish a neighborhood in any part of Jerusalem is, the more absurd it becomes to pretend that Israel will ever cede it to Arab rule. Now, some say that President Obama is deeply concerned about building homes for Jews in East Jerusalem; the fact is that he doesn't give a rat's (rectum) if the Israelis put up a (expletive deleted)ing Trump Tower there, and neither do I!

The reason that we are blowing a (expletive deleted)ing ton of political capital on this (urine)ant issue is that while Israeli interests are measured in meters, America's interests are measured in continents. We are fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the like in three Muslim countries right now: Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Without Muslim support, we can't win. And all Muslims hate Israel, more or less. Osama bin Laden and other jihadists never miss a chance to link the United States with Israel, and they are smart to do that! If we go along with every (expletive deleted)ing thing that Israel does, we play into that. That is why George W Bush was so ineffective in the Muslim world, and why Barack Obama had to give that speech in Cairo to show that he would be more attuned to Muslim and Arab interests.

So, we have to show the world that there is daylight between the US and Israel, especially on Jerusalem, a real flashpoint for devout Muslims. We have to do it out loud and in public to have any impact. Of course, we know that the Israeli government won't like it, but what are they going to do: give back the $3 billion?

If the President really wanted to make Israel knuckle-under, he would recall our ambassador from Tel Aviv. If that didn't get Netanyahu's attention, he would suspend military co-operation. And if that didn't work, he could impound the whole (expletive-deleted)ing three billion! And that probably would work!
J Street would be ecstatic! So, why doesn't he do it? He knows that Bill got impeached for (expletive deleted)ing just one Jew, and he ain't going to find out what the pay-back would be for doing that to a whole (expletive deleted)ing country of 'em!

So, Barack and I are caught between (urinating)-off the Jews of America and (urinating)-off the whole Muslim world. That's why we talk tough to Israel, but don't really do anything to make Israel listen. Even so, we know we are killing Democrats in New York; a Republican will probably take my old senate seat, and Democratic congressmen in Jewish areas are likely to go down in flames too. If it costs his own re-election bid in 2012, tough (manure)!

So why antagonize the Israel Lobby? Because Barack puts the geopolitical interests of the United States of America above the domestic political interests of the Democratic Party! Yes, its (expletive deleted)ing patriotism! The next edition of Profiles in Courage will have a chapter on Barack Obama!

I hope you appreciate being told the truth for a change, but if you don"t , you can kiss my (donkey)! Happy Passover, anyway.

Final Insult

2010-03-09T13:26:00.004-06:00

No matter what you think about the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, or war in general, I am sure that you would consider picketing of military funerals obnoxious and reprehensible. Yet our First Amendment protects the right to speak freely and "peaceably assemble", so the government cannot restrain people from behaving in this way.

But can those who have come to bury their dead collect monetary damages from funeral protesters, if the activity has caused them "emotional distress?" The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that will decide this question.

After Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder was killed in Iraq on March 3, 2006, his funeral in Westminster, Maryland, was picketed by Rev. Fred Phelps and several of his followers who contend that "God Hates the USA" for tolerating homosexuality. In addition to placards with that message, others read "Fag Troops" and the like. Moreover, Phelps claimed on his website that the soldier's father Albert Snyder had "raised him for the devil." (1)

Albert Snyder sued Phelps in Maryland and was awarded a judgment of $5 million for invasion of privacy and "intentional infliction of emotional distress." The Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the verdict on First Amendment grounds, noting that the signs did not specifically refer to plaintiff Snyder or his son. (1)

How should the Court rule, and how will it rule?

Although I believe that defendant Phelps and his associates have the right to express their crackpot views in public, I also believe that they bear the responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their words and actions. Just as the protection of free speech does not bar victims of libel and slander from recovering damages, so too should it not bar claims based on emotional distress. The efforts of Phelps et al. to protest as close as they could to the funeral and burial indicates that the the protests were deliberately targeting those activities. Even if the signs and slogans did not mention the plaintiff by name, that kind of activity at a time of bereavement should have been recognized as causing distress to the family of the deceased, and therefore should incur legal consequences. The website comment is also libelous, even if too absurd to be taken seriously.

The jury in Maryland originally awarded the plaintiff $10.9 million , but the judge reduced it to $5 million. Even the latter figure is way too high, in my opinion. The plaintiff does deserve compensation for emotional distress, but I see no reason that the compensation should be millions of dollars. I would expect that the Supreme Court will reverse the 4th Circuit on the question of liability for damages, but will send the case back to the trial court for reconsideration of the size of the award. Once the defendants know that they will have to pay for their outrageous conduct, I predict that the parties will negotiate a settlement of the case.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) McClatchy News Service, March 9, 2010.

Clinging to Guns in Chicago

2010-03-02T08:53:00.005-06:00

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

"...they get bitter and cling to their guns,....."
Barack Obama, April 12, 2008

Among those clinging to their guns are David and Colleen Lawson, Otis McDonald and Adam Orlov, who are challenging the constitutionality of a total hand-gun ban enacted by the City of Chicago. The case was argued before the US Supreme Court on March 2.

On June 26, 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in District of Columbia vs Heller et al. (1) that the Second Amendment cited above protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the law of the District of Columbia that prohibited handguns and placed onerous restrictions on other firearms was unconstitutional. In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens cited the initial clause of the Amendment to contend that it applied only to militias, not individuals. ( The US District Court for the District of Columbia had taken the same position, but was reversed 2-1 by the Circuit Court of Appeals. )

James Feldman, attorney for Chicago argued that states and cities should have the power to regulate guns, even if the federally-controlled District of Columbia should not. Attorneys for the plaintiffs contended that the right to bear arms conferred by the Second Amendment was incorporated into the limitations on state action of the Fourteenth Amendment, but questions from the justices indicated that the Court is not buying this viewpoint. I predict that the Court will affirm Heller, and hold that it applies to states and cities, so the Chicago gun-ban is also unconstitutional.

It is understandable that Chicago, long beset by serious gun-violence (2), would enact the ultimate gun-control ordinance. But is it a good law?

The plaintiffs in the Chicago case claim they want to be able to defend their homes with handguns against criminals. Although people should certainly call the police when criminals are barging into their homes, it will take officers time to get there. In those crucial minutes the criminals, who presumably are armed in defiance of local ordinances, can harm or even kill the residents of the home. A loaded gun in the hands of a potential victim, even if not actually fired, may be the best means of protecting their lives until police arrive, so I hope that the Court affirms their right to have and use one!

I believe in reasonable gun control: registration of firearms (together with ballistics data), licensing of owners and prohibition of private ownership of automatic weapons. Law-abiding people should have no problem with any of these restrictions. I also oppose the carrying of firearms in public places (except by police or licensed security guards) because an altercation between strangers could easily escalate into a shoot-out. But I agree with the plaintiffs that the City of Chicago has gone too far in banning handguns from private homes and stores; the law is "over-broad." If the Second Amendment does not protect your right to use a gun to defend your home, it does not protect you at all.

A gun is useless as a defense against criminals unless it is kept loaded and instantly accessible. But if it is so, then that gun is also a danger to members of the household and innocent visitors, particularly if there are children in the home. Although I live in a neighborhood with considerable crime, and have been the victim of a violent crime myself (3), I have never owned a gun and have no intention of ever acquiring one.

But the situation of every person and family is different, so I defend the right of other people to make the opposite choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Oyez Website.

(2) For example, the murder of seven men at the SMC Cartage Co. garage in Chicago on Feb. 14, 1929, (known as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre) shocked the world and turned the public against the bootlegger gangs. Today, a shooting incident in which only 7 people were killed would be at most a minor story on the national news, and quickly forgotten.

(3) I was attacked and beaten near my home on the night of September 9, 2008. If I had been carrying a gun that night, I probably would have fired it. Since the assailants were unarmed, I might still be in jail.

Citizen Zuckerman

2010-02-21T10:07:00.004-06:00

"Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of The NY Daily News, is mulling a run for the Senate against (Senator) Kirsten Gillibrand."
NY Times, Feb. 12, 2010

If Zuckerman decides to run, he will become the real-life " avatar" of the fictional Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper owner who runs for governor in the film classic Citizen Kane. The film was loosely based upon the career of another real-life newspaper tycoon with political ambitions: William Randolph Hearst. ( So life imitates art, which in turn, imitates life.)

Although Zuckerman is now a US citizen, he was born in Quebec, Canada, in 1937. He earned his bachelor's degree at McGill University in 1957 and an MBA at Wharton in 1961. After teaching at Harvard and Yale Business Schools, he went into the real estate business. He founded Boston Properties in 1970, and went on to make a fortune, now estimated at about $2 billion, in New York commercial real estate. In addition to the Daily News, Zuckerman also owns US News and World Report, and previously owned the Atlantic Monthly.(1)

Mort Zuckerman has been active in Jewish and Zionist causes for many years, and served as Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations from 2001 to 2003. He is a frequent participant in the McLaughlin Group, a Saturday night gabfest carried on many public TV stations.

Although he holds liberal views on social issues, he may seek the Republican nomination for Senator or perhaps run as an independent. Either way, he has an excellent chance of success, and here is why:

Financial Expertise: The economy is the big issue today, and Mort Zuckerman has proved he knows financial markets. On the McLaughlin Group in January, 2008, he accurately forecast the crisis that exploded about eight months later. (2) Zuckerman says now that the stimulus was not big enough.
So, even if he runs as a Republican, he will not follow GOP leadership in the Senate on economic issues, and he will not tolerate fillibusters. Instead, he would be a voice for compromise between the parties to reduce the deficit, which Zuckerman sees as the most serious problem facing the nation.

Adequate Funding. If nobody gives Zuckerman a dime for his campaign, he can easily pay for a powerful one out of his own wealth. If Mike Bloomberg can do it, so can Mort. New Yorkers don't seem to mind.

Endorsements: Zuckerman owns the Daily News, and the New York Post has already supported his candidacy. US News and World Report will probably look kindly upon him, too.

Weak Incumbent: Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed to the Senate less than a year ago to fill the seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (3) She has not had enough time to make a significant record in the Senate. This will be her first race for statewide office.
Although the Democratic nomination is usually a big plus in New York, in 2010 she will be dragged down by association with President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership. Obama carried New York easily in 2008, but he has squandered much of his political capital in the state by pressuring Israel about settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. I do not believe that Senator Gillibrand will dare to break with Obama on this issue, since she needs the support of the national Democratic Party. The President's party usually loses seats in the mid-term congressional elections, and this could well be one of them.

The Jewish Factor: The Jewish vote is crucial to winning statewide races in New York, and Mort Zuckerman is perfectly positioned to take the lion's share, especially if he plays the Israel card effectively. President Obama's support for the Palestinian cause will hurt Democrats everywhere in 2o10, but nowhere more than in New York State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia

(2) The Glazerbeam advisory to sell all stocks ("Maxed Out", January 20, 2008) was based upon Zuckerman's prediction. The DJIA was over 12,000 then. Was he right or was he right?

(3) The last appointed senator from New York was Republican Charles Goodell, who had been picked by Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to complete the term of assassinated Senator Robert F Kennedy in 1968. He lost in 1970 to Conservative Party nominee James L Buckley.

Specious Ad

2010-02-15T11:50:00.004-06:00

"Black children are an endangered species"
Billboard by Georgia Right to Life in Atlanta

The inflammatory wording indicates that blacks are a species distinct from "homo sapiens", which would be blatantly racist. ( Will Republican National Chairman Michael Steele and Texas Senator John Cornryn be as zealous in denouncing this verbiage as they were in blasting Senator Harry Reid for using the term "Negro dialect?" Don't hold your breath!) But I do not believe that this meaning was intended; rather the author of the ad meant that the high incidence of abortion among black women was endangering the existence of black children in the future, likening that group of people to "endangered species" such as whales and bald eagles.

Since the abortion rate among black women is three times that of white women, abortion plays a significant role in curbing population growth among African-Americans. But, unlike truly endangered species, the black population is still increasing every year, so the survival of the race is not really in jeopardy. The ad is disingenous, if not misleading.

In addition to the billboard campaign , Georgia Right to Life is also backing a bill in the Georgia legislature that would prohibit abortion providers from "soliciting business on the basis of the race or sex of the unborn child." Since I doubt that anyone is doing that now, I do not see the need for the proposed law.

Georgia Right to Life contends that abortion clinics are deliberately locating in black neighborhoods in an effort to curb population growth in those communities. I believe that they locate where the most potential patients live, irrespective of the impact on population dynamics. In my view, the reason that the black abortion rate is three times the white is not attributable to the marketing strategies of the abortion clinics, but rather to the greater need for such services among black women. This is due to the higher incidence of unprotected sex among black teenagers than among whites. Moreover, the churches most vehemently opposed to abortion are predominately white.

Opponents of legal abortion have been stymied by the 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which by now has the status of "settled law." Democratic control of the White House for the next three years makes it highly unlikely that it will be overturned anytime soon. In Georgia the anti-abortionists are introducing the "race card" to win over African Americans to their cause, just as the late Atty. Johnny Cochran used it to sway a predominantly black jury to acquit his client, O J Simpson. Although this tactic is perfectly legal, I find it morally repugnant to use racial sentiment in this way, especially where race is not really the issue.

But is it possible to reduce the abortion rate in black communities without inflaming racial animosity? Yes, if the young people in those communities would abstain from sex before marriage, and then use birth-control until they were ready to raise a child. Try putting that on a billboard!

Transgender Tax Cut

2010-02-05T09:33:00.003-06:00

"Costs incurred in sex-change operations ....are tax-deductible, the US Tax Court has ruled."
Ryan Donmoyer in Bloomberg News, Feb. 4, 2010

A Boston resident, now named Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, had claimed the cost of sex-change surgery and hormone treatment as a medical expense on his (her?) 2000 tax return, and the IRS had rejected the deduction as mere "cosmetic surgery." The taxpayer, who had been married to a woman for 20 years and had fathered three children, convinced the Tax Court that the procedure was necessary to treat a "gender identity disorder." Maybe now thousands of other men who have longed to become women, but were deterred by tax-considerations, will be inspired to follow his example.

Older readers will recall that George Jorgenson of New York underwent similar treatment in Denmark in 1952 and emerged as "Christine Jorgenson." (1) So did tennis star Renee Richards about twenty years later. Chastity Bono (2) is undergoing treatment to convert herself into a man, to be known as "Chazz Bono." Transgender people are becoming increasingly common, and often appear as guests on the Jerry Springer Show.

But is sex-change real? The mainstream media, including Bloomberg News in the article quoted above, accept the change as valid, and apparently so does the Tax Court. After all, if modern science can put men on the moon, can it not change a man into a woman, or vice-versa?

If a veterinarian told dairy farmers that he could convert a bull into a cow, and charged them for allegedly doing so, I believe he would be indicted for fraud. A castrated bull is known as a "steer", but is not a cow, even if shot-up with boatloads of estrogen.

In all vertebrates the chromosome configuration of every cell is either XX for females or XY for males. The choice is determined at conception, and cannot be changed later. Moreover, true females are characterized by the development of ovaries and a uterus (womb) before birth. Today's medical technology is not capable of producing these organs in males, and I doubt that it ever will be. To say that a doctor has converted a male into a female is therefore bogus, in my view. But if someday a mammal born male undergoes a sex-change procedure and subsequently produces ova (eggs), I will retract this Glazerbeam and admit I was wrong. (I do not do this often, so call or e-mail as soon as it happens!) Meanwhile, O'Donnabhain should be considered a eunuch, not a woman.

Doctors are bound by the admonition "Primo, non nocere", which means "First, do no harm." I question whether surgically removing healthy tissue because the patient is unhappy with his gender role is not a violation of this principle. Patients who seek gender-reassignment treatment are undoubtedly sick, but the proper treatment for "gender identity disorder" may well be psychiatric, not surgical. Doctors should inform such patients that since true sex-change is not really possible, they should seek treatment that will enable them to accept the bodies with which they were born.

If the validity of sex-change is accepted by our legal system, numerous paradoxes would be created. For example, the Wisconsin Constitution now prohibits the State from recognizing a marriage between two women. So if a married man becomes a woman, the marriage would become invalid, even though no divorce has taken place. By the same token, if a Jewish man undergoes sex-change treatment, the individual would still be expected to sit on the men's side of the synagogue "mechitza " (partition), wear a "yarmulke" and don tefillin on weekdays, even if dolled-up in a dress and high-heels. (3)

But isn't the tax deduction for this procedure great? I could sure use a tax-cut, but this is one kind of cut that I definitely don't want. If I feel the need to reduce my tax liability, I would sooner vote Republican than part with any of my essential parts.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia.

(2) Chasitity Bono was named after a bisexual woman played by her mother (Cher) in a film made by her father ( Sonny) . Shakespeare asked "What is in a name?" Maybe plenty.

(3) Both the emasculation surgery and cross-dressing are contrary to Jewish law.

Dead Sea's Living Legacy

2010-02-03T09:26:00.004-06:00

The Milwaukee Public Museum is now offering an unprecedented look at the Dead Sea Scrolls for Milwaukee area residents and visitors. The scrolls, written in the late Second Temple era (probably) by a Jewish sect called the Essenes (Tznuim), were found in caves near the Dead Sea in the late 1940's. The Essenes rejected the leadership of the Temple cohanim (priests), whom they considered corrupt and evil. They left Jerusalem and other Jewish cities to establish their own commune under the leadership of their Moreh Tzedek (Teacher of Righteousness).

The Display: The exhibit includes both actual scroll fragments and facsimiles, as well as coins and artifacts from the same time and place. Some of the scrolls are Biblical, others include the rules of governance of the Essenes commune. The actual scrolls are exhibited in a dark room with very low illumination, perhaps to avoid light damage to the materials. Each part of the exhibit is accompanied by an explanatory sign.
For documents that are about 2,000 years old (verified by carbon-14 dating), the actual scrolls are remarkably legible. Although the calligraphy is somewhat different from modern Hebrew, anyone who knows Hebrew will be able to read at least some of the words. If you want to read the facsimile Isaiah Scroll (the most complete of those found), bring a Hebrew text of the Book of Isaiah, so that you can match the words of the Scroll to their equivalents in modern lettering.

Religious Significance: Comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls with corresponding Hebrew Bible (Tanach) texts used today reveals only a few minor differences. (1) This means that the writings held sacred by Jews now are essentially the same as those revered by those who lived while the Temple in Jerusalem yet stood. Although the destruction of this Temple by the Romans in 70 CE ended the practice of animal sacrifice, the core of Jewish belief and practice has survived intact during two thousand years of exile and persecution.
Of the religions widely practiced in the Middle East at the time the scrolls were written (Roman, Egyptian, Greek, etc.), only Judaism lives today. Although Jesus and his first followers were contemporaries of the scribes who wrote the latest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, neither he nor Christianity are mentioned in any of them. (The exhibit does contain some Christian writing and artifacts from subsequent centuries).
Islam, which arose in Mecca nearly six hundred years after the era of the Dead Sea Scrolls, is mentioned in the exhibit only in noting that the mosque, the Muslim house of prayer, was modeled on the Jewish synagogue.

Political Significance: This exhibit, like the scrolls themselves, are a reminder that the Jewish people had a thriving society in the land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea some two thousand years ago. When the scrolls were composed, it was a large Jewish population living under Roman military occupation. Those who speak of "Arab East Jerusalem" or the "Arab West Bank" need only visit this exhibit to be reminded that the Arabs moved in only after most of the Jews were driven out.
Ironically, the explanatory signs refer to the land where the scrolls were composed as "Palestine" several times, even though the land was known as that time as "Judaea". (The Romans renamed the land "Syria Palestina" many years later after the Philistines, who had inhabited the coastal area .)
It is significant that the cave where the scrolls were first found by Arab goat-herders is near Qumran, in the West Bank. This is a reminder that Jews lived in the West Bank before 1967.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Dead Sea Scrolls by Millar Burrows (Viking, NY, 1955), page 303.

Corporate Cash for Campaigns?

2010-01-26T14:14:00.005-06:00

"A sharply divided (US) Supreme Court ruled (January 21) that labor unions and corporations can spend unlimited amounts to influence federal elections."
Boston Globe, Jan. 22, 2010

Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the Court, declared that campaign spending by corporations and unions is constitutionally protected free speech. He was joined by Associate Justices Alito, Scalia and Thomas and by Chief Justice Roberts. The other four justices dissented.

The Court had previously ruled that political spending is a form of free speech, but had upheld the ban on corporate contributions to campaigns. Wisconsin (as well as other states) also ban such spending, and apparently this ruling also invalidates such state laws as violative of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Although the ruling applies to unions as well as corporations, unions have skirted the ban by establishing independent "political action committees" which are funded by contributions, not union dues. Since membership in a union is a virtual requirement for employment in some industries, the use of dues money to finance campaigns or issue ads would be unfair to workers who oppose the political stance taken by union leadership. I believe that the courts will uphold labor-law restrictions on the use of dues money for politics, despite the cited ruling on campaign-finance law.

Thus the net effect of this ruling would benefit Republican candidates and pro-business causes. Candidates and causes (such as referenda) that primarily favor the rich already have a substantial advantage over those championing the poor and the working class, simply because rich people have more money to spare that they can spend on politics. Now such causes will also benefit from money invested in corporations.

Although corporations have economic interests, such as low corporate taxes, they do not have opinions. It is meaningless to attribute thoughts to a legal entity which has no characteristics of a "natural person." For example, the Marcus Corporation is owned by a huge number of stockholders, both individual and institutional, but is led by members of the family of founder Ben Marcus. Would it be right for the management of the firm to donate Marcus Corporation funds to federal candidates who stand up for Israel, even though the US-Israel relationship has no connection to the profitability of the Corporation? For example, suppose a congressional candidate loves Israel and supports higher taxes on hotels, would it still be OK to use stockholder funds to back the candidate? I say "no", but the Supreme Court has just made this donation perfectly legal.

If corporations begin to play a larger role in politics, look for political fights to play a larger role in disputes over corporate governance. Men like George Soros, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates could pour millions into proxy battles over shareholder resolutions about which candidate or party to back in national elections. Watch for resolutions about abortion, gay-marriage and the Middle East to start turning up on proxy ballots. In a large corporation, a million dollars invested in a proxy battle could leverage ten million in corporate contributions to a party or candidate, and the investor would still own a million dollars worth of stock! Is this a great country, or what?

The decision has come just in time to allow corporate money to play a big role in the 2010 congressional elections, and perhaps an even bigger role in the presidential contest of 2012. Although the ruling can be defended on free-speech grounds, I contend that it is bad for investors, bad for our political system, and therefore bad for America.

Weak Reid

2010-01-11T09:26:00.004-06:00

" (Barack Obama is)...a light skinned African-American, with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Senator Harry Reid (D, Nevada), during the 2008 presidential primary campaign

This quotation, from the new book "Game Change" (1), prompted Senator John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, to demand that Reid resign as Majority Leader, calling his remarks "embarrassing and racially insensitive." (Did you realize that Cornyn was so racially sensitive? I didn't.)

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele compared the quote to one by then Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott that caused him to step-down from his leadership position. At a birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond (R, South Carolina) in early December, 2002, Lott noted that his home state of Mississippi had voted for Thurmond for President in 1948 (2) and added that "..if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over these years." (3) Steele said that if Lott had to resign as Majority Leader for his statement, so should Reid for his. As Steele put it, "It's either racist or it's not. And it's inappropriate, absolutely." (4)

Senator Reid apologized to President Obama for the remark, and the President accepted his apology and considers the matter closed. Apparently the President is less sensitive to racial slights than Senator Cornyn, let alone Mr. Steele.

In my view, the whole controversy is bogus. First, I do not consider the word "Negro" to be racist, if that is what bothers the Republicans. Harlem activist Marcus Garvey proudly used it in the title of his movement: the Universal Negro Improvement Association. Martin Luther King used it in almost every speech. The United Negro College Fund uses the term today, as does the US Census Bureau. ( Obama could have deleted it from the 2010 census questionnaire, but has not done so. ) Until the Black Muslims repudiated the word in the 1960's, everyone used it to describe Americans of African ancestry. Today "Negro" may be a bit quaint, but I do not believe it is pejorative, and certainly not racist.

But what about the remark itself? Suppose that a politician would have remarked in 2004 that Joe Lieberman has a good chance to become president because he doesn't look too Jewish, and does not have a Yiddish accent, although he could speak that way if he wanted to. I would have considered the remark fatuous, but not anti-Semitic. Like it or not, the ethnicity and appearance of a candidate, as well as his style of speech, are factors in his electability. Reid did nothing more than apply these factors to Obama, and I see no need for him to apologize for doing so, let alone resign his leadership position.

But what about the comparison to Trent Lott? Apples and oranges, I say. Reid's comment had no bearing on public policy. But if Strom Thurmond would have been elected President in 1948, as Lott would have preferred, the Executive Branch of the US Government would have opposed racial equality under the law for at least four years, with consequences far beyond that term of office. (5) One would have expected the Republican leader to have endorsed GOP nominee Tom Dewey for the 1948 election, rather than a maverick Democrat! (Thurmond switched to the GOP in 1965.)

As Democratic leader of the Senate, Harry Reid pales in comparison to men like Lyndon Johnson and Mike Mansfield. If he steps down, it would be no great loss--- Charles Schumer (NY), Carl Levin (MI), or Richard Durbin (IL) would all be better. Moreover, polls in Nevada indicate that Reid will lose his seat in November, anyway. He would be no worse off if he had responded to the torrent of criticism by saying, " What I said was true, and I am not sorry for it."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) By Mark Halperin (of Time Magazine) and John Heilemann (of New York Magazine).

(2) After the 1948 Democratic National Convention had approved a civil-rights plank for the platform, most of the Deep South delegations walked out and created a splinter party called Democratic States' Rights, aka the Dixiecrats. The new party nominated Gov. Thurmond for President and Gov. Fielding Wright of Mississippi for Vice-President. The ticket finished a distant third with about 2% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes.

(3) Lott said the same thing in 1980. (Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2002, page A06)

(4) Associated Press, Jan. 11, 2010.

(5) As President, Thurmond could have appointed racist judges to federal courts, including the US Supreme Court, who would have decided civil rights cases for decades thereafter.

The Prisoners of Palestine

2010-01-06T10:27:00.006-06:00

"Palestinian security forces in the West Bank have stopped torturing Hamas prisoners..."
Associated Press, Jan. 4, 2010

According to reports from both sides, Hamas prisoners held by the Palestine Authority during the past two years have been subjected to barbaric treatment, including beating with clubs and being suspended from ceilings in painful positions. Fatah prisoners held in Gaza have also been tortured and otherwise abused; in fact, 15 men have died in Gaza prisons compared to only 8 in West Bank correctional facilities.
Considering the worldwide outrage that followed revelations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners in the Abu Ghraib Prison a few years ago, one would expect huge protests over the mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners, especially among those most distraught by the "plight of the Palestinian people." What did Jimmy Carter know about this, and when did he know it? (1) Until the referenced article about the end of such abuses in the West Bank, I cannot recall seeing even one news account about them. Why?

The Abu Ghraib story was sparked by the photos of abused Arabs, and no such photos are available from the West Bank or Gaza prisons. Also, the humiliation inflicted on Iraqi prisoners by women and the use of dogs at Abu Ghraib has no apparently parallel in the Palestinian prisons. But I think that the contrast between expectation and reality in reports of American and Israeli abuse of inmates is what really distinguishes such stories from those of abuse of Arabs by other Arabs. The Palestine prison case is essentially a "dog-bites-dog" story, which elicits little interest.

Reporters know that prisons in the Muslim World are hell-holes where sadistic treatment of inmates is routine, but western democracies like the United States, European countries and Israel are held to a much higher standard. In fact, pressure from the Obama Administration is one of the factors that led the Palestine Authority (PA) to halt abuses and punish 43 officers for committing them.

I contend that this story is important, and should have been given much more coverage for two reasons:

1. Egyptian mediators are trying to broker a settlement between Hamas and Fatah that could lead to a coalition government for the Palestine Authority. The abuses on both sides show how deep the enmity is between the parties, which may be a greater obstacle to the establishment of a united Palestinian State than all the Israeli West Bank settlements combined.

2. Although the PA has demanded that all Jewish settlers leave the land that they want for the proposed Palestinian state, some of the settlers say they are determined to stay in their homes, no matter what. The recent revelations about how barbaric PA officers have been to their fellow Arabs provides a hint at how they would treat Jews under their control. If any settlers someday wind-up in a Palestinian prison, they should know what to expect. (2)

Hamas militants are ruthless killers, and I have no sympathy for any of them. Yet the way they have been treated by the PA under the moderate leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas speaks volumes about the true nature of the group that is widely considered a suitable "partner for peace."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Carter maintains contact with several Hamas leaders, so he could have easily learned about the abuse of Hamas prisoners by Fatah.

(2) The Government of Israel, which has also been accused of abusing Arab prisoners, has had no incentive to publicize this matter, especially when it has been supporting the Abbas regime.

Guardians in Gaza

2010-01-01T09:39:00.004-06:00

"(Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008) was against Palestine, against Judaism, against the Jewish people and against humanity."
Rabbi Dovid Feldman of New York, speaking in Gaza, December 30, 2009 (1)

Rabbi Feldman and three other members of the tiny Neturei Karta (NK) movement participated in an international group of about 100 who joined around 500 Gaza Arabs in demonstrating against the Israeli partial blockade of Gaza. NK, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is totally opposed to the existence of the State of Israel, so Rabbi Feldman and his colleagues apparently were comfortable in collaborating with those who have fired thousands of rockets at Sderot and other Israeli cities.

Who are these guys, and what do they want?

The Neturei Karta (Aramaic for "Guardians of the City" of Jerusalem) began as a movement among Hungarian and Lithuanian Jews who settled in the Mea Shearim (100 Gates) area of Jerusalem during the 19th Century(2). They were happy to live as a tolerated small minority, first under the rule of Muslim Turks, and subsequently under the British. They steadfastly opposed the idea of establishing a Jewish state in the Land of Israel before the coming of Moshiach (Messiah) as a violation of the post-Exile covenant between God and Jewish people (3). NK joined with Satmar chasidim and Agudas Israel in trying to prevent the partition of the Palestine Mandate by the United Nations in 1947.

After the State was established in 1948, Agudas Israel accepted it and participated in the Knesset. But NK and Satmar refused to support the State of Israel in any way, and have isolated themselves from it to the extent possible. While most other orthodox Jews in the country became Israeli patriots, NK established contacts with PLO; one rabbi even served in Yassir Arafat's cabinet. NK has splintered into a number of factions, including some that have settled in Brooklyn and Monsey, New York.

Among the most radical of NK activists is Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, New York, who spoke at the Holocaust revisionist conference in Tehran in 2006. Although insisting that the Holocaust was an indisputable historical fact (which some other participants denied), he asserted that it should never be "used as a tool to oppress other people." Weiss supported the goal of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the State of Israel be dismantled, albeit by peaceful means., and replaced by a Palestinian state.

Like the rejectionist Arab factions, Neturei Karta longs to turn back the clock to 1918, when Jews lived in Jerusalem as a tolerated minority in a Muslim-run country. To this end they are willing to align themselves with the enemies of Israel, who use them for anti-Israel propaganda. The media are happy to publicize their activities and statements, despite their tiny numbers and lack of support among other orthodox Jews.

What the NK rabbis do not realize is that the world of 1917 has vanished forever; if the Arabs ever did take over in Jerusalem (God forbid!), there would be no Jews in Mea Shearim, or anywhere else in the Land of Israel. Their Arab friends would have no further use for them, and they would be driven out or killed. Only the despised State of Israel defends their ability to live in the Holy Land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 31, 2009, page 5A.

(2) Wikipedia.

(3) Talmud: Kesubos 111A.

Condomania in MPS

2009-12-13T11:18:00.003-06:00

A committee of the Milwaukee School Board voted unanimously on December 9 to authorize free distribution of condoms in the city's high schools. Students seeking the product would have to meet with a school nurse, who could then offer advice about sexual activity and the prevention of disease and pregnancy.

James R Carlson has responded to this measure in a letter to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, stating "what this irresponsible committee has done is to send a message to minors that sex is OK. .....spend money on the virtues of abstinence..." (1)

On the other side, Joel McNally wrote in the Shepard Express , " When tumultuous hormones have young people's interest in sex at a fever pitch, our primary advice to them is: Don't even think about it!. Fat chance of that!......The strictest,most controlling societies on Earth have never succeeding in preventing young people from discovering sex...or enthusiastically participating." (2)

Who is right? Who is wrong? Both writers agree that transmission of disease and impregnation of teenage girls is high undesirable, but diverge sharply on the best strategy to prevent these consequences of sex among teens. There are three basic alternatives for teenagers:
A. Abstain from sexual activity.
B. Go ahead and do it, but use a condom.
C. Go ahead and do it. Period.

McNally says that if we only preach A, a lot of teens will ignore the message and choose C. A recent poll of Milwaukee Public School (MPS) students indicated that about 63% of them are now engaging in sex, and of those, about 66% use condoms. (2) So, two-thirds of those of those who ignore message A still pick strategy B. He believes that free distribution of condoms will likely increase the percentage choosing B, while having no effect on those who adhere to A.

Carlson contends that the free distribution will undercut message A, which he feels is the only morally defensible message to send to our young people. He is against both B and C, but does not offer any plan to push B over C.

When I was a student at Milwaukee Washington High School, a mere half-century ago, the society in which I and my fellow students lived was not especially strict or controlling. We enjoyed as much freedom as any other society on Earth at that time, and our society was nearly as free as America today (3). The school did not preach abstinence in sex education class, since that class did not exist at all. The "tumultuous hormones" referred to by Mr McNally were coursing through our veins then, just as much as among teenagers now. But there was no pregnancy among Washington girls (and no contraception or legal abortion), so we must have been abstaining from sex. Strategy A ruled!

But why did we abstain? My guess is that most boys of my generation would have loved to "go all the way", but the girls said "No" and meant "No", and that was the firewall against both teen pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases (STD's). At that time, a girl who had sex risked unwanted pregnancy and the responsibility for raising a baby without a husband, or even a high school diploma. But even if condoms had been available to us at that time, I doubt that many of the girls would have switched from Strategy A to B. Not only did most of them have religious and moral compunctions about unwed sex, but the stigma of a being known as a "slut" still had deterrent force. ( Even some boys had these compunctions, although a boy who engaged in sex did not face any stigma for it.)

Today the firewall is gone, because way too many girls are saying "Yes" to sex before marriage. The stigma of unwed pregnancy is gone, and in some of our communities it is the norm, not the exception. This is true not only among the non-white majority in MPS, but in the larger American culture and society.

Although I agree with Carlson that the moral case for Strategy A is still right, the real choice for nearly two-thirds of Milwaukee high school students is between B and C. So I agree with McNally that the School Board should do all it can to help B trump C. The condoms will do no harm, and they just might do some good.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 13, 2009, page 2J.

(2) Shepard Express, December 10, 2009, page 12.

(3) Legal restrictions on adult pornography, non-martial sex and homosexual behavior are gone, so Americans today are freer than they were to engage in those activities. The rise of teenage sex and pregnancy is partially attributable to this greater freedom, so the consequences are not entirely wholesome. We are sailing uncharted waters.

Our Bastard

2009-12-09T09:50:00.004-06:00

"Of course, he's a bastard, but he's our bastard!"
President Franklin D Roosevelt

President Roosevelt was referring to a Latin-American dictator backed by the United States, but the same could be said of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan today. Despite widespread corruption and drug-dealing, and charges that Karzai stole the 2009 presidential election, President Barack Obama has decided to send an additional 30,000 US soldiers to help his administration defeat the Islamist fanatic Taliban movement.

Who is this guy? Hamid Karzai was born near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December of 1957. His father and uncles were prominent members of the Pashtun tribe, and served in the government of King Zahir Shah. After the Soviet invasion of the country in 1980, Karzai worked with the CIA to transfer funds to the Islamist mujahadeen militants, who were fighting the Soviets. After the Soviet-backed government fell, Hamid Karzai was appointed Deputy Foreign Minister of Afghanistan by President Rabbani. When the Taliban took over a few years later, they offered Karzai the post of Ambassador to the United Nations, but he declined the job. Karzai became increasingly hostile to the Taliban, and later joined the Northern Alliance, a Pashtun-led confederation of tribes determined to oust the Taliban.

After the Northern Alliance, with the help of American and allied armed forces, deposed the Taliban in December, 2001, leaders of the Alliance selected Hamid Karzai as interim President of Afghanistan, and he has governed the country ever since. (1)

As noted in our September 25, 2009, posting (Obama's War), helping the Karzai government defeat the Taliban is our only hope of preventing Afghanistan from again becoming a safe-haven for Al Qaeda terrorists. If, God forbid, the Taliban took over Afghanistan, the allied Taliban fighters in Pakistan would have a base from which to continue their struggle indefinitely. Even the slightest risk that a crackpot group like the Taliban might someday get their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is ample reason to keep fighting against them in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Although I have no first-hand knowledge of affairs in that remote mountain nation, I am willing to believe the worst about Karzai and his regime. While I loathe risking American lives to keep that regime in power, I consider the real alternative----Taliban rule-----far worse. Although we would like to have a working democracy on our side, sometimes we must support a non-democratic ally. Just as the US backed the Stalinist Soviet Union against Nazi Germany, we must continue to back the Karzai government against the Taliban.

But will the people of Afghanistan risk their lives to defend a regime that probably stole the last election from them? Unless they want to live under Sharia (Islamic) law as interpreted by Mullah Omar and his minions, that is exactly what they will have to do!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia biography.

Preaching to Police

2009-12-06T05:14:00.005-06:00

"Unfortunately, we live in an era where some people will make even God the enemy."
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (1)

Our Sheriff made this remark after a panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by US District Judge Lyun Adelman that Clarke's invitation to the Fellowship of the Christian Centurions to address mandatory roll-calls of deputy sheriffs was unconstitutional. The Centurions spoke at 18 roll-calls plus the department's leadership conference in May of 2006.

Among topics discussed by the Centurions was "how officers could impact others for Christ." One speaker contended that "God established government, and people in authority are ministers of God assigned to promote good and punish evil." (2) The case was brought by the Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs Association on behalf of two officers who objected to the programs. Judge Adelman ruled that the Centurion presentations "amounted to religious proselytizing," and the Seventh Circuit agreed.

The quotation cited above indicates that Clarke did not even understand the issue before the courts. If, for example, some future sheriff would invite Richard Dawkins (3) to lecture deputies on behalf of atheism at mandatory assemblies, Clarke might expect the "enemies of God" to support the lecture, since Dawkins is clearly on their side. But the truth is that those who brought the suit, and those who support the suit (such as your blogger), are not "enemies of God" and would consider making deputies listen to Dawkins every bit as wrong as subjecting them to the sermons of the Christian Centurions. Lectures on religion, whether pro or con, are equally violative of the First Amendment and the rights of public employees.

This controversy is especially important now, since Clarke is well-positioned to make a serious bid for Mayor of Milwaukee if Tom Barrett is elected Governor of Wisconsin. Clarke, a former p0lice captain who was appointed Sheriff of Milwaukee County in 2002 by Republican Acting Governor Scott McCallum, won the Democratic primary for the job that year and again in 2006. He was easily elected on the Democratic ticket both times. (4) He came in third in the primary for Mayor in 2004, behind Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt and Barrett. There is every reason to believe he still wants to be Mayor, and would jump at the chance to run again if Barrett were out of the picture. He would probably be the only candidate with a county-wide constituency and big name-recognition. (5)

In the less likely event that Scott Walker becomes Governor, Clarke might seek to become County Executive. However, he would probably face tough competition from County Clerk Joe Czarnezki, a former state senator who finished second to Tom Ament for that position in 1992.

It is bad enough that Clarke is notorious for abusing the rights of deputies. But those who treasure the separation of church and state have another, even more important reason, for opposing this man's ambitions for higher elective office.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 3, 2009, page 3B.

(2) But what if the government itself is evil? In that case, of which there are numerous examples (both past and present), police officers are the instruments of evil, not good. The complete text of the sermon was not available, so I do not know if the question of how a God-fearing person should respond to the orders of an evil government was addressed.

(3) British biologist, author of "The God Delusion" (2006).

(4) Democratic nominees for Milwaukee County partisan offices have won every time for over 50 years. Republican Scott Walker was elected County Executive only because the office is non-partisan.

(5) Ald. Willie Hines would become Acting Mayor if Barrett left office. Ald. Michael Murphy would also be a serious contender.

The Next Campaign Is On You!

2009-12-02T10:20:00.004-06:00

Are you tired of having all your state tax money go for mundane costs like the University of Wisconsin, schools, highways and prisons? Well, cheer up! Thanks to Governor Jim Doyle and the majority-Democratic legislature, you will have the privilege of paying for the next campaign for Wisconsin State Supreme Court! In fact, you might be paying for several primary campaigns and both candidates' ads in the general election. If you like political commercials, you will love 2011, the first time that the new law will affect a Supreme Court race.

Here is how the public financing will work: Any lawyer who has practiced at least ten years in Wisconsin is eligible to run for the State Supreme Court. If she (1) can raise at least $5,000 in contributions of $100 or less, she will receive a check from the State for $100,000 to spend on the primary. (Any Wisconsin lawyer who would have trouble meeting this meager threshold should not bother running. All she would have to do is hold a free dinner for all contributors to pick up 100 checks averaging $50; the cost of the dinner could be paid out of the hundred grand from the State!)

But it gets even sweeter! If at least one of the other contenders declined public financing and outspent our candidate, she could get up to $300,000 more in matching funds for the primary. For example, if five candidates filed for the job and only one declined the subsidy and outspent the rest (2), the State treasury could be on the hook for as much as $1.6 million in campaign funds ----and that is just for the primary!

If both candidates who survive the primary accept public financing, the State will provide each with a check for $300,000 for the general election. But if one of them declines the subsidy and spends more than the other, the publicly-financed candidate could garner up to $900,000 in additional State funds for the final battle.

The law also reduces the maximum amount that an individual can contribute to a Supreme Court campaign from $10,000 to only $1,000, so if you were hoping to send a couple grand to your favorite candidate in 2011, you will be disappointed. State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, who will be up for re-election that year, worries that "with so little candidate spending, voters outside the major markets will get no advertising. (3)" But I (and I surmise most readers of this blog) live in the largest media market in the State, so I am not worried about missing out on a plethora of political ads in 2011. But I can only weep for the residents of towns like Rice Lake who will have to survive 2011 without any political ads at all!

If Wisconsin state coffers were overflowing with cash, I could understand the desire to spend a million or two for political advertising, since it would help the state media, especially TV, and would also boost the egos of attorneys who would enjoy seeing themselves praised in commercials at taxpayer expense. But the truth is that the State is actually short of money this year, and crucial programs such as aid to school districts have been cut back. I have contributed to political campaigns, including some for the State Supreme Court, but my money went to candidates that I liked, not divided evenly among several candidates, some of whom I probably can't stand.

I understand that public financing is intended to reduce the power of big-money special interest groups, who have virtually dominated several Supreme Court contests in recent years. I contend that the best counter-weight to spending by one group is voluntary spending by those with opposing views. I do not believe that taxpayer funds should be used to level the playing field. I suspect that many other Wisconsin taxpayers, who cannot afford to make political contributions themselves, do not want the State to make contributions with their taxes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) I use the feminine pronoun since four out of the seven incumbent Justices are women.

(2) Ads by independent political groups that urge voting for or against a particular candidate will be included in total spending by the candidate benefiting from such ads. Ads that merely advocate a position on an issue, but do not mention candidates, are not included.

(3) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 2, 2009, page 7A.

Bargaining for Barghouti

2009-11-25T15:38:00.003-06:00

"I am not a terrorist, but neither am I a pacificist...."
"I strongly oppose attacks and targeting of civilians inside Israel, our future neighbor, but ...I reserve the right to resist the Israeli occupation of my country."
Marwan Barghouti (1)

Despite these denials, Barghouti is serving five life sentences for participation in a terror operation in Tel Aviv that killed five Israelis. The Government of Israel is now negotiating a possible trade of Barghouti and perhaps hundreds of Palestinian prisoners (most, if not all, convicted terrorists) for Sgt. Gilat Schalit, who was captured by Gazan terrorists in 2006.

Marwan Barghouti was born near Ramallah in was then Jordan in 1959. As a teenager he joined a youth wing of Fatah and fought against Israeli forces in the First Intifada in 1987. He was caught and deported to Jordan, but was permitted to return to the West Bank in 1994 as a result of the Oslo Accords. Two years later, Barghouti was elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council. He then became Secretary General of Fatah in the West Bank and commander of Tanzim, the movement's armed branch. In this role, he publicly criticized Yasser Arafat's security forces for human rights violations.

Barghouti was arrested again in 2002, this time for terrorist actions.He was convicted of murder for the Tel Aviv attack in May, 2004. Although incarcerated, he announced his candidacy for President of the Palestine Authority in late 2004, but withdrew from the contest at the request of Fatah leaders committed to Mahmoud Abbas. He remains a leader of Fatah, and is widely considered its most popular figure. Shimon Peres promised to pardon Barghouti if elected President of Israel; Peres won the election, but has not yet kept that promise.

Abbas has declined to seek another term as Palestinian President, and if freed, Marwan Barghouti is a favorite to succeed him. He would be a hard-line leader, but one strong enough to make a deal stick.

I am aware of the Jewish precept of "pidyon shvuim" (redeeming captives), and sympathize with the family and friends of Sgt Schalit, who want desperately to have him home. Moreover, securing his safe return would send a strong signal all Israeli soldiers that even if captured by terrorists, their government will never forget them.

But government leaders must put the interests of the nation above sentiment. Freeing Barghouti sends two messages to potential terrorists: Israeli hostages are extremely valuable, so capture as many as possible! And don't worry about being caught-----you will be traded for another Israeli hostage before long!

Unfortunately, the dire consequences of freeing convicted murderers like Barghouti and some of his fellow prisoners overwhelm the benefit of returning Sgt Schalit to his family and his country.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Wikipedia Biography.

Palestine Ploy

2009-11-17T13:50:00.003-06:00

"The Palestinians asked the European Union (EU) ...to back their plan to have the UN Security Council recognize an independent Palestinian state without Israeli consent.."
Associated Press, Nov. 17, 2009

If Israel won't give them the state they want, why not just declare independence? Just run the flag of Palestine up the flagpole, and see who salutes it?

The Arab League has already saluted it, and sympathy for the "plight of the Palestinians" is rampant in Europe as well as in all Muslim countries. Even the United States has supported the concept of a State of Palestine under three presidents (1), and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared such an entity absolutely necessary.

Actually there are several major downsides for the Palestinians in making a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Such a move would render the Oslo Accords, formalized in the presence of President Bill Clinton at the White House in 1993, a dead letter. Under this agreement, the Palestine Authority (PA) continues to receive substantial aid from Israel, including transfer of importation taxes. Without those funds, the PA would have to beg for help from other Arab states. Israel could also seal its border with the new state, thus depriving Palestinians of consumer goods and electricity. Palestine could continue to trade with Jordan, but that may prove insufficient.

Even if the EU supports UN recognition for a unilaterally-declared State of Palestine, the Associated Press article quoted above predicts that the United States would veto it. Since UDI would effectively kill the hope for a negotiated settlement that the US has championed for years, the US cannot be expected to allow the Security Council to recognize the new state. Moreover, the domestic political pressure for a veto would be overwhelming.

The UDI would not affect Gaza at all, since it is already independent in all but name. Even if Mahmoud Abbas were recognized as President of Palestine by the Arab League, the EU and the UN, he will still be President of Nothing in Gaza.

The hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers on the West Bank may welcome a UDI of Palestine, since that would effectively eliminate the prospect of Israeli soldiers dragging them out of their homes in accordance with some future peace-deal with the PA. But if they defy orders by the President of Palestine to vacate their settlements, attacks by the jihadist militias aligned with Fatah (2) would be virtually certain. The settlers are well-armed, and most are veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF); I would expect them to defend their settlements just as Israelis did in the 1948 war. If Palestinian security forces and the IDF were drawn into settlement battles, the entire West Bank could be engulfed in a long and bloody war. Those Arabs staring down the barrel of an IDF tank may be comforted by the thought that Mary Robinson (3) and many other Europeans are concerned about their plight, and wish them well.

When the smoke clears, the settlements will still be there, the IDF will patrol the entire West Bank, and the State of Palestine will be reduced to smoldering ruins. Then Judge Goldstone will condemn Israel for more war crimes.

And Barack Obama will send George Mitchell to the Middle East to jump-start a new round of peace talks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Bill Clinton (who offered Yasser Arafat a state). George W Bush (who convened the Annapolis Conference), and Barack Obama (who promised the Palestinians a state in his Cairo address).

(2) Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Hamas militias, though not allied with Fatah, might seize the opportunity to attack settlements in hopes of provoking clashes between the IDF and PA forces.

(3) UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002), known for her sympathy for the Palestinians.

Silenced Cal

2009-11-12T18:56:00.006-06:00

"If you have a particular faith (Christian), you are to be discriminated against and silenced. Your sacred symbols---from crosses on a desert mountain to Nativity displays in public places ---are banned. You are increasingly forbidden to pray publicly 'in Jesus' name,' but Muslims can speak of Allah and Mohammed everywhere they like..."
Cal Thomas in op-ed "Diversity is a one-way street"
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 12, 2009, page 13A

Ignore the whining tone of these statements for a moment, and consider their meaning. Unless you have been comatose for the past seventy years or so, you know that the first and third sentences are false, while the second one is no more than the legitimate consequence of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Let's start with the position of Christianity in American public life. Although about 80% of Americans identify themselves as Christians (1), one hundred percent of the presidents and vice-presidents of this country have been professed Christians. Eighty-seven percent of the US Senate is Christian, and so is about 94% of the House of Representatives. Christians hold seven out of nine seats on the US Supreme Court, the vast majority of cabinet positions, and nearly all high-ranking military offices.

As a result, Christmas is a federal holiday, and most federal (as well as state) offices are closed on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath. In contrast, Jewish government employees must seek permission to miss work on the Sabbath or Jewish holidays, and may be required to use vacation time. (Islam does not prohibit work on any day.) The Supreme Court has ruled that Jewish soldiers may not wear a yarmulke (or other hat) while working in an Air Force office.(2) Troops have been subjected to Christian proselytizing at some bases.

But what of our popular culture? Between now and December 25 we will be inundateded with Christmas music and messages on television and radio. (Some commercial radio stations play nothing else for weeks before the holiday. ) Christmas trees will be erected and lit at government expense at the White House and on public grounds in nearly every city and village in the country. (OK, there will also be some Chanuka menorahs on public property, thanks to the Lubavitcher chasidim.) Christmas carols will be taught in the public schools, and those who decline to sing them will be conspicuous by their silence. Although in recent years some public officials have paid attention to Jewish and Muslim holidays, the pervasive impact of Christmas vastly overwhelms any recognition of minority holidays. Likewise, Easter and Good Friday receive copious attention from the mainstream media.

And yet Cal Thomas contends that the religion of 80% of the American people is "discriminated against!" If so, Charlie Sykes was right when he named his book "A Nation of Victims." Not only are Christians not silenced, but their collective voice on the public airwaves nearly drowns out opposing views! Like all other Americans, Christians are free to pray and preach as much as they want, provided that they do not use public funds or facilities to do so , and that government does not provide a captive audience. (3)

But for some, even this is not enough: they want governmental endorsement of Christianity, such as displays of crosses and creches on public property. The City of Wauwatosa has even included a cross on the official city emblem. Does Mr Thomas consider that proper? I sure don't!

In the recent past Christianity was even more dominant in the public square than it is today. Until the Supreme Court stopped it in 1962, some states authorized official prayers in the public schools; Dallas even taught the New Testament at one time. Obviously, Cal Thomas resents the decline in the status of Christianity in America to that of just another religion, like Judaism, Islam and others. But that is all it is, and all it should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) About 15% are non-believers, and the balance are Jews, Muslims and others.

(2) Goldman vs Weinberger, 1986 (US 84-1097) . Congress subsequently reversed the ban on yarmulkes via an amendment to a Defense appropriation bill.

(3) For example, those attending public high school events (such as football games and graduations) have been subjected to listening to Christian prayers and sermons.

The Major Who Ran Amok

2009-11-09T10:09:00.003-06:00

Why would Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hassan shoot more than forty fellow soldiers at Fort Hood? Two explanations have surfaced in the media since the crime:
(a) He went "amok" (1) (aka "went postal") in response to orders to serve in Afghanistan.
(b) He committed an act of jihad (holy war).

Americans have become accustomed to incidents in which a man (usually described as a deranged loner) would suddenly shoot as many people as possible before being shot himself. The scene may be a college campus, a suburban high school, a church, a school, or even a commuter train. Except for calls for tougher gun control, these incidents have little political impact. In a few days, they tend to fade from public consciousness. If Major Hassan ever recovers from his wounds sufficiently to stand trial, he may say why he acted as he did. Meanwhile, theory (a) is most appealing to those who want to ignore the Islamic aspect of the case and those who seek to exonerate the Army from blame for failure to act on several signs that Hassan might become dangerous.

The case for theory (b) includes the following:
1. Before shooting, he shouted "Allahu Akhbar!" (Arabic for "Allah is the greatest!")
2. Although born in Virginia, both of Nidal Hassan's parents were Palestinians.
3. Hassan attended a mosque in 2001 led by Imam Anwar al-Aulaqi, who supported Al Qaeda. (2)
4. Hassan said that suicide bombers were like soldiers who threw themselves on grenades to save the lives of others.
5. He was reported to have made many statements to colleagues that they considered "anti-American propaganda" (3)

By many accounts, Nidal Hassan was increasingly unhappy about serving in the US Army for several years, and had sought a discharge, but was refused. Although both Presidents Bush and Obama have insisted that the United States was never at war with Islam, the only enemies our forces have faced on the battlefield in two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and numerous terrorist attacks since 2000 have been Muslims. In a remarkably similar incident, a Muslim American Army sergeant threw grenades into a military tent in Kuwait in 2003, killing one officer and wounding 15 others. In 1996 Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa (Islamic "psak" or religious ruling) that declared all Americans enemies of Islam, whom all Muslims should attack. A significant portion of the world's Muslims accept his viewpoint, including many in Europe and even some in the United States. In this clash between America and radical Islam, some Muslim soldiers in the US military find themselves conflicted between their uniform and their religious affiliation.

Apparently, Nidal Hassan was among those emotionally and religiously drawn to jihadist cause. As long as he was stationed in the United States, he could paper-over the conflict between his military service and his beliefs, but the order to serve in Afghanistan made the tension between the two intolerable. If so, his choice to strike out against his fellow soldiers (with the reasonable expectation that he would be killed quickly) is not attributable to mental illness, any more than Japanese kamikaze pilots or Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers were all "deranged."

With 20/20 hindsight, it is easy to conclude that Nidal Hassan should have been discharged from the Army years ago. No military organization can function if every unhappy soldier can quit at any time, all of our armed forces have ways of discharging people who are useless, or worse. (4) One of these ways should have been found to get rid of Hassan. But how can the services guard against future "Hassans" without violating our laws against religious discrimination? Israel openly practices "ethnic profiling" in choosing who shall serve in the I D F (5), but the US is prohibited by the Constitution from following its example.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A Maylaysian term for sudden, deadly violence.

(2) Washington Post, November 8, 2009.

(3) Associated Press, November 8, 2009.

(4) Had Hassan been (or falsely claimed to be) homosexual, he would have been discharged long ago.

(5) Israeli Arabs are exempt from the draft, but Druze Arabs are accepted as volunteers. Some other Arabs have also been accepted to serve in non-combatant roles.

How the GOP Can Win in 2010

2009-11-04T10:12:00.004-06:00

Republicans swept the races for Governor of New Jersey and Virginia, but lost both special elections for Congress (one in NY, one in California). The gubernatorial victories refute the claim that the GOP has dwindled into a narrow base of white southern evangelicals; Republican candidates won over independents by a two-to-one margin in both states, which backed Barack Obama only a year ago. New Jersey is a northern industrial state, with a very diverse population, including large numbers of Jews and other minorities.

But how can Republicans win the 2010 Congressional elections?

I contend that President Obama has made a major strategic error in his foreign policy that is ripe for exploitation by Republicans: the effort to create a Palestinian state. As noted in several previous postings, this effort is futile, because Hamas does not want a peace settlement with Israel, and Fatah is too weak to make a settlement without Hamas support. Apparently Obama, Clinton, Ross, Emanuel,and Mitchell do not know this.

Right now the dispute seems to concern expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank; the Palestinians insist that all settlement activity be halted, and Obama agrees. (Actually, all American administrations since Israel acquired the West Bank in 1967 have been opposed to the settlements, but this President has pressured Israel more vehemently than any since George H W Bush in 1991.) Moreover, Obama has visited Egypt since becoming President, but not Israel. He has moved the US from a staunchly pro-Israel position toward a more neutral stance vis-a-vis the Palestinians. (1)

Unlike many of Obama's policies in domestic affairs (such as health-care reform, economic stimulus, reduction of pollution, etc.), the shift in Middle East policy has a very small political constituency: Muslim-Americans, J Street, leftists and peace-activists. Jews and pro-Israel Christians vastly outnumber them. Democratic candidates for the House and Senate should be asked at every opportunity if they support President Obama's efforts to halt settlement activity and create a Palestinian state!

Republican candidates can appeal to pro-Zionist voters by calling for a Congressional resolution that defends the rights of Israeli settlers to build in the West Bank. Congress is always more friendly to Israel than is the Executive Branch (especially the State Department), but rarely breaks with Administration policy. Would AIPAC support such a resolution?

The obvious choice to lead this effort would be Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in all of Congress. (2) Most of the issues touted by Republican candidates, such as opposition to abortion and the right to own guns, leave Jewish voters cold, but unqualified support for Israel will get to some of them. The downside of emphasizing this issue is very minor, since most anti-Israel activists are so far left that they would not vote Republican anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) However, the US is aligned with Israel against Iran. So far, Obama has been no more effective that George W Bush was in opposing Iran's nuclear program.

(2) Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania was the last Jewish Republican in the Senate before he switched parties. There have been many others, such as Norman Coleman (of Minnesota, who lost to another Jew: Al Franken), Warren Rudman (New Hampshire) and Chic Hecht (Nevada).

New School Rules

2009-10-29T05:30:00.003-05:00

"Milwaukee's mayor would have the power to ...appoint the superintendent (of schools)...and set its annual tax levy under a legislative proposal Gov. Jim Doyle detailed Tuesday (Oct. 27)......it would also move authority over budget...curriculum, facility decisions and collective bargaining from the School Board to the superintendent."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Oct. 28, 2009

Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) are clearly in trouble. Only about half of all ninth-grade students ever graduate from high school. Massive fights break out at several high schools. Standard test scores are low.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Governor Doyle and State Superintendent Tony Evers have concluded that transferring power from the elected Board of School Directors to the mayor would bring improvement in this situation. But, why?

The teachers at MPS have the same credentials as those teaching at suburban schools, the facilities are comparable, and the method of governance is the same (an elected board hires the superintendent and staff.) If so, then why are the suburban schools doing so much better?

The answer, which no one wants to face, is that the real difference between city and suburban schools is the demographics of the student body. Suburban students are overwhelmingly white and come from functional two-parent homes where education is valued. Most MPS students are black, another large group is Hispanic, and most come from poor homes. To make matters even worse, large numbers of MPS students transfer from one school to another several times in a single school year, often from or to other states.

There is no political pay-off for elected officials to confront these facts; in fact, to mention them out-loud would probably cost votes. The problems of dysfunctional families cannot be readily addressed by changes in law or administrative practices. The state could merge all school districts in Milwaukee County into a single district, which would lead to integration of the schools (economically as well as racially), but this idea would be anathema to suburbanites.

It is hard to see how the power-shift proposed by the Governor would do any good at all. There is no reason to believe that the mayor would pick a better superintendent than the School Board. Giving the superintendent more power, as proposed, would have little or no effect on teaching or student achievement. I conclude that advocating some change, even irrelevant change, is simply a way to show the public that the officials backing the change are concerned enough about the problems to do something about them.

If Tom Barrett really wants to have some say in school governance, he should junk his plan to run for Governor of Wisconsin, and instead run for the Milwaukee School Board!

Pay Pals

2009-10-23T10:49:00.003-05:00

"The executives targeted by Feinberg are among the most talented and productive at their companies."
Martin Crutsinger and Steven Jacobs, Associated Press

"These people are considered the brains of the machine....this (pay limit) will give them reason to leave."
Steven Hall, executive compensation consultant

If you work for one of seven companies that received a federal bailout last year (1), US Treasury official Kenneth Feinberg decided you must get by with no more than $500,000 in salary this year. Firms that have repaid their government money are no longer subject to the compensation limitations.

Along with many other Americans, I will get by on less than half a million dollars in income this year and every year thereafter, but what will the top executives of the affected firms do?
Steven Hall fears they will quit their jobs, either for work at other firms or to retire. According to reporters Crutsinger and Jacobs, they are particularly talented, and so will be sorely missed.

I, on the other hand, salute Mr Feinberg and the Obama Administration for taking this action. I consider the consequences of the pay cut beneficial, both in the short term and long term.

Short Term Effects: Maybe the people earning multi-million dollar salaries are talented, but every one of them was (in part) responsible for the colossal failures that impelled their firms to seek a federal bailout. Since each of these firms continues to hold my tax dollars in its treasury, I should have some say on how this money is spent; I prefer that the millions slated for executive pay and bonuses be repaid to the treasury, rather than used to reward failure.
But who will replace those execs who leave because of the pay cuts? Just below the top earners at every firm are legions of middle-management people, now earning $200,000 to $400,000, who would be standing in line to take the top jobs for a mere five hundred grand per year. ( Even the President of the United States gets by with only $400,000 per annum (2), so $500,000 is nothing to sneeze at. ) Those who would move up to the top jobs bear less blame for the debacles that ruined their firms than those who would be leaving, so I contend that the quality of executive leadership would improve. In addition, the shake-up will open up middle and junior management positions throughout each firm, creating more opportunity for younger people to get into management and move up. Good!

Long Term Effects: One of the most cogent criticisms of the bailouts of 2008 was that they transferred the risk of bad investment decisions from the investors to the public. While millions of Americans are suffering economic hardship as the result of the recession, brought on by the banking crisis, the executives whose bad judgment triggered the crisis have not borne the consequences. The pay-limitation for bailed-out firms will be a sign for future business leaders that if they take risks that throw their firms onto the mercy of the US Government, they will lose their multi-million dollar paydays as a result. If this prospect is a deterrent to reckless conduct with other peoples' money, then I am all for it!

Full disclosure: Since my employer (Mount Mary College) did not accept any federal bail-out money, my salary will be not adversely affected by Mr Feinberg's rule. So, it's easy for me to support it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Bank of America, AIG, Citigroup, GM, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

(2) OK, the President also gets free housing, rides on AF 1, free postage, lifetime Secret Service protection, and other perks. In addition, former presidents make millions on book deals, speeches and the like.

Prince of Peace Prize

2009-10-15T16:25:00.005-05:00

"(The Peace Prize shall be awarded to) the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace conferences."
Will of Alfred Nobel, signed Nov. 27, 1895

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, awarded by a committee of the Norwegian Parliament consisting of four women and one man, will be presented to President Barack Obama. Why was he chosen? Perhaps Obama, like music, " has charms to soothe the savage breast "(1), especially when the savage breast belongs to of one of the female members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

The prize will put Obama in the company of three previous US Presidents (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter). TR settled the Russo-Japanese War, Wilson proposed the League of Nations, and Carter brokered the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab nation (Egypt). . The Prize also went to Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese official Le Duc Tho in 1973 for settling the Vietnam War, which ended two years later in a Communist victory. Perhaps the most notorious example was the 1994 award to Yassir Arafat (2), who had previously devoted his life to murdering Israelis, and resumed doing so a few years later.

Although Obama's achievements in securing peace pale before those of TR and Carter, he has certainly promoted peace conferences, one of the activities Mr Nobel chose to honor. Barack Obama has, in the past few months, expended substantial political capital in a vain effort to jump-start talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority. (3) He has also adopted a less confrontational approach toward some other nations than that of his immediate predecessor, and maybe that was a key factor in his selection. The President himself admitted that he does not deserve the Prize, and many of his critics agree with him on that point, if no others.

One of the problems with the Nobel Peace Prize is that there is no waiting period between the activity honored and the awarding of the prize. Certainly the awards to Le Duc Tho and Arafat would not have been made several years later, in view of their subsequent actions against the cause of peace. The Catholic Church does not declare someone a saint until at least fifty years after the person has died, so that the candidate's works could be evaluated in the light of history. Nobel might have been well advised to follow the Church's example in awarding the Peace Prize, even if the waiting period were five or ten years.

But the more serious objection to the Prize is that while "holding and promoting peace conferences" are cited as activities to be honored by the award, even though conferences often do nothing for peace (4), other actions that really advance the cause of peace, like blowing away the Osirak Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 (5), are not honored at all. When faced with an aggressive tyrant like Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, or Sadam Hussein, the best way to seek peace is by resolute resistance to threats and aggression, rather than holding conferences or seeking "reduction of...armies" as advocated by Alfred Nobel.

Maybe there should be a new prestigious international prize to be awarded to the person, nation or group that took the right action at the right time to prevent or limit the destruction of war. But this new award should be made in retrospect, well after the consequences of such action will have become clear.

If only men like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Donald Trump would read this blog, perhaps they would be inspired to establish such a prize in their wills.

Meanwhile Barack Obama will join Mother Teresa as a Nobel Peace laureate. But, Barack, you are no Mother Teresa!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Mourning Bride, by William Congrave, 1697.

(2) Along with Yitzchok Rabin and Shimon Peres. In retrospect, none of them earned it.

(3) As Glazerbeam readers know by now, such talks are doomed to failure.

(4) The Versailles Peace Conference led to World War II, and the Madrid Middle East Peace Conference led to nothing, for examples.

(5) Menachem Begin, who ordered the reactor attack, had already been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 for the Peace Treaty with Egypt.

Video Violence

2009-10-07T10:14:00.003-05:00

"The Obama administration asked the (Supreme) Court to reinstate a...law that bans the production and sale of videos that show torture, mutilation and death of animals."
Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2009

This law had been stricken as unconstitutional by the US Court of Appeals, which invalidated the conviction of Robert Stevens of Virginia, who had been sentenced to three years in prison for making videos of pit-bull fights.

The US Humane Society and other groups sympathetic to animals have supported the law, while civil liberties groups consider it an infringement on the rights of free expression.

I am totally opposed to dog-fights, and support the tough laws that imprison those people (like football player Michael Vick) who arrange them. I also abhor bull-fights, which are legal in most Hispanic countries, although not in the United States. All cruelty to animals is morally wrong.

Yet the law in question punishes the video maker, not the persons responsible for the dog-fight. As I see it, the First Amendment right to "freedom of the press" covers videos and photos, and the framers of the Bill of Rights made no exceptions for depictions of cruelty. I understand that courts have upheld restrictions on child pornography, but I considers those rulings questionable as well.

The truth is that the Internet is full of videos of fights between people, including children. (1) Although the adults involved are presumed to have consented to participate in these violent activities, the children (like animals) involved are considered by law to be too young to consent. If the law under which Stevens was convicted is held valid, the government could then ban videos of children fighting as well.

Questions raised by the Justices during argument of this case indicate that the Supreme Court will uphold the Circuit Court's finding that the law is an infringement on freedom of speech and of the press. Most likely, the ruling will be a narrow one, declaring that the law is too broad and does not clearly delineate the conduct prohibited. Such a ruling would not threaten other legal restrictions on pornography, obscenity, vulgarity and the like.

Following the lead of the late Justice Hugo Black, I would prefer a stronger decision on the side of free expression. But I will take whatever protection the Court will provide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) For example, Google " kid fights", "boy fights" or "girl fights".

Obama's War

2009-09-25T11:07:00.004-05:00

A Democratic president inherits a war in Asia, in which American forces were defending a friendly government against an insurgency. In response to recommendations from US commanders on the scene, the president increases the number of American ground troops. Although vastly outgunned by the Americans and their local allies, the insurgents keep coming, and seem to have substantial support among the population. Liberal senators begin to question the war, some even totally oppose it.

Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam? Or Barack Obama in Afghanistan? Just a few years ago Iraq was labeled Bush's Vietnam; will Afghanistan be Obama's?

The war to drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001, attacks was supported by an overwhelming number of Americans. The Taliban had permitted Al Qaida to operate numerous training camps in their country, and terrorists trained there had committed the 9/11 crimes. The US had been supporting a group of Afghan tribes known as the Northern Alliance against the Taliban for years, but after 9/11 the American military intervened directly against the Islamic fascists, and within weeks the Taliban had been driven from power. A new government under US ally Hamid Karzai of the Northern Alliance took office, and Taliban and Al Qaida members fled to caves along the Pakistani border.

Mission accomplished? I thought so, as did many Americans. We never did nab Osama bin Laden, but Afghans were at last free of Taliban Sharia (Muslim law) rule. But over the past eight years a strange thing happened: the Taliban have come back fighting, and the government in Kabul needs American troops (as well as money and weapons) to stop them.

What went wrong? ( I have never been anywhere Afghanistan, so my opinions are based on published reports, not personal knowledge. ) First, note that about 90% of the opium produced in the world comes from Afghanistan; it is the most profitable crop that local farmers can grow. The US and its allied government have been trying mightily to stamp out the opium trade, while it is no problem at all to the Taliban. Ironically, American heroin addicts are thus indirectly helping the Taliban to win over local farmers.

Next, consider that Afghanistan has no tradition of democracy. Before the Taliban, the country was ruled by a Soviet puppet regime, before that by a king, and before the monarchy it was ruled by the British. The prime forces in Afghan politics have been and still are: Sunni Islam, tribalism, and hostility to foreign armies. We Americans (and our British allies) view ourselves as liberators, and the Western-educated elite in Kabul concur, but to many Afghans in the villages we are just another foreign army of occupation. The Taliban, despite their cruelty and tyranny, and their oppression of women and girls, are Muslim Afghans, and we are not. Very few Americans in Afghanistan can even speak any one of their languages. How is your Pashto? Urdu?

Of course, the key to success is the local government, whose troops we are arming and training. Americans who have dealt with President Karzai, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have been disappointed with his leadership. Karzai is reported to be weak and ineffectual, especially in confronting internal corruption and the opium trade. His troops are said to need years more of American training, even though Taliban troops seem to be doing fine without any foreign training at all. If the Afghans really appreciate their new-found freedom, why are they not more effective in fighting for it themselves?

The trouble is that the downside of pulling out of Afghanistan is appalling. If the Taliban retake power, Al Qaida will be back training terrorists for missions all over the world. Worse yet, the Taliban forces in Pakistan will have a safe haven in Afghanistan from which to threaten Islamabad for years to come. If Afghanistan is the first domino to fall to the Taliban, Pakistan (armed with nuclear weapons) could be the second. The stakes in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) seem puny by comparison.

Although the war effort in Afghanistan is losing support in this country (1), Obama has little choice but to soldier on. According to one theory, his policy of appeasement of the Arabs in the Middle East (2) is driven in part by a desire to appeal to Muslims in Asian countries, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. If US casualties in the war increase, his popularity in America will decrease; but if he would pull out and the Taliban were to win, the consquences could be catastrophic.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama pledged to transfer US military power from Iraq to the struggle in Afghanistan. So far, he has kept that promise, but the road ahead looks not only rocky, but mountainous.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) According to a poll reported by The NY Times reported on September 25, 2009, the number of people who approve of Obama's handling of the Afghan war declined from 56% in April to only 44%.

(2)For example, Obama's speech to the UN General Assemby on September 22 declared Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegimate. However, in other parts of the same speech he urged Palestinians and other Arabs to stop inciting hatred and violence toward Israel.

Health Care for Illegals?

2009-09-16T10:43:00.004-05:00

Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled "You lie!" at President Barack Obama after the President claimed that his health-care bill did not cover illegal immigrants. Actually, the bill bars coverage for illegals, but does mandate verification of legal status. Democrats have voted down Republican proposals for requiring verification. (1)

On September 15 the House of Representatives voted 240-179 to rebuke Wilson for his boorish interruption; Milwaukee Rep. Gwen Moore was one of only twelve Democrats to oppose the rebuke. I would have voted for it, if only to go on record against the pernicious decline in civility that has marred our public dialogues in recent years. Coincidentally, on the same day Iraq released the man who threw his shoes at President George W Bush last year . At least Wilson kept his shoes on.

But more important is the question of what to do if an illegal immigrant becomes sick or injured. Right now, anyone (legal or illegal) can seek treatment at a hospital emergency room, and the hospital must provide it (1). This is because we are a just and benevolent society, and so, we do not want people to spread infectious diseases or bleed to death just because they cannot pay for treatment or even prove they are in the US legally. The alternative of denying emergency medical service is unconscionable.

If a person does not pay his hospital bill, and collection efforts fail, the hospital writes off the loss and the cost is passed on to other patients, including those whose bills are covered by various government programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. Since many illegal immigrants are very poor, we are already paying for their emergency care, one way or the other.

If the "public option" provision of the pending Healthcare Bill is enacted without verification of citizenship, it is likely that some illegal aliens will lie to the government to get coverage. If so, the hospitals that treat them will be reimbursed by the federal government, and the cost will not be passed on to other patients (except in the sense that they are also taxpayers). This will alleviate a vexatious problem for hospitals in areas with large numbers of illegal immigrants.

Although we should continue to treat the illegals when they get hurt or sick, there should be a penalty for lying to the government about their status. I would favor a system of random audits of people who have received medical benefits to determine if any of them are illegal immigrants; if any such are found, they should be deported. The risk of deportation would discourage illegals for applying for or using the federal health-care insurance, unless the need was extremely urgent.

But even if this modest amendment is rejected, the bill itself should still pass, because the benefits of establishing the public option (for the vast majority of uninsured who are American citizens) outweighs the drawback of possibly paying for the health care of some illegal aliens.

And that is no lie!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Myron Radke in the Your Opinions section of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of September 16, 2009, page 12A.

Puff the Electric Drag

2009-09-04T10:04:00.004-05:00

The Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Industrial Man was a witty commentary on the effects of technology on popular culture by Canadian Professor Marshall McLuhan, published in 1951. The same theme has been echoed in other literary works such as The Love Machine, The Electric Horseman and A Clockwork Orange.

Today electronics and cybernetics dominate the culture far more than in 1951: we have e-mail, e-tickets, telecommuting, even "phone sex" (no substitute for the real thing, I kid you not!) According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, today we also have "high-tech lynching."(1) When I was growing up in a northside Milwaukee tenement, you could see a real live mouse running about; now the only "mouse" you'll find in the typical home is connected to a computer.

So, perhaps it was inevitable that even the most visceral human activity known as smoking (that is, putting the smoke from burning leaves into your lungs, where it can do the most harm) is being challenged by an electronic substitute: the Smoking Everywhere Electronic Cigarette! (2) This gizmo is a steel tube, about the size of a real cigarette, containing a nicotine cartridge, an atomizer, a computer-chip controller and a lithium battery.

When the user puffs on the e-cig, a red light goes on at the other end and a smoke-like vapor is emitted while a nicotine-rich vapor enters the user's mouth. From more than a few feet away, the user appears to be smoking a real cigarette. The user gets the nicotine "hit" that he craves, but without the carbon monoxide, tars and other carcinogens that accompany tobacco smoke. The emitted vapor is odorless and harmless, and no ashes are produced.

The marketing materials for the e-cig claim that it can be used in places where smoking is prohibited, but I do not believe it. Allowing use of the e-cig in such places will give smokers the false impression that real smoking is also allowed, and will make enforcing no-smoking rules too difficult.

But will smokers concerned about their health accept the e-cig as a substitute? The product is too new to tell right now, but there is a real chance it will cut into the cigarette market, especially among hard-core nicotine addicts that have tried and failed to quit smoking altogether. If so, the product could have the salutary effect of reducing new cases of emphysema, lung cancer, and perhaps even heart disease. Nicotine is a powerful addictive drug, but it is far less harmful than many of the other chemicals ingested with cigarette smoke, such as hydrogen cyanide.

As someone who tried smoking (in 1959) and did not like it, I am glad I will never need the e-cigarette. But to those who are too hooked on nicotine to quit smoking anything, I say, "Go ahead and puff the new nicotine delivery device, but just don't inhale!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) A derisive term he used to describe the sexual harassment charges made against him during his 1991 confirmation hearings.

(2) See www.SmokingEverywhere.com for details.