Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – III

This is the third in this series. I recommend that you read or re-read Part I, which you can find here as well as Part II, which you can find here.

In both Parts I and II I outlined misbehavior by police in my own experience, as well in the news. I don’t want the reader to come away as a result with the impression that I think the police, as a whole, is corrupt or anxious to kill. It is the usual situations of a few bad apples.

But there are many important reasons why there is often incompetence and/or corruption in the police. Most important is that the police in the US are unionized. I happen to favor unions in the private sector, where the bargaining power of the individual worker is none existent, and where the demise of unions is a major factor in the wage stagnation that we are now experiencing.

But the police are different. The police are in many ways a quasi-military force, who like the military, often have to put their lives on the line, and have the power of life or death over those they confront. It is vital that they obey orders from their superiors, and not put the interest of themselves, or of their comrades, over that of the public. Insubordination ought to no more be tolerated in the police, than it would be in the military.

Can anyone image a members of our military turning their back in disrespect on the President of the United States, or large numbers staging a slow-down because they are displeased with the policies instituted by their superiors, as the police recently did relative to the mayor in NYC. A quick court marshal would follow. We need the same discipline for our police forces throughout the US.

All this occurred in New York because the mayor, who has a son of color, expressed empathy for the demonstrators exercising their constitutional rights to peacefully demonstrate, and put into words what every father of an African-American knows (but which is probably good advise for all races) be very polite and non-confrontational with the police. Or maybe it occurred because the police were angry because they liked the freedom to stop and frisk at random in neighborhoods of color, which the new mayor and new police commissioner ended.

But what finally triggered the expression of their pent-up anger, was the assassination of two of their comrades by a deranged man, who had indicated that much of his anger against the police was triggered by the demonstrations. Of course, his anger wasn’t just directed against the NYC police, for before undertaking that wanton act, he shot his girlfriend, and thereafter shot himself, something he had considered doing in the first place.

So what are we to make of this wanton killing by a deranged man. The head of the police union immediately pointed the finger at the mayor.

I rather think that there is a clearer connection, for it falls into line with the many killings by deranged men at schools, recently at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut. See here, but less unusual then most think. CNN reports: 

After Tuesday's shooting at an Oregon high school, many media outlets, including CNN, reported that there have been 74 school shootings in the past 18 months.

That's the time period since the December 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 20 children and six adults were shot to death.

It prompted me to publish a letter in the North Jersey Record, which I reproduce below:

As I did in my previous blog posts, I set forth below the transcript of the letter for those who may have difficulty reading the clipping.

The tragic death of New York Police officer Rafael Ramos makes him another victim of a deranged man with a gun, though it has been presented as being the result of demonstrations against the killing of unarmed African-American men, and even as a result of New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s action in ending the racially charged and racially profiled policy of stop and frisk.

It is no such thing!

It is no different from the many tragic death around the country, highlighted most recently by the murders at Sandy Hook in Connecticut. These are murders by deranged persons, who should have been in treatment, and who have easy access to guns.

How much longer must this country live with an atmosphere where the joy of owning a gun and the feeling of power that it gives its owners, not to speak of the all the money to be made by manufacturers and dealers, trumps the right to life of innocent people, whether they are school children or police officers.

It is difficult to understand why the right to own and drive an automobile can be licensed, but the right to own and shoot a gun cannot.

The second amendment has been completely distorted and given a meaning, which it does not have, and was never meant to have by its authors and did not have for most of this countries history.

Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, December 27

As I write this blog post I am reminded of the reaction of the President of the NRA, the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturers, after the Sandy Hook shooting. He said:

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

Well, the two cops had guns. It didn’t stop their killer. Does the NRA care? Do they care about anything but the profits of the gun manufacturers for whom the solution will always be “we want to sell more guns – we want more profits!!!

But let us not be deceived. We have many more problems with our criminal justice system.

I will go into greater detail in future posts. But for now allow me to just set out a graph that speaks volumes.

What is there about the US that would make us have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world?

I will come back to this in another context, but for now allow me to express my disappointment that our President, in his sixth State of the Union address, did not speak about this subject. It is one of the few areas where he might be able to find common ground with Republicans.

The Washington Post reports: 

But on issues of sentencing reform and prison recidivism, Republicans — especially several governors in Southern states — have been the leaders, earning praise from prison reform groups on both sides of the aisle for efforts to save money by implementing rehabilitation programs and curbing skyrocketing prison costs.

A nonpartisan study issued last year about how one of the bluest states in the union, Massachusetts, could cut prison costs credited Republicans states for how they have tackled prison reform…

‘This is our chance to show we can provide solutions to affect significant problems,’ said Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

The renewed focus on costsaving reforms marks a dramatic, decade-long shift by Republican governors, many of whom previously won election by stumping on tough-on-crime platforms.

But, as many of those governors have noted, one way to cut state costs is to decrease the number of people being locked up for nonviolent offenses and rid the law books of mandatory minimum sentences for such offenses.

In addition to Perry, prominent Republicans who once trumpeted tough-on-crime ­stances and now call for sentencing changes and rehabilitation programs for drug and other nonviolent offenders include former Florida governor Jeb Bush and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a tea party hero, has made reform of mandatory minimum sentences a major focus in recent months.

“We’re not a soft-on-crime state, you know what I’m saying? . . . We’re tough on crime,” Perry said. “But I hope we are also seen as a smart-on-crime state.”

That is quite a change from the tough on crime of Republicans in years and decades past, when, e.g. George H.W. Bush used the famous, or infamous, Willie Horton ad (See here) in his campaign against Michael Dukakis.

But whatever the past, this is an issue that now appears to have Republican support, and if the President and the Democratic Party don’t seize the opportunity, the chance for reform may well be wasted.

I will have more to say in the area of the American Justice system next time.

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

While I have decided not to dwell on the Israeli issue any further, I cannot ignore the outrage of the Boehner/Netanyahu axis. They are both a disgrace in meddling in the domestic affairs of the other’s country. Netanyahu will face elections in Israel on March 17 according to Fox News, but instead of campaigning in Israel, he will campaign by addressing the US Congress on March 3, two weeks before the Israeli election. This is a blatant and transparent attempt on the part of both the Speaker and the Prime Minister to meddle in the affairs of the other country. Even while this is likely to aid Netanyahu in Israel, it is at the same time an attempt to embarrass the President of the US, by Netanyahu coming here, once again, in his ongoing and endless attempt to influence the US not to negotiate with Iran and instead go to war. He has said the US has no right to tell Israel not to attack Iran, which the US has never done, while trying to ensnare the US into war with Iran.

Netanyahu’s crude attempt to meddle in American domestic affairs has a long and infamous history. He is the proverbial child always crying wolf and has been doing so since more than two years. On September 12, 2012 I published an article entitled: “I am an American”, from which I quote:

But Netanyahu has gone out of his way to violate every rule of diplomatic behavior. In my view he has been a disaster for Israel. Since any Letter to the Editor has to be short I commend readers to "Peter Beinart on Netanyahu’s Bullying Act" from The Daily Beast.

That article relates in some detail Netanyahu’s long history of meddling in American politics, so much so that the Republican Secretary of State James Baker briefly had him banned from the State Department. But beyond that, and I quote from the article, “Netanyahu has been brazenly intervening in American politics—often with an eye to screwing Democratic presidents.”…

But now he has the gall to come to the US and use our airwaves to try to dictate American foreign policy. Appearing on US Television, Netanyahu declared: “Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” I agree with the Prime Minster that no one has a right to place a “Red Light” before Israel. But, in fact no one has!!!...

The attempt by any country to dictate American policy, particularly on issues of war and peace must be rejected by all Americans.

What did the Prime Minister show to the US to demonstrate the imminent danger? Look here.

That was two years ago. Is Iran now in the final stage? Not even the man who keeps crying wolf claims that is the case. The negotiations, whether they finally succeed, or not, have delayed the Iranian progress. If the danger ever was anywhere near as imminent as the fear monger claimed, the Iranian’s would have the bomb today.

And what is the alternative to the present course? To go to war? Netanyahu is ready to hold the coat of the US. Israel is not about to commit that folly, nor would its military and intelligence agencies allow it. Should there be more sanctions by the US, which would end the negotiations, and worse, end the unity of the allies in imposing multi-lateral sanctions?

But quite aside from that, does his diagram look like an atomic bomb?

Here is a terrific YouTube video on that subject.



I urge the reader to watch it. If nothing else, it is funny and it does a good job of relating the history of the “the boy who cried wolf”. He points out that the cry that Iran is about to get “the bomb” goes back to 1992.

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.

The President’s Action on Immigration

As I research and write what amounts to a bi-weekly column on my deeply held concerns about the state of Israel, under the collective heading “I Am A Jew,” I think it is appropriate for a short time out, to focus on another pressing issue, namely the gridlock in the Congress.

The President’s action on immigration, taken out of absolute frustration with the inability of Congress to deal with the needs of the nation, made me address this issue with a short Letter to the Editor of The Record, a North Jersey daily newspaper. I chose The Record because my frustration with the New York Times has reached the breaking point. Getting a letter printed in that storied paper is like winning the lottery, with the odds being similar.

While the New York Times has an average circulation of 1,865,318 The Record has a daily circulation of 138,904 and a Sunday circulation of 167,278 and it is growing. It is better to reach a potential readership of 167,278, than to strive for the moon, and reach no one.

My Letter to the Editor of The Record, which appeared in last Sunday’s edition,  is set forth below:

Regarding “Obama calls for ‘accountability’ ” (Page A-1, Nov. 21):

The president’s action on immigration reminds us once again that gridlock has become the norm in Congress.

An immigration bill passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote, and a vote count in the House showed that it would have passed if it had been put up for a vote.  But the Republican Speaker, John Boehner, refused to allow a vote.

We have a similar situation in the Senate, where numerous House bills have died without being put to a vote because the Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid, wants to protect members of his caucus from having to cast votes that might be politically difficult. 

This puts far too much power in the hands of single individuals, and quite possibly, is a greater cause for gridlock that even the infamous filibuster.

The Constitution did not intend one party leader in either chamber to exercise veto power over legislation. I strongly urge that the Congress pass rules that require an up or down vote on any legislation passed by the other chamber.

The American people should demand it. 

Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, Nov. 21 

Comments are welcome and will be published with attribution unless anonymity is requested. 

The President’s Second Inaugural Address

I find the reaction to the President’s Second Inaugural Address both surprising and puzzling.

Republican Speaker John Boehner in a speech to the Ripon Society following the President’s speech said:

Given what we heard yesterday about the president’s vision for his second term, it’s pretty clear to me that he knows he can’t do any of that as long as the House is controlled by Republicans… So we’re expecting over the next 22 months to be the focus of this administration as they attempt to annihilate the Republican Party. And let me just tell you, I do believe that is their goal — to just shove us into the dustbin of history. (Emphasis added)

Wow! Was it really that radical?

Paul Ryan, the Republican Chairman of the House Budget Committee and the architect of the Republican budgets declared on Meet the Press that:

[what] you saw his speech, say, at the inauguration, it leads us to conclude that he’s not looking to moderate, that he’s not looking to move to the middle…He’s looking to go farther to the left, and he wants to fight us every step of the way politically…

And Mitch McConnell the leader of Senate Republicans declared: 

One thing is clear from the president’s speech: The era of liberalism is back. His unabashedly far-left-of-center inaugural speech certainly brings back memories of the Democratic Party in ages past. If the President pursued that kind of agenda, obviously it’s not designed to bring us together, and certainly not designed to deal with the transcendent issue of our era, which is deficits and debt.

So let us look at the President’s speech and parse it: 

The text can be found here.

“Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.”

Radical? Can even these avatars of the Right challenge this?

Well, the President goes on to say:

“For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.”

This may not be all that much to their liking but can they, or for that matter anyone, question it?

“For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.”

Well, that may not suit them all that well, but do they really want to challenge this. It sure wouldn’t be a popular thing to do.

“We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures…”

Republicans have long urged revamping our tax code. Surely they are in favor of remaking our government. What is radical here?

“We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.”

This sounds like something right out of their playbook. What is their problem?

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Ah! Radical! Republicans have long insisted (well, maybe not so long) that there is no “Climate Change” and if there is, it is not man made. So is this the radical stuff that upsets them so?

When John McCain was the Republican standard-bearer against the President in 2008 he said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy. Here is how the Seattle Times reported on McCain’s position.

“In a major environmental speech, Sen. John McCain on Monday said he would combat global warming with a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions and increase use of nuclear power and alternative energy.”

Obama went on to say:

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law…”

Well, this may be radical, but we know that more and more of the American people share this believe, and particularly our young people do. Are Republicans really ready to write off the views of future generations?

“No citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote.”

Republicans have been very busy suppressing the vote, but surely they will not come right out and declare themselves against this principle.

“Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

At a time when Republicans are rushing to show there willingness to reform our immigration laws and open a way to legalization of the 11 million in our midst, do they really want to declare this a radical idea?

“Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

Is this a radical idea? Are Republicans, whether they are against an assault weapons ban, or against better background checks, or any other measures to stem the daily slaughter of our citizens in our cities and towns, willing to stand against this proposition? Is it truly radical?

And what about a ban on assault weapons?

Here is what Ronald Reagan, their claimed icon, wrote in a joint letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter in 1994 to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. 

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47. 

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon. 

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

And in 1991 Ronald Reagan wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times endorsing the Brady Bill.

So what is so radical about the President’s vision as set forth in his inaugural? John Harwood writing in the New York Times states what I think should be obvious.

For all the talk that President Obama has shifted leftward, much of his early second-term energy seeks simply to preserve the status quo.

It is not the President who is the radical. It is the new Republican Party that is the radical party, seeking to push this country back to the days of President McKinley, or possibly even, in some ways, to an Antebellum period, as we once again hear the cries of secession from their Texas Republican governor, and theories of states rights that we long thought had been put to rest by the Civil War and the 14^th amendment.

The Republican Party is at a crossroad. Do they have their eyes on the future, or as David Frum, the former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has worried:

We Republicans may console ourselves that we did win two big victories in the recent past, 1994 and 2010. But those were off-year elections, when 60 percent of America stays home, and those who do turn out are the wealthier, the older, and the whiter. Exit polls indicate that 34 percent of the 2010 electorate was over age 60; in 2012, only 15 percent of voters were older than 65. The Republican success in those elections only underscores the bigger problem: the GOP is rapidly becoming the party of yesterday’s America.

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.

The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued II)

In my last commentary entitled "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward (Continued)," which I urge the reader to re-read, as well as the start of this analysis entitled "The Inscrutable Center Keeps Moving Rightward" I concluded with a quote from the Center for Policy Research on the Ryan budget and the James B. Stewart article defending it:

We have people who want to be part of the inside Washington conversation who praise the budget's courage and integrity. Then we have people who believe in arithmetic who call it what it is: a piece of trash. By the way, Paul Ryan is a very nice guy.

Then again we have another so-called New York Times “centrist” columnist, David Brooks, whose many fulminations have long ago turned me off. I gave up on him many years ago when he advocated what he called a “flat/fair tax” which to me was, and is, an oxymoron. By definition, for the rich and the poor to pay the same tax can never be fair, though I have since then come to wonder whether our present system, isn’t even worse, with the lower earners paying a higher % of their income than the rich.

In any case here is Brooks' “centrist” take on the Ryan plan. He admits:

The Ryan budget would cut too deeply into discretionary spending. This could lead to self-destructive cuts in scientific research, health care for poor kids and programs that boost social mobility. Moreover, the Ryan tax ideas are too regressive. They make tax cuts for the rich explicit while they hide any painful loophole closings that might hurt Republican donors.

But then having said that, he gets to what really upsets him, and it isn’t the outrages of the Ryan plan. Instead he rips into the President for criticizing its (The Ryan Plan’s) “real deficit-reducing accomplishments” (My careful reading of the plan does not reveal any such accomplishments unless you count the unspecified cuts in expenditures, and even then there is not one iota of an increase in revenue) as “trickle-down, … social Darwinists.” To be sure that is strong language, but that hardly makes it inappropriate, for a document that devastates our social safety net and severely cuts taxes for the rich. Mr. Brooks takes particular exception to the term “Social Darwinist” describing it as, as “a 19th-century philosophy that held, in part, that Aryans and Northern Europeans are racially superior to brown and Mediterranean peoples.” That may be the way it was once used, but Brooks should, and undoubtedly does know, that its meaning in 20^th century America is as The Atlantic describes it:  

“a term in Richard Hofstadter's 1944 book ‘Social Darwinism in American Thought’ which correctly describes it as a ‘phase in the history of conservative thought’ where ‘nature would provide that the best competitors in a competitive situation would win, and that this process would lead to continuing improvement.”

As we can see Brooks’ attack on the President is ad homonym and without foundation. But that is the way of the so-called middle.

But Mr. Brooks is such a symbol of this so-called middle (I call it a phony middle) that I have to dwell a little longer on Brooks’ writing. As early as June 13, 2011 in an article headed “Pundit Under Protest” he writes, as is his wont, with such an evenness, without regard to facts, as to make the article pathetic. Like any politician without principle, only worse, he knows that his audience likes to hear that there is no difference between the parties. He tries to oblige. He starts out by identifying the malaise that has gripped the country. He writes:

The number of business start-ups per capita has been falling steadily for the past three decades. Workers’ share of national income has been declining since 1983. Male wages have been stagnant for about 40 years. The American working class — those without a college degree — is being decimated, economically and socially. [Emphasis added]

           

Mr. Brooks states a crucial fact, without focusing on a crucial date: 1983. What happened in 1983? Well nothing in particular, except that it was the second year of the Administration of Ronald Reagan, when the country was set upon a dramatic new course, with the mantra being from then on: “ Government is not the Solution – Government is the Problem” and for the next 38 years, except for first two years of the Clinton Administration, that was the guiding principle of our government. It does not follow, that these polices were the cause of the condition that Brooks describes, but one would think that a discussion of that possibility might have been in order. But never mind that. Let’s see what else he says.

Here is what he says about the Republican agenda:

The Republican growth agenda — tax cuts and nothing else — is stupefying boring, fiscally irresponsible and politically impossible… Republican politicians don’t design policies to meet specific needs, or even to help their own working-class voters. They use policies as signaling devices — as ways to reassure the base that they are 100 percent orthodox and rigidly loyal. Republicans have taken a pragmatic policy proposal from 1980 and sanctified it as their core purity test for 2012.

Well so far so good! But of course, being Brooks there is always, “On the other hand.” So here is what he says about Democrats.

…they offer practically nothing. They acknowledge huge problems like wage stagnation and then offer... light rail! Solar panels!... They still have these grand spending ideas, but there is no longer any money to pay for them and there won’t be for decades. Democrats dream New Deal dreams, propose nothing and try to win elections by making sure nobody ever touches Medicare. (Emphasis added)

Boy, what an indictment. But is it true? It may be true of some of the base, but it is not true of the Obama Administration and it is not true of the Democratic Party’s program. It is a contrived caricature. Let us take Medicare. The President proposed and Congressional Democrats passed over almost unanimous Republican opposition $132 billion worth of cuts from Medicare Advantage over 10 years, for which Republicans have been denouncing them as having taking money out of Medicare, if one can believes the hypocrisy. (I am not here going to discuss the merits or lack thereof here – but cite it simply to belie Brooks.)

In addition, months before Brooks falsely alleged that Democrats were unwilling to touch Medicare, in March of 2012 Obama offered as part of a deficit reduction deal with Speaker Boehner, just that, or as the New York Times reported:

The White House agreed to cut at least $250 billion from Medicare in the next 10 years and another $800 billion in the decade after that, in part by raising the eligibility age. The administration had endorsed another $110 billion or so in cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs, with $250 billion more in the second decade.

The offered deal included revenue enhancements, and fell apart when Boehner could not sell that part to his Tea Party-dominated Republican House caucus.

But how can Brooks, say, (with a straight face) “by making sure nobody ever touches Medicare.” The answer can only be that Brooks is no more concerned with facts than the Republicans who he is always defending, or at least falsely equating with a President and a party that is actually trying to do something.

As for Brooks’ assertion that “…they offer practically nothing,” “'Let's look at the record” in the immortal words of Al Smith: Mr. Brooks does not have to look at what has been proposed, just at what has been achieved, which because of Republican obstructionism is much less than what has been proposed. See the accomplishments as of November 25, 2009 here.

More has been accomplished since then, but of course upon the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, Democrats and the President lost their 60-vote majority in the Senate. With a unanimous Republican determination that nothing will pass with less than 60 votes – which means a vote of 59 in favor, 41 against, or even 35 against, defeats a bill, not much more can be accomplished, and with Republicans capturing the House, gridlock is the order of the day. But here again the suggestion that both parties are at fault for not being willing to compromise, belies the facts. Even tax cuts proposed by the Administration, are blocked, even though the Republican mantra is that tax cuts are always good, but I guess they mean only for the rich.

But Tom Friedman, writing in the New York Times, isn’t much better. He thinks that the solution to all our problems is a third party. See my discussion entitled "The Media And Their Columnists."

We will never solve any problems if we constantly seek a false equivalency between the parties, or seek magic from outside them. Let the facts take us where they may, but let us not indulge in a false delusion in an effort not to have to choose. That leaves as either not voting, or voting on the basis of Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, or throwing our vote away on a third party.

But before I close this subject I must examine one more column by Brooks. It is dated April 16, 2012 and is entitled “The White House Argument.” I suggest the reader examine it before my next post. It is one of Brooks’ best jobs yet at sophism. But like all his others, it does far better at obfuscation than at clarification.

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.

The Trojan Horse – Comments II

I have received another comment to my post: "The Trojan Horse - Comments." It came from Leonard Levenson Esq. of Manhattan, whose relatively long dissertation can be found in full here

I am reproducing his arguments in quotations with my responses below.

Levenson’s response is exactly what I have been railing against. It represents a closing of one’s eyes to facts that contradict one’s preconceived notions, which are planted by our “wonderful media and their pundits,” who have even less interest in facts or even logic.

I set forth in my earlier posts, a huge number of major accomplishments by the President and his Administration, some of which Levenson may been have been aware of, and many of which he may have forgotten or never knew. But instead of saying thank you for reminding me, I get “they are minor.”

I was an early and enthusiastic supporter of Obama but like eroding drops of water on granite, his record is eroding my enthusiasm for him. I do not doubt the sincerity of his social views but he has been ineffective in implementing the important changes that concern me.

I have been trying to understand the irrational hatred of our President by those who should be hailing his great accomplishments. I can only come up with one theory that makes any sense. I conclude that in the great enthusiasm that the candidacy of Barack Obama engendered, caused a delinking from reality. As I wrote in my sardonic post of November 2009 entitled Obama Walks on Water," the public has discovered that Obama does not “Walk on Water” and has “no magic wand.” Apparently neither the punditry, nor the “liberal public” has even now been able to come to terms with the fact that the President has no magic wand. They are angry because they feel that he has refused to wave it.

You mention many of his accomplishments but they were largely minor.

Minor? Only someone determined to belittle the President could call the enumerated accomplishments minor.

Universal Health Insurance, which Presidents of both parties have been trying to enact since Truman, and which Clinton spectacularly failed to accomplish is minor? If the Supreme Court Strikes it down, will it show that Obama isn’t strong enough?

Getting rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," was a minor accomplishment? It sure was important when it was not yet accomplished!

The stimulus package, which together with the rescue of Chrysler and GM, which probably saved a million jobs, and the bank rescue package, without question, saved this country from a ’29 depression. That is minor? Yes, it should have been bigger, and it should have had fewer tax cuts and more spending in it. But does anybody really think that such a package could have attracted the votes of the two Senators from Maine, without whose votes nothing would have passed.

Schip legislation giving health coverage to millions of children is minor? Tell that to the parents of those children!

What kind of economy would we have if our unemployed did not have unemployment insurance extended again and again? How much worse would it be both for them and the economy?

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act wasn’t important? Tell that to the millions of women who now have the ability to fight back against pay discrimination.

Or the new fuel standards, which is the first time in decades that they have been raised and which will be a major factor in reducing our dependence on foreign oil, in reducing the cost of gas for hard working Americans, and last but least, play an important part in slowing global warming.

Eliminated expensive co pays for birth control, which will for the first time make pre-natal services available for poor women. Minor? Tell that to Planned Parenthood, who hailed it as a major achievement. Tell it to the millions of women who will for the first time have access to such services.

I could go on and on. But, only someone anxious to belittle our President, and join the Tea party in doing so, could call these achievements minor.

But I really can’t blame Levenson, or others who have begun to speak like him, for the so-called liberal punditry, rules the day, though I hope they will rue it one day. But the punditry is so anxious to besmirch Obama that they even have begun to lie like Republicans, and to stay on message in the best style of Karl Rove.

You mention a 9.3% unemployment rate but neglect to mention those who have stopped looking for work and those who are limited to marginal part time work. When these are counted the unemployment rate increases to 17%.

Yes, that is true, but it is still valid for comparison purposes, for the ’29 depression with an unemployment rate of 37% or 38% also didn’t take into account these other casualties, nor did Reagan’s (who Levenson voted for) unemployment rate of 10.3% take these others into account. But whatever the figures are, unless you buy the Romney argument that Obama inherited a bad economy and made it longer and worse, these figures should be used against the Republicans, not against our President. Or does Levenson disagree? (See: Discussion of stimulus package above.)

You mention the Kagan and Sotomayor nominations, but hundreds of District Court and Appellate courts seats remain unfilled. Admittedly, the Republicans are obstructing votes on many Obama nominations but a Clinton, with a majority in the Senate would have pushed them through.

The fact is, he didn’t push them through. From American Progress: “At the beginning of 1998… Senate conservatives were systematically blocking President Bill Clinton's judicial nominees, William Rehnquist, warn(ed) ‘vacancies cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without eroding the quality of justice.’"

You forget to mention his EPA failure to enforce regulation to prevent oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico.

It wasn’t his failure, and it wasn’t his U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (Not EPA). It was Bush’s. It takes time to change direction of an agency, particularly where the Senate refuses to approve your appointments, leaving the old people in place. In addition it is far from clear that the permit should not have been granted, given the facts that were known (or unknown) at the time the permit was issued.

You also neglect to mention his Justice Departments Civil rights failures.

It is impossible to answer all of these slanders without turning this into a book. Therefore allow me to only address just one, which I will highlight in italics.

For example, it is his Justice department under Eric Holder that has supported positions not much different from those of the Bush administration on Civil rights. He has consistently taken positions before the Supreme Court to limit the rights of individuals who were wrongfully imprisoned under Bush era terrorist statutes. He has pushed for limiting or eliminating their right to sue the US Government for the torture of imprisoned "terrorists' even after a clear showing that they were not terrorists. He has severely limited the Guantanamo prisoners effective right to counsel, the right to apply for Writs of Habeas Corpus in Federal courts, has refused (by folding to right wing pressure) to allow these prisoners to be housed in the US where they have easier access to lawyers and he has supported the continued use of Military Commissions rather than civilian courts.

In December 2010, over his objections, the Congress passed a bill forbidding the military to spend its money to transfer detainees from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States, even for trials. It wasn’t Obama; it was a cowardly Congress. But if one wants to slander someone, one always finds a way.

With regard to the economy, he gave up, almost without a fight, any thought of raising taxes in his negotiations with Boehner.

Nothing could be more at variance with the facts. What was his leverage for getting Republicans, not Boehner, to agree to tax increases? Threatening them with defaulting? What? I said not Boehner because Boehner did in fact agree to 1 trillion in tax increases, to balance 3 trillion in cuts, and then couldn’t sell it to his caucus. But what threat was Obama supposed to use? Go to hell, don’t raise the debt ceiling? Well, that might have produced default, but not increased taxes. Did Levenson really think about it, with such glib talk?

The reality (but who cares about that) (And I am also getting tired of defending baseless complaints) is that we will give you more cuts, if you give us additional revenue. But why should Obama have been against cuts. There are many that he, Levenson, and I should have favored. So the next approach is what kind of cuts can we agree on, and one understands that without revenue enhancement it will not be 4 billion, which it really should be. I said that the deficit crisis was a hoax to try to use it to gut entitlements; but the deficit it is nevertheless real and a danger in the long run. So we negotiate for cuts that don’t go into effect during the next two years, we make half of them in the military, and we take entitlements, which really do need addressing, off the table.

What the President got was a fantastic deal, which is why all the Tea Party and all the Presidential candidates have declared against it. Nobody on the Left has given any valid reason to oppose it.

The attempt by the Left, to demagogue this issue by lying, and in the style of Karl Rove “Staying on Message” is disgusting and should be rejected by all who are true liberals. See my post entitled: "The Trojan Horse" where I expose the lies, and write:

…Campaign for America’s Future…

A new undemocratic "Super Committee" is charged with finding $1.5 trillion in savings – from cuts in Social Security, Medicare and other entitlements and/or in increased revenues. If a majority agrees, the proposals will be “fast tracked” to passage in Congress—without our elected representatives able to amend their plans.

But these are boldfaced lies. As CNN Money reports in a piece titled “Debt Ceiling: What the deal will do":

The cuts will be “evenly divided between defense and non-defense spending.

Exempt from this round of cuts, however, will be programs that aid low-income Americans… These include Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits and pensions, food stamps and Supplemental Security Income.

While Medicare would not be exempt, the framework would restrict cuts to no more than 2% of the program's cost. And the cuts that occur would not affect Medicare benefits nor would they increase seniors' costs, …

Half the cuts have to come from defense. What is wrong with that?

Or Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

Congress voted for a deal that will cut trillions from important programs like Head Start, asks nothing of the rich, and makes likely future cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

But what about facts? Writes the Wall Street Journal:

The deal included enough money for Head Start, the preschool program for low-income children, to keep enrollment from dropping, and for Pell Grants to maintain the current $5,500 annual maximum award to low-income college students. Republicans had wanted to cut Head Start and proposed freezing the Pell program, which would have cut the maximum grant size.

Why do I have to repeat myself? Is it because that which doesn’t fit the narrative is to be ignored and the lies just repeated?

What is the Left up to? What is their agenda? And I call them the Left advisedly, because they do not deserve the appellation of “liberal” which term I claim for the President and myself.

But since this post is getting entirely too long, I ask both my readers and Leonard Levenson for their patience. I will revert to this in my next posting, where I will address the remaining arguments, and discuss other lies and slanders that have crept into the scribblings of the punditocracy.