Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – Discussion

This is the fourth in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I here, Part II here, and Part III here.

I have received two comments on the first two posts and I want to share those with you, together with my responses:

Michael Cerratto Esq. of Westville, New Jersey, wrote:

Good, something I don't feel so intimidated commenting on!

 The closing incident reminds me of a comment I once heard about the "cops vs. bad guys dynamic" being nothing more than our young delinquents vs. THEIR young delinquents. In any event, there are just too many dead bodies littering the streets lately, and the fact that we are only just now beginning to ask the questions which will, I pray, lead to some explanation of what is going on does not speak well of us. But then, again, I wonder if we really want the answers? Time will tell.

To which I replied:

You ask: "But then, again, I wonder if we really want the answers?"

According to CNN we do not.

I quote from my blog: "Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture - I”:

How many people are shot by police every year? Nobody seems to know the exact number (something that is itself disturbing -- no official government agency tracks the full data for the entire country)

… nobody wanted to fund it and the (police) departments didn't want it. They were concerned with their image and liability. They don't want to bother with it.''

If you have any observation on my later post, I welcome it.

And Bob Russo of Montclair, and its former mayor, chimed in with:

I loved your 20 year old letter to the Editor... and the reference to the Ham sandwich being indicted...the more things change, the more they STAY the same, I think is the correct version. Anyway, I think you are absolutely right on all counts. I just have a hard time as former Mayor and Deputy Mayor demonstrating against my police department as I have been asked to do by protestors of police brutality, which I believe really does exist, but should probably be referred to as overzealous excessive use of force. I just don't know what the solution to mistrust of police based on legitimate fears and negative past experiences is...while we still need the security provided by adequate community policing and foot patrols. I think we should be putting more police on the streets and devoting more resources to public safety and security at this time of increased violence and potential terrorism.....but the nation does not seem to care.....We should devote energy to securing our communities,  especially urban areas and cities,  rather than spending billions on foreign adventures that seem to only fan the flames of more hatred toward us....and we should fix our bridges and infrastructure which are crumbling due to neglect.   We really need another TR and FDR with a public works agenda to make things right again......sorry to write so late......I was just catching up and that is my commentary on yours tonight! 

Which prompted this response from me:

Sorry about not getting the idiom correct. I usually check things on the web, rather than relying on my memory, but in this case, apparently, I felt so comfortable with the form I used, (incorrectly) that I never thought of checking it.

On the substance, neither a TR nor an FDR, nor an LBJ, would make any difference. They all had collaborative Congresses, and overwhelming majorities in those Congresses. Congress does make a difference. And it used to be that politics ended at the water’s edge. All that is gone. 

The Supreme Court is no longer a judicial body, but a purely political one, with power greater then that of either the President or that of Congress. The Congress can be vetoed by the President, and the President can be overridden by 2/3rd in both houses, but SCOTUS can only be overridden but 2/3 of both houses and 3/4th of the legislatures of the states. That is awesome power, and when it is abused, e.g. Bush v. Gore, or the United case, which effectively legalized bribery and extortion, it does harm far beyond what people realize. Had Gore been allowed his victory, as was in fact the intent of the voters, the Supreme Court would have a totally different composition, would be handing down entirely different decisions, and even elections might be run differently, if a different court where to strike down the outrageous suppression of voters and the gerrymandering.

I have become convinced that SCOTUS must be weakened. I think 5-4 decisions should be treated as a tie and of no force and effect. I am aware that this might means that the upcoming 5-4 decision on gay marriage would be of no effect, but that would still leave most of the US with legal gay marriage. I assume that in any case giving effect to the Constitution’s, Full Faith and Credit clause (Article VI -Section 1) so that each state has to recognize a legal marriage in another state, is unavoidable even for the Right wing nuts on the Court. The language in the Constitution is too plain.

As for the police, I don’t think that we have inadequate forces. That may have been true once - I don’t think it is true any longer. But the police must be held accountable. If they are not, we are in deep trouble. But it goes way beyond the police. It is our whole criminal justice system, as I will elaborate in future posts.

As for "securing our communities, especially urban areas and cities” the best way to secure them in the long run is to deal with their economic and social problems. The outrageous under-financing of their schools, which should not be financed by local property taxes, which by their very nature finance poor neighborhood schools poorly, and wealthy ones extremely generously.  But, schools are not enough, unless we attack the underlying poverty and the social and cultural problems that have arisen from years, indeed generations of persecution, under-employment, and neglect.

As for "foreign adventures” I believe we must guard against isolationism (that has never served us well), while guarding against foolish involvement. Examples of sound involvement were the actions taken by Clinton in Bosnia and by George H.W. Bush in stopping the invasion of Kuwait, while Iraq, and of course, Vietnam were major errors. I think we are doing the right thing in punishing an expansionist Russia, but as I have indicated, we are wrong to allow an expansionist Israel.

Well, that’s a lot of area to cover in a nutshell, but on the criminal justice system, stay tuned.

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office. 

I AM A JEW (PART XXVI - Discussion 2)

As the title shows this is the 26rd part (actually the 27^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on Part I and then scrolling upwards or by accessing the label I Am A Jew.

My colleague, Albert Nekimken, of Vienna, Virginia, a staunch defender of Israeli policies, has agreed to present the Israeli viewpoint chapter by chapter, and I will share his comments with you together with my rebuttals.

Please read or reread my post "I AM A JEW (PART I)." Nekimken’s counter-views follow in italics together with my rebuttals paragraph by paragraph.

While valuable as a way to personalize our dialogue with readers, being a Jew is quite irrelevant to our understanding of the subject. Men can be feminists and Christians or Hindus can be Zionists, especially when there are non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews (some informed, some not).

While I share your inability to embrace fully Judaism as a religion, we should be honest and admit that “cultural” Jews will not ensure the survival either of the Jewish people or Israel. We must depend on traditional religious Jews for both goals.

Here I must immediately disagree! In my personal experience, (and I know of no meaningful study of the subject) it is precisely “cultural Jews” who assure the survival of the Jewish people as an entity. In my own family, my wife was born Christian and never converted. It was religious Jews who tried to deny my daughter’s Jewish identity on the ground that her mother was not of the faith. Yet she married a culturally Jewish man, they observe a Kosher home as a matter of tradition, and even light candles to usher in the Sabbath, all as a matter of tradition.

It used to be argued that inter-marriage was the greatest threat facing the existence of Jews as a people and as a religion. It has proven itself to be wrong.

Pages, possibly books, could be written on this subject, and probably have been, but this is not the place for it.

The background that you outline here strikes me as having minimal relevance to the topic at hand. It is more important to note that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran and, in Muslim tradition, it holds third place in importance after Mecca and Medina. In contrast, for Jews Jerusalem in particular and Zion in general have always had paramount importance, especially after Jews were dispersed from their homeland. The Torah is replete with references to Jerusalem.

True, but irrelevant! Almost all agree that the religious sites in Jerusalem must be respected.

I assume these background anecdotes are intended to preview your sense of personal moral outrage at the failings (as you perceived them) of Zionism and of recent Israeli governments—just as you take pride in their accomplishments. This is quite understandable. Here you preface your central viewpoint that Israel has become an “oppressor” and, as a result, has forfeited your respect as a Jew and as an American. This, too, is quite understandable. Yet, defining that term, “oppressor,” and using it accurately are more difficult.

In this context you might have mentioned FDR’s odious decision to turn away boatloads of Jewish refugees from American ports.

This is one of the many misunderstandings of history, and a defamation of the memory of F.D.R. At the time there was a very clear immigration law in existence. It had no provision for asylum for refugees. F.D.R. did not have the power to let people without visas enter the country. The proposal of Secretary of Labor Perkins would have helped, but unbeknownst to F.D.R. the State Department had a strong antipathy to Jews. See here. But this really has no bearing on our discussion here.

Here, I feel compelled to point out that you, like every historian who creates a narrative, are obligated to select your “facts.” It’s never possible to include everything (historicism) and any attempt to do so would lead to utter confusion. You have scrupulously defended your attention to “facts,” but you ignore the implicit values that guide your selection of which facts to include.

Probably true, but obviously unavoidable! That is why I invite comments and disagreements.

For example, here you assume that, in 1947, Arab residents of the British Palestine Mandate thought of themselves as a “people” with its own territory. Many other facts document that, on the contrary, Arabs (both resident in the Mandate and non-resident) conceived themselves as part of a larger pan-Arab, Muslim “umma.” Arab leaders at the time, such as newly installed Hashemite King Abdullah of Transjordan, wanted desperately to annex Palestine to their holdings. The epitome of this trend came with Gamel Abdel Nasser’s ill-fated Pan-Arabism of the 1960s.

The fallacy of the above lies in the fact that Gamel Abdel Nasser’s Pan-Arabism was ill fated. But more important, this argument is rather offensive, for it attempts to rob the Arab people living in Palestine of their humanity. The only relevant fact is that at the time of the 1948 partition, and to this day, there are Arabs living in Palestine. By any definition, people who live in Palestine are Palestinians. Many of those who lived in Palestine in 1948 were driven from their homes, and have ended up in a diaspora, being victims of the Jewish, understandable, desire to end their own diaspora.

At no time in recorded history has there ever been a “Palestinian people” or state.

This is a very frequently stated, but a totally irrelevant fact. None of the states that emerged from colonialism existed. The Jewish Virtual Library (See here.) sets forth the facts and I don’t think they are cherry picking them: ”Jordan did not exist until 1921 when Winston Churchill invented it.”

In fact the whole Middle East used to be part of the Ottoman Empire and most of the states in the Middle East were created after World War I.

From the "History of the Middle East" page on Wikipedia: Syria became a French protectorate thinly disguised as a League of Nations mandate. The Christian coastal areas were split off to become Lebanon, another French protectorate. Iraq and Palestine became British mandated territories. Iraq became the "Kingdom of Iraq" and one of Sharif Hussein's sons, Faisal, was installed as the King of Iraq. Iraq incorporated large populations of Kurds, Assyrians and Turkmens, many of whom had been promised independent states of their own. See here.

But whatever the history of the region is, the modern Arab states as well as Israel are a creation of the Imperial powers and what existed and when is largely irrelevant.

When a people live in a given territory they take the name of that territory. People who live in Palestine are Palestinians and if they are not what are they? Jordanians? But Jordan has disclaimed all sovereignty over the area. Israelis too are Palestinians, but since the two people have little in common, only partition, which has always been assumed to be the optimum solution, remains. The new drive in Israel for Israeli sovereignty over the whole area is nothing more than a plan to deny a minority population their right of self-determination, and possibly, even a means of ghettoizing them.

Yasir Arafat created a distinct Arab “Palestinian” identity after 1967 as part of a strategy to destroy Israel.

This is a bold-faced statement, but Nekimken gives no source or support. As a matter of fact he doesn’t give references for any of his assertions, as I do. 

It was based on the story of the shared “catastrophe” of the Nakhba in May 1948, which had been preceded by 30 years of planned, anti-Jewish uprisings.  

You presume here that Arabs accepted the Western idea of the nation state in opposition to colonialism. However, Arab nationalism developed only slowly among elites and, according to the Salafist view that underpinned the anti-Jewish resistance, the concept of the “nation state” itself was rejected as a Western (“alien”) import.

This is certainly true of the Isis or Isil movement in Syria and Iraq, but I see no support for this assertion, for any of the other modern Arab states.

Your use of the term “alien non-Arab entity” deserves particular attention. You appear to assume that only Arabs “deserve” to live in the Middle East when, in fact, the region is a mosaic of peoples and cultures (albeit often at each other’s throats).

This is a strange assertion, since I have not used the term “alien non-Arab entity” anywhere.

It’s difficult to understand how Jews can be considered “alien” when their kingdoms in the region preceded the migration of Arabs out of the Arabian peninsula and took form some 5,000 years ago.

But so did the Roman Empire. Are we to resurrect it? The claim to a Jewish homeland cannot be based on ancient history. Its claim, and this claim is legitimate, is its crucial need for a homeland where in times of persecution Jews would always be welcome, and this was the basis for Herzl’s advocacy of Zionism. To be sure other minorities, whether Christians, Druze, or Kurds, have lived there for centuries, but they have always been there as minorities in an overwhelming Arab Muslim population. The expectation that Arabs would have a natural animosity to Jewish settlement, was recognized by the Godfather of the present Israeli government Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, who wrote, as I point out in "Part XX.":

“Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonized…That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of ‘Palestine’ into the 'Land of Israel.”

Your lamentable observation that Jews living in Arab countries did not “agitate for independence” is best forgotten. In truth, Jews lived in Muslim territories as second-class citizens (dhimmis) who were accepted, tolerated or oppressed at various times. Before the advent of Zionism, they couldn’t afford the luxury of expressing political views.

I made no such observation! That Jews were second class citizens in Arab countries is undoubtedly true, but has little, if any bearing on our discussion, particularly, since Jews for centuries, fled from Christian countries to Muslim ones, because they could have a better life there.

Inter alia, the millions of Kurds resident in the Middle East over millennia have never had their own independent territory.

True! But its relevance escapes me. I think they should have.

More important, you appear to have forgotten that anti-Jewish hatred has been the primary motivating factor in the conflict between Zionists and Arabs over the past hundred years. There were numerous times when territorial compromises could have been negotiated. Yet, at every point, Arabs refused to accept any Jewish presence on any lands perceived as belonging to them, except as a tolerated (and powerless) minority. Land, per se, was never the paramount issue.

I disagree “that anti-Jewish hatred has been the primary motivating factor.” But this raises the question of what came first – the chicken or the egg – we can argue this ad infinitum.

Inexplicably, you neglect to mention that early Zionists accepted every territorial concession presented to them that offered peace—first a British decision to cede the land east of the Jordan River to Arabs to create a new, “Palestinian” state of Transjordan, then the 1947 partition plan which you describe here. After the June 1967 war came the famous September Khartoum Declaration of “No peace, No recognition, No negotiation with Israel” which ended Israeli delusions about any “new understanding” that could lead to peace.

I refer the reader back to Jabotinsky. This was to be expected. As long as they felt that they could win, they were not ready to compromise. Now that they know they can’t win, they want to compromise. And that represents the opportunity we have been looking for.

Nevertheless, Israel subsequently and unilaterally returned a portion of Golan territory to Syria and the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.

Not unilaterally! As part of negotiations leading to a cessation of hostilities.

Later, Israel withdrew unilaterally from the Gaza Strip.

This was not done out of generosity. It was a military decision that continuing occupation was costing Israel too much, and that withdrawal, with a blockade, would aid Israel in claiming all of the West Bank.

(In contrast, when Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri [who was later assassinated by Hezbullah] was asked why he couldn’t accept Israeli presence on a small parcel of borderland called Sheba Farms, he replied trenchantly, “Why should I?”)

This is hardly unusual. Nations are very jealous about their territorial integrity, and all nations are reluctant to give up “one inch” of what they consider to be part of their nation.

As indicated earlier, historians select their “facts” based on covert or overt values. It isn’t possible to assess “rights” or “wrongs” without identifying these values.

This is an unfortunate comment for it relegates all history, and all facts, as being subjective, and therefor implies that we should not be bothered by facts or by history. But then what is left. This assertion suggests, or implies, that facts and history are on my side of the debate, and therefor we should ignore them.

I now welcome comments readers care to make, but it may be difficult to post them, while this discussion with Nekimken is in progress. 

The Achievements of Barack Obama

 From the viewpoint of Republicans, who lately have chosen to dress themselves in the mantle of Independence and pretended bipartisanship, Obama has achieved nothing worthwhile, and every act of his and every achievement has been a detriment. That is not surprising.

But what we are increasingly finding is that it is his base that is complaining, “too slow” and some of his acts are a betrayal of their agenda and of his promises. It's strange, but it wasn't so long ago that the complaints were "Too Much To Soon?" prompting me to write a commentary by that name on April 9, 2009 rebutting that fallacious viewpoint.

I think that the criticism is factually wrong and strategically counterproductive. It ignores that Obama has done more in his first year in office since any President, save for FDR or Lyndon Johnson.

So what has he done so far? I will list some of these at random.

 He saved this country, and arguably the whole world from an economic meltdown on the scale of the ’29 depression and he did it in record time. On October 12, 2009, eight months after his inaugural Fox Business reported, “The recession, which began in December 2007, (almost a year and a half before his inaugural) has ended…” On November 25, 2009 Reuters reported, “U.S. consumer spending rises, jobless claims tumble." 

   If he had accomplished nothing more in his first year than this, it should have marked his Administration as one of solid achievement. Instead both Left and Right are complaining about an unemployment rate, a lagging indicator, as being at 10.2%. When the Reagan Administration without having to cope with an incipient meltdown, allowed unemployment to become almost as bad at 9.7%, I do not recall either the Left or the Right indulging in the kind of hand wringing we see now. In economic terms there are still certain laws. The economy must revive, and job growth will inevitably follow. The economy has revived, and only the disgruntled and those disconnected from reality will do other than applaud.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace prize was derided by both Left and Right on the ground that he had not yet accomplished anything, but his success in changing the standing and the image of the US throughout the world, and in fostering diplomacy instead of endless confrontation with friend and foe alike, was a major accomplishment.

He started the process to reform our Health Care System and has succeeded in getting it through the House. Even if it eventually flounders in the Senate, it is his leadership that has brought it to a point never before reached in American history.

But a number of things have already been accomplished in the Health Care area through the stimulus package, e.g. $19 billion has been allocated to help implement an electronic medical record system.

On infrastructure the Department of Transportation has approved 2,500 highway projects.

A $2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition (among other expenses) for those seeking a college education has been enacted. Nearly five million families are expected to save $9 billion.

 He has saved the jobs of untold numbers of teachers and in the process saved the primary educational system in many states throughout the country.

He saved the auto industry and untold millions of jobs in the process.

He allocated $2 billion in stimulus cash for advanced batteries systems. One high-ranking Hill aide called battery technology "the next big frontier" in the automotive world.

Appropriated $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster Pakistan’s economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism" within the country.

Set up an office of Urban Policy in the White House.

Through the Recovery Act, DOJ secured $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces. The money, cut during the Bush years, should have massive ramifications on inner-city crime and violence.

 Signed Schip legislation giving health coverage to millions of children by a bipartisan vote.

 Pushed for and got unemployment insurance extended more than once by a bipartisan vote.

 The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks.

 He signed into law the Lilly Led-better Fair Pay Act, designed to make it easier for workers to sue over gender-based pay discrimination.

He cut taxes for 95 percent of American workers in his stimulus package.

Tightened limits on interrogation tactics by Central Intelligence Agency officers.

Removed financing restrictions on groups that provide or discuss abortion overseas.        
   
Granted California a waiver to regulate automobile tailpipe emissions linked to global warming.

Ordered the Transportation Department to issue guidelines that will ensure that the nation's auto fleet reaches an average fuel efficiency of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, or earlier.

The day after pill to stop unwanted pregnancies was approved by a new science based FDA.

Dealt effectively with a standoff with Somali Pirates.

 Changed Cuba policy allowing Cuban Americans unlimited travel and money transfers to relatives there.

 Signed an executive order reversing the ban on federal funding for embryonic-stem-cell research.

 Restarted nuclear arms reduction talks with Russia.

 Released the Bush Torture Memos, almost without redactions.

Announced a new policy on medical marijuana raids by the federal government.

EPA adopted the position that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare.

   Stopped the deployment of an ineffective missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

   Took away from perpetrators of 9/11 the positive appellation of enemy combatants and treats them as mass murderers and common criminals, bringing them before the bar of justice.

Put Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court.
   
   I have no doubt that there are many accomplishments that I have overlooked, but anyone who says the Administration’s accomplishments are meager, has a short memory or a convenient one. Carping from the Right is to be expected. Carping from the base is foolish and counterproductive.

Bush - Is He Smart?

This article is prompted by an e-mail that I received from Jo-Anna Cooke an American citizen who writes from Dresden, Germany,

"I have appreciated your emails regarding politics. I am learning about the issues and enjoy the debate that can be seen.

"I have a question for you, which I feel a little strange about, but thought you might have some ideas. I am listening through the internet to the NPR interview with President Bush. I am struck (often) by how "simpleton" his answers are to the questions. There are jokes about him being a "tool" and not being very smart. Other people say that he is very smart and knows exactly what is going on. What do you think? I am struck by how often Clinton is referred to as "brilliant", this is very different from what Bush is portrayed as. Just curious! I am realize that I should perhaps ask a spectrum of people, but you were the first person I thought of."

To which I responded:

"It is nice to hear from you and even nicer to receive an interesting and difficult question from you.

"I say difficult because we use so many terms that have multiple meanings. What is the meaning of smart? Is it one's IQ? Is it based on how well educated they are? When Bush went to Yale college he was a C student. By that measure he is not smart. Kerry had similar grades. By that measure he is no smarter. I don't know what kind of grades Clinton got but as I recall he was a brilliant student. They say he was a brilliant politician but he didn't get his health plan through a Democratic Congress and after two years into his Presidency he lost Congress.

"But I come back to what is smart? A long time ago I knew a young women who was a refugee from Ecuador. She was not well educated though she was fun to be with. She set out to become very rich by marriage. In a series of moves, the details of which I will not bore you with, she married a very rich man and became an international socialite. Diplomats and Senators are delighted to be entertained by her. She had three daughters one of whom married a prince in London attended by all the royalty from around the world, another married a Getty and the third married a von Furstenberg. Was she smart?

"Was Reagan smart. He lived in a world of make-believe in which the movies he had had seen were his reality. (See the Reagan Biography by Lou Cannon) and yet he changed the whole political landscape in the US.

"Bush has difficulty speaking the English language. But he won the Governorship of Texas and the Presidency of the U.S. Well, he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. But so did FDRs and Eleanor Roosevelt's sons and they went nowhere.

"He has been quite successful in effectuating his policies, pushing enormous tax cuts through the Congress and destroying many environmental protections. He has extended the Reagan policies successfully far beyond anything Reagan would have dreamt of or possibly even approved of. Can a dumb man be that successful? I don't know. I don't even know that his poor speech is not an affectation which it was judged would appeal to those who speak no better than he does. His success may be due to having smart people about him, but it takes a kind if smartness to pick people who will effectuate what you want.

"Is he a tool. No, the President is never a tool. Cheney and Karl Rove may be doing the thinking for him but they can only function within the broad parameters of the policies he advocates, which was also true of Reagan or any President.

"I think his policies are outrageous but that goes to belief not smarts.

"All that is a long non-answer to a short question. The greatest difficulty is that our language is so imprecise."