Hostage Taking at Home - Discussion

Since posting my my commentary "Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism," I have had four exchanges - one relating to hostage-taking at home and three relating to expansionism abroad. I will post them in four separate posts.

The first response came in the form of a query from Bruce Weintraub, who wrote:

"Since you mentioned you're a Holocaust survivor, may I ask if you had the misfortune of being in a concentration camp? Or were you in hiding like Anne Frank? Your personal history may be the most interesting thing of all. A few years ago, I visited a concentration camp in Oranienburg, about an hour away from Berlin. Made me feel so sad."

I responded:

Thank you for your interest.

The answer to your question can be found in my biography.

"Emil Scheller is a retired lawyer. He was born in Vienna, Austria and came to the US in 1939 at the age of nine. He is a holocaust survivor, his father having been incarcerated first in Dachau and then in Buchenwald for about a year. His father survived and fled to Italy with his wife, Mr. Scheller's mother. After receiving American visas there they were able to join Mr. Scheller in the US in 1940.

Mr. Scheller holds a B.A. degree in in government and political science from CCNY and a Doctor of Juris in Law from Columbia University. Since retiring in 1990 he has spent much of his time studying American history."

I would think that there are very few people still alive who spent time in Nazi concentration camps. Leo Wells, a  recent neighbor of mine was one of those, but he died recently.

Upon his passing I wrote a letter to my local newspaper which you can read here.

Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad

I am back!

I have watched with dismay the developments in the US and abroad and find it increasingly difficult to remain silent.

Since I last expressed my views in my blog on August 19, 2010 in a post entitled “Bigotry” things have gone from bad to worse.

A minority has gained control of the House of Representatives, and even though they don’t control the Senate or the Presidency, they feel that the are entitled to impose their will on the American people. How do they hope to do that? By taking United States of America hostage. What do I mean by this? I mean that they are saying that unless their radical agenda is adopted which would among other things abolish Medicare for the elderly, and Medicaid for the poor, among many other things too long to enumerate, they will force the American government into default, unable to pay its debts.

Now the law providing for the debt ceiling has been on the books since 1917. Never in all that time has Congress refused to increase the ceiling because to do so would mean that the “Full Faith and Credit” of the US, which the world and American Citizens have come to depend on, would no longer be valid.

It would have no effect on spending or taxing or borrowing. It would simply prevent the US from paying its already incurred debts, debts that it owes. Such a default by the US government would have a cascading effect, undermining not only American credit worthiness, but because the US is such a huge economic power, would send the whole world into the worst economic crash in history, most likely dwarfing the ’29 depression. Incredibly, that ceiling was reached on May 16, yet our media is paying hardly any attention to this event. This appears to be because the Treasury has said that by juggling its accounts, it can postpone doomsday until August 2. Nevertheless, this development should not be taken lightly. The idea that a minority can force changes in policy through such hostage taking is, or at least should be, abhorrent. Why are they not being denounced from every editorial page, from every pulpit from every voice? Apparently, because the American people are for compromise. But negotiations under duress; under the threat of destroying our country should bring the strongest condemnation from every quarter. The silence is deafening. If they truly believe that their agenda represents the will of the American people, let them wait until 2012 and if they gain a mandate, i.e. win the Presidency along with both houses of Congress they can work their will. Blackmail is not an acceptable political weapon.

Now I turn to Israel. Here again I am shocked though I shouldn’t be. Ever since the 1967 war, there has been one given. Israel will trade land for peace. There will be a two state solution. A Palestinian State in the West Bank and in Gaza and a Jewish State in the rest of Palestine with the 1967 borders forming the basis for negotiations. Recognizing “facts on the ground” these borders would be adjusted so as to allow the major Israeli settlement blocks to remain and giving other land as compensation to the Palestinians.

On May 19 President Obama referred to this in his speech. I would not have thought that this would be controversial, yet it has caused an outcry from Natanyahu, from Republicans, and from the Israeli lobby.

I have long had great trepidation that what the Natanyahu government seeks is substantially all of the West Bank. Of course he realizes that to do so now, or even to declare it, would cause a world-wide outcry, but what are we to make of this denunciation of what has been a given. Why is it essential to keep expanding settlements? To change the facts on the ground, gradually taking more and more of the West Bank and forcing Palestinians into a smaller and smaller (non arable?) area?

I was in Israel recently (as a holocaust survivor, I, as much if not more than others, want an Israel as a last area of refuge if the need should again arise, but I want an Israel I can be proud of as one that respects the rights of others) and our guide kept emphasizing that Israel was very small about the size of New Jersey. It has an area of 7,992 sq. miles and that is indeed small. But our guide failed to mention that the Palestinian territory consists of only 2,800 sq. miles, and is constantly being nibbled away. Why is it necessary to keep encroaching on these lands that remain to the Palestinians. Israel has a population of 7,746,000 while the Palestinian territories had a population of over 4 million as of 2009 and rapidly increasing. Thus the Palestinian territories already have a greater population density than Israel. Why is it appropriate to deny them the right to keep the small area they have? What is shocking about to the idea that Israel should not expand its territories further at the expense of the Palestinians?

The Palestinian Diaspora contains (as of 2005) was over ten million people. It is undoubtedly much more today. Any thought of their returning to Israel cannot be contemplated, since this would end the Jewish character of the State of Israel. But these people (and they are people, human beings) not as the member of the CUNY Board who objected to Kushner’s honorary degree, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, said, “Palestinians aren’t human.”

When Rabin tried to make peace he was assassinated. And Netanyahu came to power. When Ehud Olmert almost achieved peace with Abbas agreeing to give up the Right of Return, (as revealed by Wikileaks) Natanyahu succeeded him and ended the talks.

Talks are meaningless when “the facts on the ground keep changing.” Every American President has called upon Israel to stop settlement expansion. Expansion is not the way to peace. It is the obstacle.

When Arafat died we heard that Israel couldn’t negotiate because Abbas was too weak. Then we heard there is no point to negotiating because the Palestinian leadership is split. Now that the Palestinian leadership is united, they can’t negotiate because they are united. They argue that Hamas will not recognize Israel’s right to exist. Has Israel recognized the right of a Palestinian state to exist? This must be the end of negotiations – not the beginning.

In the meantime Israel is doing all it can to reduce the population of the West Bank of Palestinians. Palestinians leaving temporarily are not allowed to return and those living in the Palestinian Diaspora are not only not allowed to return to Israel, (which is necessary) but are not even allowed to return to the Palestinian territories, which is not.

The occupation of the Palestinian territories, which is now in its 44th year, is one of the longest in recent history. The American occupation of Japan lasted 57 years and required no territorial concessions. It is time for Israel to do the same. As the most powerful nation in the Middle East by far, fear for its security from the Palestinians rings hollow.

Bigotry

“Have you no sense of decency... at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?“ Those who read this may or may not remember that these were the words spoken by the Special Counsel for the Army, Joseph N. Welch, in addressing Republican Senator, Joseph McCarthy. It led to his censure by the Senate and ultimately to the end of his career. The same words apply to the whole Republican Party today.

Only three months have passed since I wrote my “Swan Song.” I did not expect to return to the fray so soon, if ever.

But the latest outrage of the Republicans rankles so much, and tells us so much about that party, that I feel I am compelled to speak.

I know that in our society, it is the custom, to pretend that there is good and bad in both parties and that must be true. But increasingly, while I can find some warts in the Democratic Party, I have increasing difficulty in finding any redeeming qualities in that other party. In vain, I look for any voices of reason, any voices taking exception to the torrent of intolerance, hate, and lies that emanates from that flock of people. It just isn’t there.

Their constant modus operandi, and I have to admit it is good politics, is to appeal to fear, intolerance, and xenophobia. If there are any decent people left in that party, why don’t they speak out, why do they jump on the bandwagon and join the chorus.

Ever since 9/11 their surrogates, in the guise of the Heritage foundation, and others, have been trying to whip up hatred of Muslims. But until now the Republican Party has not joined in. In fact G.W. Bush urged that Muslims as a group or as a religion should not be blamed for the events of 9/11. But increasingly we have been hearing and reading, the question, “If Muslims are so opposed to terrorism, why don’t they speak out.”

But in fact, they have been speaking out, only our media doesn’t report it. According to Fareed Zakaria writing in Newsweek:

“In 2007 one of bin Laden's most prominent Saudi mentors, the preacher and scholar Salman al-Odah, wrote an open letter criticizing him for "fostering a culture of suicide bombings that has caused bloodshed and suffering, and brought ruin to entire Muslim communities and families." That same year Abdulaziz al ash-Sheikh, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudis from engaging in jihad abroad and accused both bin Laden and Arab regimes of "transforming our youth into walking bombs to accomplish their own political and military aims." One of Al Qaeda's own top theorists, Abdul-Aziz el-Sherif, renounced its extremism, including the killing of civilians and the choosing of targets based on religion and nationality. Sherif—a longtime associate of Zawahiri who crafted what became known as Al Qaeda's guide to jihad—has called on militants to desist from terrorism, and authored a rebuttal of his former cohorts.

"Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the oldest and most prestigious school of Islamic learning, now routinely condemns jihadism. The Darul Uloom Deoband movement in India, home to the original radicalism that influenced Al Qaeda, has inveighed against suicide bombing since 2008. None of these groups or people have become pro-American or liberal, but they have become anti-jihadist.

“This might seem like an esoteric debate. But consider: the most important moderates to denounce militants have been the families of radicals. In the case of both the five young American Muslims from Virginia arrested in Pakistan last year and Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, parents were the ones to report their worries about their own children to the U.S. government—an act so stunning that it requires far more examination, and praise, than it has gotten."

But with every year that passes the Republicans use fear, xenophobia, and intolerance as weapons in pursuing their political and electoral objectives.

Now along comes an Imam who has spoken out again and again against terrorism and has sought dialogue with Christians and Jews. He has found an old building in lower Manhattan that is suitable for conversion and can be purchased at reasonable cost. And he wants to create a venue modeled after the YMCA, or the Young Men's and Young Women's Hebrew Association also known as the 92nd Street Y, which would be open to people of all faith. He aught to be applauded. But it is an opportunity to exploit the latent prejudice against all Muslims. And so the former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingridge, and a likely candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination, said, it “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust museum." Thus he equates all Muslims with the Nazis. Richard Cohen writing in the Washington Post, points out, “ Nineteen so-called ’jihadists’ crashed four airplanes that day in 2001. This is 19 out of about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, an infinitesimally tiny percentage indeed. And Gingrich goes on to say, “ there are no churches or synogogues (sic) in Saudi Arabia“ as though that is in any way relevant and rather ironic, since the Imam is extremely critical of Saudi Arabia and its form of Islam, Wahhabism.

But it doesn’t stop there. First they ranted about the proposed Center being two blocks from “Ground Zero“ then it became in the “Shadow of Ground Zero“ and finally Rick Lazio the Republican candidate for Governor of NY referred to it as “Ground Zero is the wrong place for a mosque”. See the transcript of PBS’ Newshour. It seems to have mysteriously moved. And then he goes on to imply that the center is being financed by terrorist groups and calls for an investigation as to where the financing is coming from. Would Mr. Lazio ask for an investigation of where the financing is coming from for a synagogue or a church? It is smear by innuendo. Then Mr. Lazio resorts to the fear factor. “The question here is really whether or not we should feel -- feel safe” Does he truly believe that the center is going to attack us?

And along comes Charles Krauthammer, that voice of the Right and the GOP who compares the Muslim Cultural Center to putting a Japanese Cultural Center at Pearl Harbor." To which Richard Cohen correctly points out, “But all of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and declared war on the United States. It was not a rogue act, committed by 20 or so crazed samurai, but an attack by a nation.“

But it gets worse! Krauthammer now goes on to smear the Imam. “This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11. Talk about taking a quote out of context. What Imam Faisal Abdur Rauf was talking about was that “after the Soviets pulled out, the Saudis, our best friends in the Arab world, our staunchest ally during the Gulf War, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the newly-formed Taleban regime, and then felt that bin Laden and the Taliban were out of control. Bin Laden's faith is a strict, puritanical form of Islam called Washbasin, (sic) which was founded in the 18th century in Saudi Arabia, and is now that country's predominant ideology.“

He is critical of our close alliance with Saudi Arabia, which exports Wahhabism and feels that this is the form of Islam that creates terrorism and the US should not condone it.

I would suggest that many Americans of all faiths would agree with this and it hardly shows either that he is anti-American or that he holds sympathy to terrorists. Just the opposite.

But any distortion – any lie, in the cause of the smear and the feeding of a frenzy of intolerance.

And then along comes Abraham Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, and he gives cover to bigots and hate mongers with, "In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right." First of all no one knows how many “victims“ (presumably they mean the relatives of the victims) object to the Cultural Center (it may be a minority); and secondly, and most important, bigotry is not the right of anyone, whether victim or oppressor.

And what about the Muslim victims of 9/11 and beyond. The Daily Kos observes:

“According to one count over 60 Muslims died as a result of the 9/11 attack. But, evidently, in the RW mind those deaths do not count. Their death does not make Ground Zero hallowed ground, because, if they did, what would be the grounds for the uproar over the Islamic Center? Would anyone give it a second thought if a Jewish or Catholic community center was built where the Islamic center is planned?

“So...I am led to the conviction that this issue has nothing to do with real estate -- who builds what where -- but with the value of a human life and it seems that the right wing, the former party of family values, has decided that the life of an AMERICAN MUSLIMS and, by extension Muslim families, have no value.

“ If that is not sedition, will someone please explain it to me.“

Jannah.org estimates the number of Muslim victims at 500 to a 1000 and gives names not only of those victims but of Muslim victims of hate crimes.
And about.com tells the story of Salman Hamdani and other Muslims of which I quote only one:

“Imagine being the family of Salman Hamdani. The 23-year-old New York City police cadet was a part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student, and devout Muslim. When he disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials came to his family, seeking him for questioning in relation to the terrorist attacks. They allegedly believed he was somehow involved. His whereabouts were undetermined for over six months, until his remains were finally identified. He was found near the North Tower, with his EMT medical bag beside him, presumably doing everything he could to help those in need. His family could finally rest, knowing that he died the hero they always knew him to be.“

Why do we dishonor them?

In the words of Mayor Bloomberg:

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies' hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

"For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

"On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, 'What God do you pray to?' (Bloomberg's voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) 'What beliefs do you hold?'

Republicans have clearly decided that fanning the public's fears of rampant jihadism and prejudice against Muslims continues to be a winning strategy.

My Swan Song

After long and painful introspection I have decided to cease writing political commentary, something I have been doing for about fifty years.

I do this with a great deal of pain and disappointment, but I have concluded that it is time to stop deceiving myself into thinking that I am making a difference. Theoretically, I am distributing to over 500 people, but how many of those actual read my analysis is anybody’s guess. I suspect not many.

We live in an age when very few are interested in hearing anything that does not fit their predilections and worse their prejudices. An increasing number of people in the age of Obama find themselves most satisfied with the rantings of Fox, or to a lesser extent are happy to listen MSNBC, because it fits their particular predisposition. Fewer and fewer are interested in a balanced view or in the facts, as can be seen from the constant drop in the ratings in the less ideological CNN. I was dismayed a while ago, when a good friend said he no longer listens to the Newshour because he finds it “boring” and other friends who used to read the New York Times from cover to cover are now content to glance over the headlines and move on.

Nor was I encouraged when a number of readers removed themselves from my subscription and/or distribution lists, because I expressed views on the policies of the government of Israel at variance with their own. Rather than take the opportunity to make their own views heard across my megaphone, such as it is, they choose to cover their ears and run away from views that are not in keeping with their own.

I have also become painfully aware that many of the people who used to contribute their insight years, or even months ago, have disappeared from my radar screen, and some claiming to read my commentary have expressed agreement with my views, only to express, in their next breath, contrary views.

Nor was I encouraged when a friend, and a long time contributor, wrote a comment on my commentary entitled, Texas & Identity Politics that seemed to assume that my commentary related to the Texas school board curriculum, when it spoke strictly to the issue of identity politics.

Even people who assure me that they read my commentaries faithfully and wholeheartedly agree with my views, are not encouraging me, for as I said in commenting on an exchange with a Right wing ideologue, in the The Politics of the Big Lie:

“Let me say to my readers that I write these commentaries not so much to express opinions, though that is certainly one purpose, but more important to set the record straight as to facts, which I spend a great deal of time and effort documenting. I often get comments from readers that they agree with my opinions. I hope that they don't just get views they can agree with, for if that is all I accomplish, then my efforts are in vain. It is the underlying facts that are important and there are too many myths, too many misconceptions out there that need to be corrected. I aim to do that.

“During the Bush Administration there seemed to be a tendency to start with an ideological conclusion, and if the facts didn't fit, to change them. Whatever opinions people have the facts should come first. If I can contribute to destroying myths, to set the record straight, then I believe I will have made a valuable contribution.”

And yet I look in vain for comments that indicate that I have provided a fact that they had not known and they find helpful, or even someone adding facts I had overlooked, or had misstated one.

But strangely, in this overly ideological purity I find no passion on my side. We have neglected our problems for half a century, and have the first President during that span of time who is actually is trying to address them, who has saved the country from the looming chasm of a ’29 depression, who has successfully, if not fully, addressed our health care crisis, who has partially alleviated the pain of our gay community, while recognizing that one must move within the framework of what is politically possible, and who has brought this nation back into the world esteem it once enjoyed, to mention only a few of his achievements, but who faces vicious criticism not only from those who are his and my ideological enemies, but from those who supposedly are his and my political soul mates, who instead of directing their fire against those who tell countless lies, are the architects of the economic dilemma that the President has already prevented, direct their fire against the President and his party because they have not achieved all that one might wish in a little over a year.

I said I find no passion on my side. Contrast that with the passion of the Tea Party movement. Where are the angry voices in opposition to them? They are mostly silent, except maybe against the President because there are still many unemployed.

When I published an excerpt from The ”Best and the Brightest” to show how even then people expected miracles from a new President which could not be delivered, I expected many to find that striking and enlightening. Only one person expressed this as being interesting, and that was in an oral conversation, though it was appreciated.

In bidding adieu, I must say that there were a few bright spots recently that I must acknowledge. Patricia Burns of Edgewater, NJ gave me a great deal of encouragement when she let me know how much she appreciated my efforts. Someone on the Right agreed that he wanted to hear contrary views and appreciated my wanting to share a platform with him.

But most have fallen silent, and I find their silence and their self-absorption deafening. I cannot make my voice heard over that deafening silence and I am no longer willing to try.

Letters to the Editor (Continued 2)

On April 29th I posted a commentary: Letters to the Editor (Continued) which I expected would exhaust this subject.

Since then, however, events have prompted me to write another letter to the New York Times, which I think I should share with you. It was written in response to an article on the front page of the May 2 Week in Review entitled: "The Spill vs. a Need to Drill."

My letter is set forth below:

"I am deeply disappointed at the lack of balance in the article “The Spill vs. a Need to Drill." The conclusion that we must drill is supported by, of all places, a quote from the Right wing “American Enterprise Institute” and in the graph by the figure that off shore drilling amounts to 30% of total domestic oil production. It somehow neglects to tell us that this is less than 7% of total consumption, a sum that could be made up by conservation."

While I did not mention the lies that have already entered the discussion on off shore drilling, I was rather shocked to hear Lamar Alexander R-TN and Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, talk on Meet the Press about $14 a gallon gasoline if we don't do off shore drilling . While a reduction of 7% in oil supply might push the price of gasoline up by 25¢, a suggestion of $14 is so ridiculous as to be ludicrous, yet neither the moderator nor anyone else on the panel so fit to point that out.

While doing letters to the editor allow me to also share with you a letter written by one of my subscribers,  Patricia Burns of Edgewater, NJ to the New York Times and was written in response to David Brooks column entitled "The Geezers’ Crusade."

She wrote:

"As an octogenarian, I obviously qualify as a member of the Geezer Generation described in David Brooks' column.

From the Greatest Generation to the Geezers Who Take from the Young? I don't think so! Rather, I would place the blame for this sorry situation noted by Mr. Brooks on the manipulation and dishonest distortion of facts by politicians and ratings driven media. Geezers may be faring far better in their later years than ever before - but they, and everyone, need access to honest, factual proposals, clearly presented and free of super hyped scare tactics, to come to sane, honorable and, yes, unselfish responses to pressing problems of today and the future. This we have always done through the tough years of Depression, World War, Civil Rights and Antiwar stands. The Geezers of today are the same people. They have not all become by choice the "reverse generativity" culprits, nor can they alone straighten out the deliberate, dishonest attempt to paralyze thought and government by those who put money, greed and self-serving politics ahead of integrity, statesmanship and social priorities.

"Geezers Unite, yes! Unselfish leadership is necessary. But start in the present, with demanding that truth and honest facts prevail in the battle for the future. Those have always been the ground rules. They don't change and I would think neither do we."

And finally one of my subscribers Barbara Valentino of Port St. Lucie, Florida has been inspired to create her own blog entitled Welcome To Barbara’s World where she writes:

"Even before the 2008 crisis, the four biggest banks were "too big to fail." Since then, Wells Fargo has grown 43% bigger; JP Morgan Chase has grown 51% bigger; and Bank of America is now 138% bigger than before crisis. America's four largest banks - Citibank, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells-Fargo - have assets of $7.4 trillion, equal to 52% of our entire GDP.

The collapse of any one would endanger the American economy, even the world economy. They are truly "too big to fail." They also have too much economic and political power because of their enormous size.

As one would "think," banks are not the victims losing money because of the foreclosure nightmare. NO, they have turned it into BIG BUSINESS (some even argue that it was all a set up), making huge profits from the foreclosure crisis, hoarding immense wealth....they are the "honestiores," the honored; those suffering from the millions of foreclosures, are the humiliores, literally the humble.

According to the New York Times, "The [SAFE Banking Act] would reinforce a 1994 law that bars any single bank from holding more than 10% of the nation’s total deposits, or about $750 billion. In the years since then, large firms have obtained waivers or used loopholes in the law to exceed that ceiling." It would also limit total bank borrowing to 2% of GDP.

The bill has broad progressive support, including Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Chris Hayes of The Nation, Prof. Lawrence Lessig, Heather Booth of Americans for Financial Reform, Adam Quinn of Credo, David Arkush of Public Citizen, and Jan Frel of Alternet. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) plan to file an amendment they say will end banks that become “too big to fail” and prevent future bailouts.

The language, titled the SAFE Banking Act, would limit the size of big financial firms and would ensure that banks have adequate resources to cover losses they incur.

This bill would not only prevent bailouts and protect against economic collapse, it will help boost lending to small businesses. 

Due to the length of the post of I am not reproducing all of it. but those who want to read the rest can go directly to the blog Welcome To Barbara’s World. 

Letters to the Editor (Continued)

On April 26, 2010 I posted a commnentary to my blog entitled Letters to the Editor in which I set forth a number of letters which I wrote. I concluded that post with the comment:

"In order to keep this post within a reasonable length, I will not set forth any more Letters to the Editor now, but instead will publish additional letters, in a future post.

This will serve to set forth the remaining Letters to the Editors which I have written this year. I very much hope that readers will let me have their views on any or as many as they care to. 

On January 3, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the New York Times in response to an editorial entitled: "Super Bowl Censorship ."

"I find your editorial, “Super Bowl Censorship” (Editorial, January 30) puzzling to say the least. You make it appear that critics of the ad by 'Focus on the Family' (which is anti- choice) are seeking censorship, when what they are seeking is the opposite. The Superbowl has consistently refused ads advocating Choice. All that is wanted, nay demanded, is an even playing field. Either ads on both sides of the issue should be run or on neither side. One would think that the Times would support this as well."

It was not published.

On March 19, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite in response to an editorial entitled: "Christie’s Cuts Just Keep Coming."

"As You Sow So Shall You Reap (your view “Christie’s cuts just keep coming”). The voters of NJ in their wisdom elected Christie governor and now they are reaping the consequences.

"As your editorial points out Christie is following his party’s dogma, of no new taxes, no matter what. That is all fine and good if there were no consequences. But as you point out, it is a deceptive bargain, because localities have bills to pay and services to provide, and cuts in state aid to localities proposed by Christie means that property taxes in localities will have to increase, or garbage collections will have to be reduced, or services to seniors will have to be cut, or food banks will have to shut down, or libraries will have to close, or schools will end up with larger classes, or other services will be cut, or a combination of the above.

"None of us like paying taxes, but unlike Christie we understand our obligations to our kids, to our seniors and to our poor, particularly during these hard times.

"Yes, the state has a budget deficit to close, which has been growing ever since Republican Governor Christie Whitman cut taxes on the wealthy by 30%, and those who expect this can now be dealt with without serious cuts in expenditures are unrealistic, but to balance the budget at the expense of localities, our educational system, and our most vulnerable citizens, without asking for any sacrifice from our wealthiest, is not only callous, it is a disservice to the future of our state and nation."

It was published the following Friday.

On March 27, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite in response to an editorial entitled: "Don’t Lower The Cap So Sharply Yet.” as follows:

"Last week I praised your editorial criticizing Governor Christie’s cuts of aid to localities, but I was surprised and appalled at your editorial of March 26 entitled 'Don’t lower the cap so sharply yet.' This totally contradicts your editorial of the previous week, where you expressed concern about cuts in services including police, fire, garbage collection, schools, and libraries. Such cuts are to some extent mandated by the Governor’s proposed cuts in aid, but at least it would have left each locality the option of increasing taxes on its own citizens, if it wanted to maintain services at current levels.

"The idea that the state mandates how much each locality may tax its own citizens flies in the face of the principle of home rule, and it is the very antithesis of Democracy. I am sure that there may be many towns that would prefer to cut services rather than increase taxes, but that is a choice that should be for them to make, not for the state to mandate. Lowering the cap on how much taxes may be increased to make up for cuts in state aid does not make any sense, and your editorial’s plea not to 'lower the cap so sharply yet' ignores that it should not be lowered at all. As a matter of fact, caps should be abolished. Every community should have the right to determine for itself the level of services it wants, and the how much it is willing to pay for those services.

"The state’s function is to help the communities with aid, not to dictate how they should govern themselves.

"There is one positive thing the governor could do, and that is to impose a 25¢ tax on all plastic bags dispensed by stores. This would raise much needed revenue toward closing the deficit, and at the same time reduce the number of plastic bags that now pollute our landscape, overwhelm our garbage dumps, and kill untold numbers of marine animals."

It was published the following Friday.

On April 8, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"Governor Christie’s state budget proposes the elimination of state funding for family planning services. Last year’s, budget allocated
over $7 million for reproductive health care services including routine gynecological exams; basic contraception; screening for high blood pressure, anemia and diabetes; breast and cervical cancer screening and education; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs); HIV testing and counseling; pre-pregnancy counseling and education; pregnancy testing and confirmation; and prenatal care and/or referral. State dollars are not used for abortion services.

"Gov. Christie’s budget cuts hurt women and costs the state money, Investing in women’s health is not only good policy, it saves money. Each dollar spent to provide family planning services saves an estimated $4 that would otherwise be spent in Medicaid-related costs. So, for the money saved by eliminating state funding for women’s health care, the state will pay at least $28 million more in Medicaid expenses.

"The best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and promote healthy families is to invest in family planning, and ensure that women and families have access to affordable, quality reproductive health care. Instead, Governor Christie wants to completely eliminate critical funds that reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. New Jersey already ranks 36th in public support for reproductive health care.

"Last year, New Jersey's family planning health centers provided:

* Reproductive and preventive health care to 126,903 women and 9461 men;

* Breast examinations to 70,506 women with 4039 referrals for further evaluation;

* Pap tests to 65,252 women;

* HIV tests to 27,386 women and men;

* 57,027 tests for Gonorrhea, 7727 tests for Syphilis and 66,035 tests for Chlamydia;

* Services to 97,129 women and men without health insurance.

"In 2009, New Jersey family planning health centers helped prevent: 39,782 unintended pregnancies, and 18,896 abortions. As a result, New Jersey saved well over $150,000,000 in one year."

It was published the following Friday.

On April 17, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"Last Tuesday some of us went to the polls to vote for a school board and to approve or disapprove the school budget. This is supposed to be Democracy at work, but in fact it is a farce, and just another example of the bad way we govern ourselves in New Jersey.

"What percentage actually voted is not known at this point. But if the past is any guide, it is usually around 14 percent according to the Herald News of December 14, 2009. That hardly makes the result representative.

"And it is no wonder, since we know next to nothing about the candidates or the school budget we are supposed to approve or disapprove. In this years Fort Lee election we had four candidates for three slots, hardly what I would call a hotly contested election, and one of them isn’t even out of high school yet. Don’t we even have minimum qualifications for candidates? Do we even know whether members of the Board are paid or are volunteers?

"When we have elections on the federal or state level, the media gives us information on the candidates. We have editorial endorsements, have  debates, have party affiliations etc. We have at least a modicum of information to help us make our choices. But when it comes to local elections the paucity of information on the candidates and the issues makes intelligent voting all but impossible, and worse makes it possible for a small  determined group, often with a radical agenda, to seize control.

"It is time we stopped this farce and made the Board of Education responsible to the mayor, who we know at least a little about when we vote. More elections do not make for more responsible or more responsive governance. It does just the opposite."

On April 23, 2010 I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Fort Lee Suburbanite reading as follows:

"In previous Letters to the Editor I pointed out that Governor Christie is following his party’s dogma, of no new state taxes, no matter what, but ignores the consequences of that policy. It of course means cuts in aid to localities. I pointed out, as in fact your own editorial did, that property taxes in localities would have to increase and vital services would have to be cut. Now some of the data becomes available. The state cut to Fort Lee schools will be 88%. As a result Fort Lee Public Schools have announced a 4.9% increase in our property tax and a cut in the school budget of 8.6%, and that does not include the increase in taxes by the town or the cut in town services.

"But figures are cold. What does it mean in jobs and services? The school system will phase out

*teaching French and Greek

*deferring purchase of textbooks and instructional technology

*Eliminating subsidies for band camp *Charging students for sports, clubs, plays, and music.

"It forces the layoff of much needed staff in our schools to the tune of 55 teaching and 27 custodial positions.

"They talk about generational theft. This is the worst kind of generational theft.

"While there is no room here for figures as they apply to Leonia and Edgewater they are equally dire, as is the impact on localities throughout the state.

"Property tax rebates are disappearing, which amounts to another tax hike, town taxes will go up, and we haven’t yet seen the cuts in services in police, health and other town services, which we rely on.

"But Christie couldn’t care less. As long as he protects the income running in the millions, and even in the billions of the fat cats who are his friends and enabler, he has accomplished his objectives."

It was published today.