Who our enemy is

"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor."

President Barack Obama, honoring the memories of those slain at the Fort Hood shootings. Nov. 10, 2009.

His words are a reminder that our enemy is not a people, not a faith, but hate itself.

Why I teach

Patrick Swayze said it at the end of "Ghost.":

"The love inside, you take it with you."

But it occurred to me this morning. You may not take all your knowledge with you. Perhaps your knowledge dies with you. That's why you must share and spend it, spread it around while you are alive. Knowledge is meant to stay in this world, to make this world better. It does not help the next.

That's why I teach.

Using new tools

Remember in my last post, when I said, "we may also be uncomfortable about what we find out, but that's a good thing."

Get ready for uncomfortable.

Dianna Brewer-Jackson is pushing forward with a planned meeting on racism in the Elmira School District. What's even better is that she now says, "I get tired of people saying I don't have proof," she told [the Star-Gazette] on Tuesday. "I choose not to provide proof. But for this meeting, I'm going to give what I have."

She is going forward despite those who are asking for a cooling off period. The Elmira school board will be undergoing diversity training later this year. What's impressive to me is that it sounds like the state is creating the diversity training program for Elmira, which could then be used at other districts.

The diversity training would deal with one of her concerns. But she doesn't want to wait to hold a public hearing, and that's fine with me. She wants to offer the public the proof that she has.

Good. We need to see it. We need to hear what others have to say about racism in Elmira.

Let's hope for a civilized meeting, at least. I find it a little ominous that there is a question about who will be in charge of the meeting. The board president wants to be in charge. And there may be a question that Brewer-Jackson wants to be in charge because she is the one who called for the meeting. A skilled politician would resolve the question with the board president ahead of time.

Let us also hope that she learns from the adage I posted yesterday: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail."

Quote of the Day

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." Abraham Maslow, 1908-70, US psychologist.

Teachers demand apology from school board member over Holocaust claims

After reading this morning's story on Dianna Brewer-Jackson, I grew outraged.

"Dianna Brewer-Jackson does owe an apology -- to all of us," I wrote. "If, as an elected public official, she has evidence of racism and anti-Semitism within the Elmira School District, it is her responsibility to share that evidence, to demand an investigation and to bring it to light so that we can understand what happened, how it happened and why. If what she says is true and she does not pursue an investigation, then she guilty of protecting racists and anti-Semites. An accusation that there is a Holocaust denier teaching students in Elmira is a serious charge, and it cannot be ignored. Such hateful ideas must be opposed."

I still think this. But then, I read her letter, and I calmed down:

http://www.stargazette.com/article/20090922/VIEWPOINTS03/909220307/1121/Don+t+ignore+the+signs

Then I realized something. I think she is misguided, and she lacks the skills needed for public office. Her letter not only offers any specifics about where this happened or by who, but also no sense of when this happened. Was this recent, or was this months or years ago?

She throws memories around as facts and without realizing the responsibilities she carries as a public official. She could have said this as a private citizen and drawn no attention to herself.

But when she became elected, her words acquired more weight and as such she had a responsibility to not only speak, but also to act effectively. To not only listen and observe, but also take notes and follow up. To document what she claims.

But she has a responsibility to see the realities around her, to understand that she might have more allies than she realizes if she would only stop bashing those she serves with, calling them all racists. With such tactics, she does not serve anyone and she does not help anyone. These tactics do nothing to reduce the platform from which racism works.

She owes her constituents better.

However, despite her flawed approach, we should support diversity panels, community forums and an investigation into discrimination.

Charges of racism and anti-Semitism have been raised in the Elmira School District. They have been raised in a clumsy and awkward fashion by someone who does not know what she is doing, but she has raised an issue that must be explored.

So, why not bring in a group like the Anti-Defamation League or the NAACP to investigate, explore and establish where Elmira really stands on the issue of anti-Semitism and racism? Set up a committee, conduct hearings, ask questions, get the stories from the students, the parents the teachers. Draw conclusions about where we are. We may find that Dianna Brewer-Jackson's accusations may or may not be well-founded, but we may also find out something we didn't know.

And we may also be uncomfortable about what we find out, but that's a good thing.

Shoe-Throwing Reporter Tells Tale Of Torture

From NPR:

"The journalist who threw his shoes at George W. Bush during the president's final visit to Iraq last December was released from prison Tuesday and says he was tortured by Iraqi officials during his incarceration. ... "

Now the guy lives in fear that the U.S. will hunt him down. The man has been through enough.

If I had the chance to meet him, I'd shake his hand and reassure him that all Americans are not like George W. Bush. I'd also apologize to him for what happened to his country and because Americans allowed W. so much power that the opposition could not stop him from invading and conquering Iraq.

I do not blame him for his outburst, and he did not deserve torture. The fact that he was tortured tells us that the Iraqi leadership learned the wrong lessons from us about democracy. We taught them it was OK to have a democracy and to torture.

He was rightfully angry and frustrated at what had become of his country, and he is looked upon as a hero across the Arab world because he did what many wish they could have done.

Until we understand that anger that we unleashed, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Someone should invite this man to the U.S. for a speaking tour. We could learn much from him.

---

September 2018: To be clear, this post has to do with national sovereignty. Every nation has a right to sovereignty. To put it another way ... if Justin Trudeau ordered Canada to invade and conquer the U.S. and they successfully toppled Donald Trump as president, I would be just as outraged as that Iraqi journalist throwing his shoes.

For better or worse, it is up to the citizens and government of each country to solve their own problems and choose their own course.

Keeping it simple

I've been wanting to blog about health care for a long time, but the complexity of the issue has been daunting.

So much hangs in the balance. So many people could be helped by health care reform. But the opposition is turning it into a bitter political fight. They aren't seeing the big picture.

Finally, today on Facebook, someone posted this simple little status that boiled the issue down to the essentials:

"Let me put it this way: There are few things I feel this strongly about. No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day."

'Nuff said ... for now.

Testing out Dipity

Ed Bond on Dipity.

Imagine the world

As we were leaving N.J. on our last visit, we stopped for gas. In N.J., you can't pump your own gas. So, ours was pumped by a man who seemed to be of Middle Eastern origin. The gas station was busy, and he was working hard.

For all I knew, he could have grown up in N.J., but looking at him I saw the classic story of the immigrant. A man comes to America, works hard so that his children could have a better life.

We've seen so many success stories of the children of immigrants. Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor to name two. It occurred to me that the the story of the success of the immigrant and person of color is about to accelerate.

In the not to distant future, white people will no longer be the majority in this country. In one generation, the children of the current immigrant population could be running things.

Imagine a country like the United States, founded on the principles of freedom and equality, without a white majority to dominate the political landscape. And what if this will be a time when no ethnic group has a majority.

Then, if we have not embittered the population with the legacy of hatred that has dominated our history, we might have a real chance at living with true justice and equality.

On the death of Ted Kennedy

I just wanted to share the e-mail I got from Barack Obama on the death of Ted Kennedy.

ED --

Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy.

For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts.

His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives -- in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education's promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me.

In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy.

I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency. And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I've benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom.

His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we've all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives.

For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today -- to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family.

Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still.

Sincerely,

President Barack Obama

Big Mistake

I'm late in getting this on the record, but I just had to say that the release of the Lockerbie airline bomber was a big mistake.

Perhaps it was pushed as a way to heal the wounds between the Muslim and Western worlds, and perhaps there is reason to do that. However, to release someone responsible for the deaths of 270 people - including several from upstate New York - does not make sense.

This does not heal wounds. It aggravates them, especially for the families of the victims. And the Libyan celebrations of his release only underscore how foolish the British were to let him go.

If he were so sick that it warranted a release on humanitarian grounds, then he should have at least been carried off the plane on a stretcher.

He should have died in prison.

I wonder whether the U.S. could pursue him for prosecution.

On the other hand, I found it interesting that there was also a story in today's paper about William Calley apologizing for the My Lai massacre in 1968. He had been sentence to life in prison, but ended up serving only three years in house arrest. While there is some value in his apology - comparable to McNamara's apology for the entire Vietnam War - one must wonder how he managed to have such a normal life after this atrocity.

Good news and bad news

The bad news: A Myanmar court found democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi guilty of violating her house arrest.

The good news: The head of the military-ruled country ordered her to serve an 18-month sentence under house arrest. So, it's more of the same for the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Why is that good news? She could have been sent to prison, where it would have been far too easy for the military junta to make her disappear or die under mysterious circumstances.

As reported by the Associated Press, the junta chief said she received a reduced sentence to "maintain peace and tranquility" and because Suu Kyi was the daughter of Aung San, a revered hero who won Myanmar's independence from Britain.

It is a small comfort that a even a brutal dictatorship can be reined in. The reduction of sentence is a small acknowledgment by the junta that it knows its own people and the international community care about the fate of this courageous woman.

The ruling re-establishes the status quo. But it gave the junta an excuse to extend her house arrest and keep her out of next year's elections.

As to the American, John Yettaw, who put Suu Kyi into jeopardy of going to prison, I was at first angry and dumbfounded that anyone would do something so reckless as to swim to her home. But with the reports of his seeing visions, having seizures and other health problems, he may not be as responsible. In America, he would probably be hospitalized and treated, not sentenced to hard labor.

But then again, in America, we wouldn't put democratic leaders under house arrest.

UPDATE: I was up in the middle of the night, watching the news reports on this decision. Commentators were saying that this was an unbearable decision for Suu Kyi, and they speculated that she would probably start a hunger strike.

In the struggle for freedom against a dictatorship, the status quo becomes unbearable.

Why you shouldn't talk to crazy people

A friend posted this on Facebook today. Ordinarily I try not to deal with crazy people, but I had an issue I wanted to deal with.

Orly Taitz keeps going back to the point that Obama could not be a natural born citizen because his father was a Kenyan citizen. When she was on The Colbert Report, Colbert supported her saying it would mean going back to the days of Chester A. Arthur, whose father was not a U.S. citizen.

Then I wondered where she was coming from. So long as you were born in the United States, you are a natural born citizen and it does not matter whether your parents are. The rules for being a natural born citizen have some variation depending on where you where born. As territories joined the United States, laws were established saying who were the natural born citizens of the U.S.

For example, here is part of the U.S. code that deals with those born in Hawaii:

"A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900."

But it says nothing about what the citizenship of the parents must be.

So, what is Orly Taitz trying to say?

Well, here is the section of the U.S. Code that spells out natural born citizen. It defines a natural born citizen as:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

If Obama was born in Hawaii, he meets that requirement. I've seen the birth certificate online, I'm satisfied. Also officials in the Hawaiian and federal government, as well as key Republican leaders have been satisfied with the documentation. (By the way, Happy Birthday, Mr. President!)

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe ... (doesn't apply here.)

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

OK, now this might be an issue, if it were proven that Obama was born outside the U.S. This criteria would not be met because his father was not a U.S. citizen.

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

No help for Obama under the Kenya birth scenario here. By the way, you can be a national of the U.S., but not a citizen. "A person whose only connection to the U.S. is through birth in an outlying possession (which as of 2005 is limited to American Samoa and Swains Island), or through descent from a person so born acquires U.S. nationality but not U.S. citizenship. This was formerly the case in only four other current or former U.S. overseas possessions^{[19]" (Sorry for the use of Wikipedia here.) But Obama's father had no claim of being a U.S. national.}

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

Again, no help for Obama if he was born in Kenya.

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

This one doesn't affect us, but it has the makings of a good screenplay. A four-year-old child, found lost somewhere in the United States, grows up to run for president.

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;

If I read this one correctly, Obama born in Kenya would meet the requirements of a U.S. citizen. His mother was a U.S. citizen who was present in the U.S. long enough.

and (h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

This one doesn't apply, but there's probably an interesting story behind where this rule came from.

So, what is the kindest way to express Orly Taitz' argument?

She has dismissed the documentation on Obama's birth in Hawaii, and is trying to make an argument that because Obama was born outside of the U.S., he had to meet one of the more difficult criteria for being a natural born citizen, which are listed above. However, she does not explain her position well and does not even understand the point of law that she is arguing.

I felt some sympathy for her during this interview because from one perspective, it would appear she is being badgered and not being allowed to make her point. But from the other side of it, the interviewers know that she has already made her arguments in the media. They were not there to give her yet another platform to state her case. They wanted to get her to respond to new perspectives, new questions. She wouldn't play it that way. She wanted to go to her standard stump speech, and she got stomped.

What I don't like is that because of all the air time she has acquired, the public is more confused about the standards for a natural born citizen. Some may actually think that to be natural born, you not only have to be born in the U.S., but also have both parents be U.S. citizens. That's just not true. Anyone born in the U.S. - even if the parents are illegal aliens - are natural born citizens.

I fear that Orly Taitz' arguments will be picked up by the fringe and used by other more hateful minds who want to make a case about who are the "real Americans."

When Ann Coulter and Karl Rove say you are crazy, that should end the discussion.

Oh wait, they'd say I'm crazy too. Oh no! I have become Orly Taitz!

And that, finally, is why you should not talk to crazy people. They make you crazy.

The Death of Journalism?

I had to take a break last week.

So, I'll get back into the groove of blogging by pointing you to an excellent article by Ian Shapira of the Washington Post about how an article he wrote was stolen by Gawker. What's worse is that because of current copyright laws, this kind of Internet thievery cannot be stopped. The laws that allowed news organizations to sue when their work is used without permission or credit disappeared in the 1970s.

My metaphor for the state of journalism - and newspapers - is that we are standing on a shrinking sheet of ice. And Shapira's article explains how the blogosphere is applying a blow torch under our feet. As Shapira explains, what I do in properly crediting and linking my readers to his story is fair. But what Gawker did was to summarize most of his story without properly linking to and crediting his work. They used so much of his piece that the typical reader would find no need to click on the link to the actual article.

Here's the article: The Death of Journalism (Gawker Edition)

We share our lives, but live in different worlds

I haven't been up for blogging much this week because my aunt passed away. I thought I'd share a column I wrote for the Star-Gazette in Elmira, N.Y., last year.

The sad part of it is that between the time that I filed this piece in early May 2008 and the time it was published June 1, Wendy Thibeault of Cortland was murdered by her husband, Randy. The couple were acquaintances of my wife and I. He was convicted in March and is imprisoned in Attica. The epidemic of domestic violence continues.

Here's the column:

We share our lives,
but live in different worlds

• Men may not mean to strike fear in women, but they do.

The woman slept soundly, alone in her bed.

A dark figure slipped into the room. The man crept closer, reaching out.

She awoke with a start. Fear flashed across her face as she coiled back. Adrenalin pumped into her veins.

Then, the face looming over her snapped into focus.

"Oh my God, you scared me."

"Sorry," I said. "I was just trying to get the remote."

That'll teach me to sneak up on a black belt, even if it is my wife.

But aside from the dangers of a potential backfist strike, seeing the look of fear and panic in the face of someone I loved, I had to ask myself: "Why have men and women become such enemies?"

It's a question that has taken me 10 years to learn to ask.

It was 10 years ago that my wife, Amy, took her first karate lesson. I remember the day she took the test for the lowest grade belt — yellow. She had been so nervous she wouldn't let me go to cheer her on. When she came home, she popped open a beer and relaxed, satisfied to have made the cut. She had started her journey, and I was happy for her.

While I've never taken a formal karate class in my life — running had been my athletic passion — Amy's journey into martial arts and self-defense became my journey, too. In the years that followed, I watched many belt tests. I made friends with her instructors. I heard stories of women who had been attacked and the fears many women face constantly. I skimmed through the books Amy used for self-defense classes that she left around the house.

Before all this, I was probably like most men, unaware that women may share their lives with us, but live in an entirely different world. As Gavin DeBecker explains in his book, "The Gift of Fear," men very rarely worry that someone could hurt them. But a woman can feel that threat almost constantly.

That's because of men.

When I crept up to the bed to snag the remote, I had triggered one of the iconic fears for women — that of a man standing over them as they sleep, about to attack. There are lots of similar images: the man following the solitary woman on a jogging path, the man slipping a drug into a drink, the man staring through a window. For more of such images, check out the Lifetime Movie Network.

The media generate many of these images and sell them for a quick buck. Women are beaten, raped and abused on television for entertainment. At the end of the story, the bad guy usually loses but only after a celebration of his violence. I can't help but think there are some men who watch these images, taking notes, planning what they would do differently.

Now, this is why I am so impressed with Amy. Not only does she despise the images of violence on television, she has found a way to help women fight back against this culture of violence. She teaches women how to stand up for themselves, how to be alert to danger signals, how to escape and survive. What instructors of karate and self defense do is important, but it's only half the job.

To put an end to violence against women — either from a stranger or from a domestic partner — men must accept their responsibility. Because, sadly, if all women were to stand up tomorrow and declare violence against women must stop, it would still continue. But if all men also declared violence against women must stop, it would stop.

Could it be that simple? Let's try this. I ask that all men reading this column to promise to not hurt or threaten women. OK? Done.

No, it isn't that simple. Although many of you who read the previous paragraph might have shrugged and said, "Sure, no problem," there are some of you who are the problem. Some of you recently put that look of fear and panic into the face of your wife or partner. And when you did it, you felt satisfaction. You figured you were winning whatever conflict you were in. But what you must understand is that when you create that reaction in the face of someone you are supposed to love, it has nothing to do with love, but with power and control.

Some of you may even think you can make that promise but in weaker moments become the insistent, the obsessive, the stalker, the controller. You can't understand why the object of your desires just can't see how perfect your life together will be. And you are probably on an express train into a world of trouble. If you read "The Gift of Fear" — and all men really should — you might recognize yourself. And there are other men who just don't realize how dangerous the world can be for a woman.

No, ending violence against women is not as easy as just asking for everyone to make a promise. But doesn't it seem so wrong that it can't be?

So then, if we can't get the ideal of all women standing up against violence and all men standing up against violence, let's try something else. What if all those — men and women — who are willing to see the danger that must be faced, took a stand? That might make a difference.

At the very least, men and women wouldn't be enemies, but allies.

Ed Bond is a (former) copy editor at the Star-Gazette and an adjunct faculty member of the journalism department at Ithaca College. His commentary appears periodically on this page.

City:

State:

Section: Opinion

Page: 12

From: Staff

Source: Staff

Publication: Star-Gazette

Waiting for the other shoe to drop

From the AP:

"ANCHORAGE, Alaska – An independent investigator has found evidence that Gov. Sarah Palin may have violated ethics laws by trading on her position in seeking money for legal fees , in the latest legal distraction for the former vice presidential candidate as she prepares to leave office this week.

"The report obtained by The Associated Press says Palin is securing unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts through the Alaska Fund Trust, set up by supporters.

"An investigator for the state Personnel Board says in his July 14 report that there is probable cause to believe Palin used or attempted to use her official position for personal gain because she authorized the creation of the trust as the "official" legal defense fund ."

... But as I read this, it just sounds like yet another in a long string of ethical complaints against Palin. Surely it would be not more than a nuisance to someone who has battled in the public spotlight for a while. This can't be the big scandal on the horizon that may have prompted her to quit.

I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. The full story will probably emerge as she withdraws from Alaskan government.

Roots of democratic change

I just found this passage from an AP story on Iran's political turmoil fascinating:

The cleric got tears in his eyes as he spoke of how Islam's Prophet Muhammad "respected the rights" of his people. He said the founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, "would always say that if the system is not backed by the people, nothing would stand."

It is significant to me that the cleric, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, invokes the name of Khomeni, a man vilified for years in the United States.

That reminds me yet again, that if there is to be democratic reform in Iran, it needs to be IRAN's version of democracy, a version they struggle to create on their own, rather than one imposed on them by outside forces.

Highway philosophy

A bumper sticker spotted by Amy during our drive back from New Jersey:

"Don't believe everything you think."

Makes you think ... again ... doesn't it?

Re: Contact Form Submission

I'll be off line for a couple of days, but I just got an e-mail from state Sen. George Winner, so I thought I'd share it. Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?:

"I've heard from many of you over the past several weeks on the Senate leadership standoff -- in support and in strong opposition.

"While the leadership issue has been settled, for now, the more important (and more difficult) work of ensuring far-reaching changes in New York government remains ahead of us.

"So I'm glad for this chance to provide an update.

"First and foremost, please know that I've appreciated your participation. I'm grateful for your input, and I'm glad that we've had the chance to share some direct give-and-take during this important time in New York government.

"As I've said to you before, we're trying to dramatically change the longstanding culture of Albany politics and government -- in ways that many of you have been demanding for years -- and it's not coming easy.

"Most importantly, I'm glad that you've been paying attention. That's critical at the moment.

"Because now we need to pay attention to New York government like never before.

"The newly reconstructed Senate Democratic leadership means one thing for certain: We've returned to one-party, one-region, downstate control of New York government.

"That concerns me. This year's state budget -- the largest tax increase in state history, billions of dollars in new spending, no upstate job creation initiatives, you name it -- still stands as proof that upstate New York's taxpayers, employers, workers, and families don't get a fair shake in a state government under one-party, one-region, downstate control.

"Our communities can't afford to return to the kind of state government that we witnessed during the first six months of 2009 and that produced the last four weeks of standoff in the Senate.

"But now there's one real difference, which gives me hope. Our effort since June 8th to bring far-reaching reform to the Senate has given true momentum to enacting the kind of legislative changes that good government advocates have been demanding for years.

"Next week, the newly reconstructed Senate Democratic leadership has pledged action on the broad reforms we've put in motion since June 8th.

"Now we have to hold them to their word.

"We have the first chance we've ever had to remake the Senate -- to take power away from the leadership, to create a climate of cooperative action, and to ensure that upstate New York communities always have the voice in New York government they deserve.

"That's my No. 1 goal in the days ahead.

"You've told me that New York government needs to change, and I agree. We're trying, and I'll keep doing my best to keep you informed. I hope that we can stay in touch.

"It's been good to hear from you. Thank you for your interest, your patience, and, most of all, your willingness to share your own opinions and suggestions."

NYS Senate George Winner
53rd District

Hooray! It's over

So, the man who started it all, freshman state Sen. Pedro Espada, has rejoined the Democrats to end the stalemate.

Doesn't seem like anybody got anything out of this crisis, except Espada, who has now won the title of Senate majority leader.

For all the damage that has been done, in the end this seems like the entire affair was coordinated to expand Espada's power.

I am grateful the crisis is over - except the looming battle over lieutenant governor - but am left with a bad taste in my mouth at seeing the ugliness our state legislators are capable of.

Why I write this blog

As I've become more wrapped up in talking about the crisis in Albany, I had to step back a second and ask whether it was worth all the time and energy I was putting into this issue.

Then I was reminded of the two principles that I wanted my blog to bring into public discussions of the issues: compassion and reason.

So, as you skim through my blog postings you may notice the variety of subjects and wonder how I pick what I write about.

My hope is that my allies in these discussions are compassion and reason. So, therefore, my enemies are hatred and stupidity.

I believe Albany fits into the second category.

Paterson's move to pick Lt. Gov.

So, the Republicans are already promising to put up a legal fight over the move by Gov. Paterson to name Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor. That's too bad, only because it means this will just be another drawn out fight.

Paterson had some very good points to make as he announced this decision:

1) Without a lieutenant governor, we would not know who was in charge if something happened to Paterson.

2) The crisis in government is worsening an already dire economic situation.

3) He makes the astute argument that even though the constitution doesn't say he can do something doesn't mean he can't legally do it.

Paterson seeks to end this crisis through an action that he hopes will establish a precedent. Sometimes it is through actions taken in a political crisis that we are given the chance to define how government is supposed to work. See Marbury vs. Madison, where the concept of judicial review was established.

The idea that there should be a way to replace a lieutenant governor is entirely reasonable. However, Paterson seems to be trying to achieve this through direct appointment without seeking any review or support of the legislature. This is why, in my earlier blog, I suggested that a lieutenant governor be picked through some bipartisan means, such as a commission. My hope was that a replacement could be found that all sides could be comfortable with and avert another crisis.

However, within hours of his announcement, Paterson had Ravitch sworn into office and will attempt to preside over the state Senate this afternoon. However, the Republicans have already swung into action, taking legal steps to try to block the appointment.

Again, this is just more needless bickering that would be resolved if the constitution was clarified with an amendment.

At the federal level, when the vice presidency is vacant, the president can nominate a replacement, who then must be confirmed by both houses of Congress. This system allows for both sides to review, question, make comment and vote on such an appointment before a nominee takes office. New York doesn't have this system, and it really needs it to avoid such a crisis.

Breaking news: Paterson to name a lieutenant governor

From the New York Times:

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson will name Richard Ravitch, a former chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, as lieutenant governor in a televised speech he has scheduled for late Wednesday afternoon, according to an administration official.

... But the governor’s move is sure to be highly debated. Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, the state’s top legal officer, said this week that such a step would be unconstitutional and would entangle “the governor in a political ploy that would wind through the courts for many months.”

There is no provision in the New York State Constitution that provides for filling the office in the event of a vacancy, though some in Albany have pushed a legal theory that state law would allow the governor to name someone to the post.

...

Well, interesting solution, Mr. Governor. Let's hope Mr. Ravitch will prove to be an official who can work with both sides of the aisle.

If he's a choice both parties can work with, we may be close to an end to this fight.

If not, it's going to drag on even longer with suits and countersuits over the legality of this move.

I'm hoping this will help bring an end to this circus.

You're welcome, New York

So, in my blog Tuesday, I finally waded in with an opinion about the New York state Senate stalemate. I filed the blog about 10:30 a.m., which included the line, "Either way, whoever it is who can reach across the aisle and find a solution to this crisis will have the gratitude of the voters." And I made some suggestions about the real problem I saw, the vacant lieutenant governor's office and the constitutional weakness that caused this crisis.

I also e-mailed my blog to state Sen. George Winner and posted it on the Star-Gazette Web site.

Then, that afternoon, the state senators announced that they were making progress on a deal to share resources and leadership. This announcement followed a meeting with Gov. Paterson, but clearly it was my blog posting that was the catalyst for the breakthrough. Even though they are not using my solution, I can't help but take the credit.

You're welcome, New York.

I'll pause now to give some of you time to realize that I'm kidding.

Paterson is scheduled to give a speech at 5 p.m. today, and we should pay attention. Perhaps there will be a resolution to this crisis after all.

By the way, this morning I actually got a response from George Winner. Here it is:

Dear Mr. Bond:

Thank you for your e-mail and for sharing the link to your July 7th blog post on the Senate leadership change. I appreciate having your input.

Your suggestion as to the joint selection of a Lieutenant Governor, while well thought out, would be unconstitutional as per opinion of Attorney General Cuomo.

Thank you again for sharing a few thoughts, and I hope that we can stay in touch on the issue of changing New York government.

Sincerely,

NYS Senator George Winner
53rd District


I'm grateful to get a reply, and if the Democrats and the Republicans finally have a power sharing arrangement, that's all I need to see for now.

However, I would still insist that by having no provision in our state constitution to replace our lieutenant governor there is a serious weakness in our government. Somehow that needs to be fixed before the next crisis arises.

And now for something completely different

My neighbor suggested that my blog on the U.S. Senate on Monday should be sent to N.Y. state Senator George Winner. "You know, that part about engaging across party lines to get something accomplished? What a concept."

Agreed, something needs to be done to break the logjam in Albany. But on Monday I was addressing the issues of a functional political body. The state senate has not been functional since the Republican coup on June 8 made possible when two freshmen Democratic senators switched sides.

One of those rogue Democrats switched back, creating an even worse situation of a 31-31 tie. Since then the situation has degraded beyond dysfunctional into toddlerlike playground tantrums. One side even declared a quorum and passed legislation just because an opposing senator snuck into the chambers to get a drink. This was followed by debate that did not seem to rise above the level of "Am not!" and "Are too!"

It has been painful to watch and harder even to come up with any useful commentary about the situation. What can one say when the grownups act so childish?

OK, I will say this to the senators: This is not the reason we sent you to Albany. You are wasting your time, our time and our money. Important legislation sits and rots while you conduct a fight that has trademarks of the battle in Lilliput from Gulliver's travels over the proper way for one to crack an egg.

The state comptroller is seeking an opinion on withholding pay and expenses for senators, I hope he succeeds.

But the real problem is that New York has a serious problem in its constitution.

On Monday, the attorney general ruled that the governor cannot appoint a lieutenant governor to break the tie. The office has remained vacant since Patterson ascended to governor after Spitzer resigned in disgrace. And that is turning out to be a serious flaw in the constitution.

Here's my suggestion:

The two sides need to negotiate a way to select a lieutenant governor who can break tie votes and resolve the crisis. Perhaps for this one time that should be done through arbitration or a nonpartisan commission. I would hope that they could find someone who both sides would be comfortable with, who can break the logjam and allow the work of passing legislation to resume.

They would do this as a one-time deal with the understanding that this would be followed by a fully vetted amendment to the state constitution that would allow for a lieutenant governor to be replaced, perhaps in some sort of nonpartisan way.

Either way, whoever it is who can reach across the aisle and find a solution to this crisis will have the gratitude of the voters.

In the meantime, Wednesday is July 8 and will mark one month since the coup. If they still cannot find a solution, it will be an ignominious anniversary. More and more New Yorkers will join in the cry of "Throw them all out!"

Welcome to the Al Franken generation

David Broder had a good column in today's paper that explained that even though the Democrats now had a filibuster-proof majority with the election of Al Franken to the Senate, they shouldn't go it alone without Republicans.

I have to agree.

Yes, now that the Dems have reached the magic number of 60, they could theoretically pass anything they wanted over Republican objections, but that is not practical nor is it reasonable.

For one, the Dems would have to stay absolutely in lock-step with each other for them to go it alone. Second, they would all have to stay healthy, and two of their Senators, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd are ailing.

Third, the achievement of absolute rule over a minority is not the aim (or shouldn't be) of American politics. We went through six years in which not only was the government tightly controlled by the GOP, but was tightly control by a small, petty faction within the GOP.

We don't need to see the government once again ruled by one party who plays hardball to the point that the other side cannot breathe.

Politics should be dynamic, with room to include ideas from all sides to make deals and shape a legislation that has the interests of common good in mind. You can't do that if you have shut out an entire political party.

It was through a perfect storm of political good luck that the Democrats have been able to seize so much power. However, the American public did not shift so far to the left to make it possible. The Dems just made a strong enough argument to the middle that the public bought it.

Conservatives, moderates and liberals/progressives still hold the same ratios within the electorate, and they will all be watching the Democrats who have taken charge and judge whether they rule with compassion and reason.

Thank you, Great Britain

We have friends, a newlywed couple, visiting from out of town this weekend. The wife is one of my wife's closest friends, who grew up with her. Her husband is an Englishman from Yorkshire, who she met in New Orleans.

And today is the Fourth of July. This morning, as I was getting out the American flag, I said to myself, "I hope Jerry doesn't mind." Jack asked me why that mattered, and I explained that Jerry is British.

But then I told Jack, as I brought the flag outside, "Actually, in a way, we owe the British our thanks."

Why?

Because it was, in part, the British who taught us the meaning of freedom. Much of the American system government draws some of its inspiration from the British and the tradition of individual rights that can be traced all the way back to the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215.

By the way, the backstory on that is that the King John who was forced to sign the Magna Carta is the same vilified Prince John who lost in his attempt the usurp the throne of Richard the Lionhearted. But then that pesky little Robin Hood upset his plans. What most people don't know is that later Richard died and John took the throne anyway.

Anyway, back to the American Revolution.

It was because of that tradition of freedom and a developing sense of democracy that the colonists in America saw themselves as deserving the full rights of other British subjects.

But when the Crown began to impose unfair taxes on the colonists - to pay the debts from the French and Indian War - the colonists cried "Foul!"

In a sense, our rebellion began out of a desire to restore fairness in an unjust system. At first, ours was not so much a revolution to change the world, but to restore a status quo.

But of course there was more to it than that. The influence of French thinkers, but also English thinkers like John Locke, inspired one of the great conclusions by a political body: "That all men are created equal."

Had we not had learned our lessons well from the British, through their democratic traditions and their period of unjust rule, we may not have reached that insight and we may not have become the nation we are today.

These are the times that test our souls

From the Washington Post:

Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth yesterday canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered corporate underwriters access to Post journalists, Obama administration officials and members of Congress in exchange for payments as high as $250,000.

"Absolutely, I'm disappointed," Weymouth said in an interview. "This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

... Another bad idea out of a newspaper marketing department.

To retain its integrity, a newspaper must maintain a firewall between its editorial/news side and its financial/advertising/marketing side. Too often, the public and, unfortunately, the marketing and advertising reps just don't understand why we need that firewall.

The first time I ran into this problem, I was a reporter in Corning, N.Y. The owner of a local scrapyard called up, upset because we had not done any news stories about him recently. "Well," I said. "What would the news story be about?"

He had no answer, but kept insisting that I do a story about his business. Finally, he said, "Look, I'll pay you to write it." (He didn't get his story.)

That's one of the most insulting things you can say to a journalist. To make a suggestion that you are doing it for the money betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what journalism is about. Yes, we get paid, but the pay scale is not what drives so many of us through years of J-school, freelance work, odd hours and working nights, weekends and holidays.

Most of us do it because we have been given a unique opportunity: To tell the truth.

But the public can't trust you to tell the truth if you are being paid by the newsmakers.

Unfortunately, so many of those who work on the business side of the newspaper do not understand this. Ten years ago, when the new publisher of the Los Angeles Times did not understand this concept, it lead to a scandal where the newspaper's magazine did an entire issue on the new Staples Center. The journalists at the Times did a dutiful job reporting on all aspects of the center, without realizing that the marketing and advertising departments had made side deals involving the newspaper in the sponsorship of the facility. "[The newspaper] sold ads with the assistance of the Staples ad staff -- and then planned to split the profits, allowing both parties to benefit from what was supposedly a pure editorial product."

This led to a near open revolt in the newsroom and a major investigative piece about how the scandal happened.

The upside on the Post situation is that they have a publisher who understands the importance of editorial integrity. These dinners were immediately canceled, and the marketing executive, Charles Pelton, immediately admitted his error.

I can't imagine how that meeting between Weymouth, Brauchli and Pelton must have gone. BTW, I find it interesting that Pelton had co-owned a firm that staged conferences before joining The Post two months ago. Someone should have put him through the paces about the firewall and journalistic integrity before he got to work.

But when these errors happen, the question is raised: "How can this happen?"

For newspapers and journalists, these are the times that test reporter's souls.

Newspapers are dying. Those that are not already closed or being sold are fighting for their very lives. The pressure to survive keeps climbing. In the drive to find new ways to generate revenue, newspapers are more often being offered Faustian deals.

One commentator says he was astonished that this plan had gone so far. But if you share a sheet of ice with someone, as that ice melts you are going to have to get closer to your companion on the other side.

And if you are standing on a melting sheet of ice, you are less likely to want a firewall.

As the world of journalism collapses, as newspapers close and more people turn online to get their news, journalism schools are in the midst of a shift: teaching aspiring journalists about the business of journalism, how to keep journalism a paying venture.

I keep hoping for some form of print journalism to survive, but it looks less likely. Let us hope that even if the melting sheet of ice - print journalism - does disappear that journalists will still find solid ground in other media.

But when we reach that distant shore, let's make sure we take the firewall with us.

National Sovereignty Day in Iraq

This quote from Dhafir al-Ani, an opposition member of the Iraqi parliament and head of the largest Sunni bloc, puts the celebrations in Iraq today into perspective:

"Sovereignty means you are capable of free decision-making, defending your national soil, airspace and waters. Iraq is definitely far from achieving all this, I think the title of 'sovereignty day' should be reserved until we achieve the full sovereignty."

That day is not scheduled to come until December 2011, but today, June 30, is being celebrated as National Sovereignty Day.

My metaphor for the U.S. invasion of and eventual withdrawal from Iraq has been pulling out a knife. I wrote, back in the fall of 2007: "When we invaded, we stabbed Iraq in the stomach. Somehow we have to remove the knife without killing the patient."

In a followup post, I wrote: "Also, remember that Iraq cannot really heal until we pull out. We are the knife that has been driven into their body. Even after the doctors are able to safely remove the blade, the patient still may be in danger."

So here we are, today, finally the doctors are taking out the knife. The operation is not over, the wounds and incisions have not been closed. The tools of the operation stand at the ready. But the doctors stand back and wait for spurts of blood, leaks in the arteries. Did they do their job well enough? Or will they have to go back in again to stop more blood from being spilled?

But faced with the reality of this day, my metaphor doesn't fully hold up. For one, U.S. troops will now return only at the request of the Iraqi authorities. I can't imagine a surgeon waiting for the permission of patient to repair an artery that ruptured in the middle of surgery.

However, it cannot be denied that pulling out of the cities is a significant psychological and symbolic event. No longer will the majority of Iraqis wake up to see the uniforms of the invaders on their streets. Even if it that invasion had positive results - like the toppling of a brutal dictatorship - I don't think any nation on Earth can easily bear the humiliation of being conquered and occupied by another.

That is why sovereignty is so important to the well-being of Iraqis.

It has been a day of contradictions. As Iraqis celebrate with fireworks, like an old-fashioned American Fourth of July, the U.S. military reported that four soldiers were killed in Baghdad on the eve of the withdrawal.

The withdrawal was also celebrated with a parade, but it was held within the heavily fortified Green Zone. So, the general public could not attend. And many news organizations were barred from the parade.

But the barring of the reporters actually has an upside. The reason why the reporters could not get in was because the checkpoints are now run solely by Iraqis. When they were joint U.S.-Iraqi checkpoints, the American military often smoothed things over to let the reporters through. Now, the reporters can't rely on their American contacts, but must deal directly with the Iraqi authorities.

But that is what this withdrawal is all about, giving the Iraqis the power to control their own country.

Sovereignty.

We are all Africans

The children were grateful their mother had returned to their little village in Tanzania. It was dark in the mud hut when Edith arrived after a seven-day trip.
They could not see her face, but they could feel her hug, smell her skin.
But in the morning, they looked in her face confused.
"Who are you?" they asked.
They did not recognize her because the cleft lip that had marred Edith's face since birth had been repaired.
"And that," said Father Damien Milliken, "is the story of Easter."
Just as Jesus had not been recognized by the disciples after the resurrection, so had Edith been transformed by an act of kindness, Milliken told the congregation Sunday at St. Mary Our Mother Church in Horseheads.
Milliken's life has also undergone a transformation. A native of Elmira, Milliken joined the Benedictine order and 50 years ago was assigned to missionary work in Tanzania. He had returned to thank Father Chris Linsler of St. Mary Our Mother for his support for the past 15 years in hosting African priests who were studying at Elmira College. The church took up a second collection to help Milliken's mission.
In Africa, the election of Barack Obama was an inspiration, Milliken said. However, what was even more inspirational was in watching how graciously John McCain conceded, saying that the better man must move forward and be president.
"This is democracy?" the people in Africa said to themselves. On a continent where those in power often hold on to it through force of arms, McCain concession to Obama was a timely lesson about the power of free government. Africa is watching us as an example of how democracy works, Milliken said, let's be mindful of that.

For all of the foreign aid sent to Africa, about 95 percent of it could be set out in a parking lot and set on fire for all the good it does for the average African, Milliken said. Most of the aid is siphoned off for the wealthy to buy luxury goods and build high rises, Milliken said.

Copies of a letter written by Milliken was made available to the parishioners. It read, in part:

"The African ... does not want, nor need a handout. He wants a fair shake and not a shakedown. Example: There is rice from Arizona, USA,, on sale in the Lushoto market today. (Lushoto is a town about 10 miles down the mountain from Mainde Juu -- where Milliken is based.) This USA rice undercuts the rice grown in our own river valleys. This is not because the Tanzanian rice is so costly to grow, but that the subsidy to the American farmer drives the price of US rice sold in Tanzania way below normal production costs for the Tanzanian farmer. 'Fair' trade not is what can get Africa off its knees and on the road to equal opportunity.'
"I have been in Africa now since 1960 and I am convinced that the school room will be the engine to bring peace and prosperity to this part of the world."


Tax deductible contributions may be made payable to:
St. Paul's Abbey
Benedictine Missionaries
Newton, N.J. 07860
Indicate on memo: Fr. Damian's Mission Work.

http://www.dioceseoftanga.org/offices/education/mazindejuusecschool/index.html

As I listened to Milliken's talk, I kept remembering a lesson from science:

The human race began in Africa, and then took thousands of years to spread around the globe. We spend a lot of time and energy establishing our heritage. But it is not that we are Irish or English, French or German, Spanish or Arab or Jew or Chinese or Japanese or American Indian.

In the end, we are all African.

Speaking truth to power

I picked this up from Mousavi's Facebook group, which gave it this description: "Ayatollah Alikhani, a parliarment member known for his strong words against injustice giving his strong word to support and defend Mousavi."

It gives English subtitles, but what is amazing to me is that he gives this speech with a smile, even a glint in his eye. He is an energetic, enthusiastic speaker, who seems to enjoy his audience, even when it is a group of unfriendly conservatives.

This is the kind of public support that Mousavi will need to turn the tide.

However, as the comments point out on YouTube, he will likely be made to disappear within a few days. You just have to admire his courage.

It is yet another example of the crisis of conscience Iran faces: Are they a democracy or a theocracy? Can both systems survive without destroying each other?

Farrah Fawcett Dies of Cancer at 62

I actually was never a big fan of Farrah. As a pre-teen/teenage boy, I liked "Charlies Angels," but I much preferred Jaclyn Smith. (I can't help it. I like brunettes.)

However, when I heard on the radio just now that she had died, I flashed back to a moment at Boy Scout camp. I must have been 11 or 12 years old. We were all in our bunks, with the lights out. Instead of falling asleep, the whole cabin - except me - spontaneously broke into song:

(Tune of Frere Jacques)

"Farrah Fawcett, Farrah Fawcett
I love you, I love you
You could leave Lee
It could just be you and me
Young me, Young me"

If anyone forgot, she was married to "Six Million Dollar Man" Lee Majors at the time.

Thank you Farrah, for being an inspiration for men and boys of my generation.

Supreme Court Says Strip Search of Child Is Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

The court ruled 8-1 on Thursday that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.


... Not much here but to say to the Supreme Court, "Thank you for being the guardians of reason on this case."

Highway justice

In a move that King Solomon would have been proud of, Missouri officials have neatly side-stepped a hornet's nest of conflict between the free speech rights of Nazis and outraged Jewish leaders.

When the neo-Nazi group, the National Socialist Movement, adopted a half-mile stretch of Missouri highway, state officials realized they were powerless to stop them. They knew they could not legally deny the application, and that they would have to provide a sign celebrating their act of good citizenship.

But it was the the Jewish Community Relations Bureau/American Jewish Committee in Kansas City that offered a remedy: rename the road after Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who fled Nazi Germany and became a prominent Jewish theologian and civil rights advocate in the United States.

They were following an earlier example set when the Klan won the right to clean up a highway, that was then renamed for Rosa Parks.

This is a celebration of the free marketplace of ideas that makes America work at its best. Yes, give the hate mongers the freedom to say what they will, but let the side of reason and justice have their say too. Don't let the hate go unchallenged.

This is poetic justice, and a brilliant solution to the problem.

The name change for the highway the neo-Nazis are cleaning is expected to go into effect later this year. I wonder how well they will do their job of picking up trash then.

Iranian Guards Issue Warning as Vote Errors Are Admitted

... The warning, on the Guards’ Web site, was issued despite an admission by Iran’s most senior panel of election monitors that the number of votes cast in 50 cities exceeded the actual number of voters ...

Um ... Oops!

It seemed to me until as early as this weekend, that the protests in Iran were not going to result in any major change in that country because those in power had too much ... well ... power. But they forgot an important rule:

If you're going to be a dictator, don't ever admit to voter fraud.

Yes, an outraged citizenry can make a big difference, but usually when a government is toppled, there is a need for either a military force to switch sides and join the protestors or for there to be a military power vacuum, as happened in Eastern Europe in 1989-90. Military power can trump political will, unfortunately, as we saw in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago.

The hard-line leaders of Iran have made a strategic mistake in effectively admitting voter fraud but still claiming legitimacy.

This will extend the crisis, embolden and enlarge the crowds in the streets.

Two possibilities:

1) This open example of fraud will inspire someone in power (military, perhaps) to switch sides. This may lead to any number of possibilities from bloodless coup to revolt and civil war.

2) There will need to be a brutal crackdown on the protesters on the level of Tiananmen. If the Iranian leaders do not have the stomach or means for such a crackdown, they could be toppled.

Let us hope there is an option found with limited bloodshed. That would involve serious election reform and a change to the Iranian constitution.

This is a crisis of Iran's national conscience. Their people are confronted with two conflicting ideas: free elections and hardline rule. If they have one, how can they have the other?

Good news for the New York Times

International / Asia Pacific

Times Reporter Held by Taliban Escapes

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Published: June 21, 2009

A New York Times reporter who was kidnapped by the Taliban has escaped and made his way to freedom after more than seven months of captivity in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

... The wow factor in this story is when I first heard about this, I had to scratch my head and wonder. How had I missed the story of a NY Times reporter being kidnapped in Afghanistan? It had happened in November, and I was pretty busy then, so I may have missed it.

But no, I had not missed it at all. It's just that no one wrote about it. In an incredible show of restraint as many as 40 news agencies had heard about this kidnapping, but all had decided to respect a request from the N.Y. Times to keep the story quiet. They did not want to endanger his life.

I keep remembering a story from when I was in L.A. There had been a home invasion robbery in the San Fernando Valley -- I think in Sherman Oakes -- where a child had been kidnapped. It was a big story and all of the news media descended on the scene.

The police had not told the full story to the media, and did not want it to get out. Heavy media reporting could, as with the Afghanistan story -- endanger the life of the hostage. So the LAPD police spokesman, I believe it was Lt. Anthony Alba, took a gamble.

He asked all the media present to meet him around the corner, but to leave behind their notebooks, tape recorders and cameras. He laid out the story, and then asked that they only report on the home invasion, not the kidnapping.

The gamble worked. It took some persuading among the reporters to decide as a group to go along with the police request, but they did.

The next day, the child was released by the robbers and safely returned. Only then did the story break.

What we saw with the Rodhe kidnapping was very similar to what happened in Sherman Oakes years ago, just on a much wider scale.

It is an example that despite the image journalists have as sleazy opportunists, that they are driven by a deep ethical core that often will override even the desire to be the first one to break the story.

They will languish in prison

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that convicts do not have a right under the Constitution to obtain DNA testing to try to prove their innocence after being found guilty.

I was surprised when I heard this. Our entire court system is built around the idea of innocent until proven guilty, and that our courts will eventually do the right thing, that the wrongly accused would have a path to pursue their defense.

Also, as the article explains: "since 1992, 238 people in the United States, some who were sitting on death row, have been exonerated of crimes through DNA testing. In many of those cases, the DNA testing used to clear them was not available at the time of the crime."

Why shouldn't a defendant have access to such testing? It seems a simple matter of fairness. If there is a chance that the wrong man is sitting in a prison cell, that also means that the guilty is walking the streets, endangering the public.

But the bottom line is that this was the wrong case to try to prove this point. There were several factors that affected this decision.

1) The defendant already confessed guilt to the state parole board.

2) His other declarations have not been emphatic about his innocence.

3) He has already served his prison sentence.

So, basically, this defendant was trying to coerce the state to do a DNA test when there was little substantial at stake such as freedom from prison or a looming execution. It would at best save face, a little, and may lead to later civil action. And he was asking for a test when even he himself did not affirm emphatically about his innocence.

I understand why the Supreme Court made this decision. But I feel it does not serve the interests of justice. This was just the wrong case to rule on this issue of DNA access.

I keep remembering the story of Rosa Parks. She actually was not the only one who refused to move from a bus seat at that time. However, the leaders of the civil rights movement picked her case as the one to fight and promote because she was a person of strong moral character. Her character made it all the more apparent that their opponents were wrong.

In this case, this defendant did not display the kind of character that made him worth fighting for on this issue. And because of him, "a small group of innocent people — and it is a small group — will languish in prison.”

If Plastic Surgery Won’t Convince You, What Will?

PRAGUE — When Petra Kalivodova, a 31-year-old nurse, was considering whether to renew her contract at a private health clinic here, special perks helped clinch the deal: free German lessons, five weeks of vacation, and a range of plastic-surgery options, including complimentary silicone-enhanced breasts. ...

- New York Times, June 14, 2009.

... To sum up the story in the Sunday New York Times, there's a shortage of nurses in the Czech Republic, a country with a health-care system so restrictive to nurses that they can't even prescribe an aspirin without a doctor's OK. Also, they are barely emerging from an era where nurses were just seen as not much more than room cleaners and bed changers.

Now, I think it's fine to offer perks to employees and potential employees, but this offer needs another look.

First off, the German lessons are not as popular as the plastic surgery options. However, I could see that for a Czech it would improve one's quality of life to be able to speak the language of a neighboring country.

But what I really want to talk about is the breast implants. (Big surprise.)

Now, Lord knows I could use some liposuction to improve my quality of life and boost my self-esteem (no implants for me, thanks), but it seems to me the offer of plastic surgery and implants is similar to what women say about the negligee men buy for them: "It's a gift that men give to themselves."

As the Times article explains, part of this offer has to do with how the culture has been wrapped up in the post-Communist decadence with new, intoxicating Western influences. And along with that comes the Western-driven pressure for women to be thin and beautiful.

I am someone who has unfortunately been in-and-out of the U.S. health care system in recent years, and while I will admit I don't mind having an attractive, shapely female nurse - it does cheer me up - that really isn't what I'm after.

In 2006, a clot in my liver put me in the hospital for most of two weeks. For much of that time, I had blood drawn from me at least every six hours. So I was getting awakened in the middle of the night and stabbed in the arm or the hand, often by someone who was still learning the skill. (They were starting to run out of places to stab me, too.)

I didn't mind too much when they botched it. Afterall, they have to learn somewhere, but over time I grew to appreciate the smooth professionals who could draw the blood from the vein with hardly any pain. You see, there are no nerves in the veins themselves, so if you can get right in at a point where there's not much skin to go through, it's really a snap.

I had nurses of varying ages, sizes, races and both men and women, and for me the thing I judged them on was how well they could perform that one task. Even today, I will compliment a nurse or a lab tech when they do it right. But this brings me to my point.

If the Czech Republic really needs more nurses, a better course of action rather than the "gift men give to themselves" would be to ensure that the nursing profession is a respected and fulfilling career.

And if they really want to solve their labor shortage, they can open up the field to the other half of their population - men. Let the men of the Czech Republic know that they can be nurses. As I said, there are male nurses in the U.S., and they do a fine job. They aren't just the punchline to a joke, as in Ben Stiller in "Meet the Parents."

Just tell them they can skip the implants, OK?

Sometimes, page layout says a lot

This morning, I just found it telling how the New York Times positioned its story on the political turmoil in Albany on the front page, right below the coverage of the political turmoil in Iran.

There are some comparisons to be drawn by looking at both stories. The turmoil in Iran is driven by a hard-line dictatorship, unwilling to relinquish power.

The trouble in Albany is the lack of a power center. The towering mountains of power like Rockefeller, Carey, Pataki and Bruno have eroded away so that even a small hill of power, built by two freshman state senators, could lead a coup to take over the Senate.

Keep an eye on Hiram Monserrate

Hiram Monserrate is the other Democrat who made the GOP coup in the N.Y. state Senate possible. But now he seems to be having second thoughts. There's a good column about his position in in the New York Daily News.

The column sums up by saying Monserrate has a conscience that won't let him rest. Deep down he must feel he's made the wrong move.

When I first heard about this coup, I shrugged to myself and say, "Fine, let the GOP have one branch of government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

But as this thing has dragged out, there is just nothing good in it. It has degraded into an infantile, playground fight over who owns the ball. And it comes at the worst time in the legislative calendar, when a lot of work needs to be wrapped up. State residents can only get hurt by this.

When I first read that not only had Democratic Sen. Pedro Espada (a freshman senator) switched parties but also claimed the leadership, this felt like just a grab for personal power.

Monserrate may actually switch sides again if the Democrats can pick someone better to be their leader. That would give the chamber a tie.

But, the political costs that both Espada and Monserrate will have to pay for creating this crisis may be greater than they can bear.

Digital TV Switch May Leave Some In The Dark

AP, June 12, 2009 · Starting in the morning and going into the night, TV stations across the U.S. are cutting their analog signals Friday, ending a six-decade era for the technology and likely stranding more than 1 million unprepared homes without TV service.

... Here's my fanciful thought. Sorry, but many of you know I have a tendency for sci-fi as well as politics.

If anyone has seen "Contact", you know the story line: Aliens pick up our TV signals and send us a message.

What if all along, they've been watching our analog broadcasts? When we shut them off, the aliens will finally arrive, land in Hollywood and demand: "Hey, who canceled 'Gilligan'?"

What we needed to hear

This column by Cecily Kellogg ran in my newspaper today. It spells out why late-term abortions, as those performed by the late Dr. Goerge Tiller, are important and necessary.

The pro-life movement would argue that these women are the most selfish. But it really is needed as a life-saving procedure.

"A dangerous fantasy land"

That's how U.S. Holocaust Museum Fellow Deborah Lipstadt described where Holocaust deniers like James von Brunn live: "A dangerous fantasy land."



These people make up their own reasons to hate. It is almost impossible to be rational with them. All we can do is remain vigilant, stand up to them when we need to and demonstrate that they have nothing to offer but hate and violence.