Angry Young Dem

A short vacation gives me a chance to write about a topic that has been on my mind for the last couple of weeks.  I got a new client a few weeks ago.  He is 20 years old, a first time offender, and accused of a felony.  I did his arraignment at around 11 pm one night about a month ago.  I was surprised when I got his paperwork and it contained a big ink stamp stating STEP ELIGIBLE.  I had seen a courtroom in the Brooklyn Criminal Court that said STEP on it, but the reality is that I had little idea what it was or what it was for.

As I came to learn, STEP stands for Screening & Treatment Enhancement Part.  It is a courtroom for first offender accused of felony drug offenses.  It offers substance abuse treatment as an alternative to incarceration.  Because my young client was not accused of a drug crime, I did not think he would qualify, but I was surprised to learn that someone whose drug or alcohol addiction contributed or caused their alleged criminal conduct, even if the crime was not drug related, could be eligible for the program.

First of all, the STEP program is important from a criminal justice standpoint.  Many non-violent drug offenders are poorly served by incarceration.  Incarceration for non-violent drug offenses crowds our jails, stigmatizes people with a criminal record making it harder to break the cycle of drug abuse, and does nothing to treat the underlying addiction.  The program not only offers drug counseling, but, in later stages, offers skills and job training.  Thus, graduates, who are in the program for a minimum of a year, ideally come out clean and better prepared to contribute to society and earn a living.

Second, many of the plea bargains offered in STEP result in the complete dismissal of the charges against the defendant.  This is crucial for first time offenders as a criminal record is catastrophic to future employment opportunities.  Take my client, for example.  He is 20 years old, has 2 years college education and had a decent job.  New York does not expunge criminal records, so if he pleads guilty to a felony, it will be with him the rest of his life.  He can never recover from a mistake made when he was 20 years old.  Instead, through STEP, he pled guilty to a felony, with sentencing held in abeyance.  If he graduates from the STEP program, the charges against him will be dismissed and sealed.  This restores him to his pre-arrest condition so that he will never have to disclose it to future employers and will not be at risk of losing whatever certifications he has or wants.  The next year will be tough as the program has strict requirements and, for now, he has the felony on the record.  But it will be well worth it for the rest of his life as he can do what other criminal defendants can't do, truly put the incident behind him.

Finally, and most importantly, the vibe of the STEP courtroom is simply different.  Lawyers and defendants are treated with dignity.  There is the same Legal Aid lawyer every day, and all his clients walk in and give him a warm greeting.  When the judge comes into the courtroom she says hello to everyone and "reprimands" defendants and lawyers alike if our return greeting is not hearty enough.  She takes the time to talk to the clients, to scold them when necessary and praise them when appropriate.  When a participant graduates to the next level of the program, she leads the courtroom in a standing ovation.  She smiles, is patient (sometimes too patient for those of us with other cases to get to) and gives everyone the sense that just because they are criminal defendants, and just because they have problems with drugs and alcohol, does not mean that they don't deserve to be treating with dignity. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/nyregion/14metjournal.html?_r=1

Off-year election is over.  The Republicans will want to make this a referendum on Obama, but, to the media's credit (outside Fox News) they are not letting them get away with it.  The larger reality is that this election was much more about the shortcomings of political parties, and the Republican Party in general, than it was about Obama.

First, Creigh Deeds was a poor candidate, and he always was a poor candidate.  He came in with mediocre name recognition and a history of losing statewide elections.  He ran to the middle, if not the right, and failed to inspire anyone.  You can't call this a referendum on Obama when the Democratic candidate stated he was not "an Obama Democrat."

More than this though, it would stretch the imagination to suggest that an election in Virginia could signal the rebirth of the GOP.  Virginia was certainly tending purple recently, but one does not have to go back too far into history to see a Virginia that was dominated by the GOP.  Bragging about a win in Virginia demonstrates the weakness of the GOP as opposed to its strength.

The GOP win in New Jersey is a little harder to explain away.  Corzine is in the Obama mold, and the White house threw their weight strongly into this race.  The failure of Obama's support to tip this race in Corzine's direction against an empty suit Christie does say something about the strength of the White House.  But NJ does have a history of electing Republican governors, especially in times of economic difficulty.

I was born in 1976.  Since that time, New Jersey has elected 7 governors.  4 of them have been Democrats and 3 of them have been Republicans.  If you go back one more election, it evens out at 4-4, and if you go back to Roosevelt, it numbers 6-5 Democrats.  New Jersey has high taxes across the board, and in a poor economic climate, they go higher.  As a suburb on New York, the state has alaso been hit hard by the layoffs in the financial and legal community.  For anyone with knowledge of New Jersey political history, the name that this election will scream out is not Obama, but Jim Florio.

Finally, there is THE story of this election.  New York's special congressional election in the 23rd district is a lesson in the danger of political parties that George Washington warned about.  Republicans have controlled this seat since the late 1880s.  Read that again, for over 100 years, no Democrat has ever held that seat.  Many of those Republicans have been in the moderate mold, for example, the last Republican office-holder, John McHugh.  But despite the political shifts that have occured in the last 130 years, nothing has ever prevented a Republican from representing this district.  Enter Sarah Palin and political purity.

Once upon a time, elected representatives represented the people and not a larger political party.  John McHugh's moderation may not have always been popular with the national party, but it represented his electorate.  In 2009, the Republican leadership of the 23rd district selected a candidate that best represented the people of this district.  She was Dierdre Scozzafava.  Problem was that while she was the best Republican to represent the sensibilities of the 23rd District, she did not pass the Palin/Pawlenty/Limbaugh litmus test of who can and can't be a Republican.   Thus, they endorsed the Conservative Party candidate, Douglas Hoffman.  Hoffman perfectly represented the Republican orthodoxy.  Problem is that the district is not a Republican orthodox district.

Palin, Pawlenty, Limbaugh and the rest, want to pretend that a candidate that would win in Colorado Springs is the same candidate that can win in St. Lawrence, New York.  But if any party is going to be a national party, there cannot be a unanimity of belief.  This is as true for the Democrats as it is for the Republicans.  The difference is that Democrats understand this lesson.  Sometimes, Democrats needs to have a perfect voting record with the NRA because that is what their citizens want, despite the fact that, as a national party, we are more the party of gun control than gun clubs.

If I were a Republican today, I would certainly be happy about the victories in New Jersey and Virginia.  However, I would not lose sight of the Forrest for the trees.  These victories can not and should not over shadow the sickness that revealed itself in New York 23.  If the Republicans ever want to take back the House of Representatives, they are going to have to endorse candidates that are right for their district even if they are not right for party leadership.

The Obama opposition stuck their neck out in New York 23.  The 2012 conservatives like Palin and Pawlenty, the wackjobs like Limbaugh, and they Teabaggers said Doug Hoffman is our candidate because he is the model of a 2009 Republican (even if he looks nothing like Edmund Burke's Republican).  They said we know better than the Republicans of the 23rd district who is best to represent this district.  As a result, Democrats are laughing today, the sting of losses in Virginia and New Jersey soothed, and Bill Owens is on his way to Congress to (hopefully) vote in favor of health care reform.

So where have I been?  What happened to Wait Wait Don't Tell Me?  I know my readers (both of them) have been wondering.  Well, it is coming back next week.

Over the summer, the wife and I decided to listen to all the Harry Potter books on our Ipods.  Thw wife had read books one and seven and seen all the movies, but she was very confused and decided she needed to "read" books 2-6.  Thus, we both embarked on a journey through Hogwarts which I am proud to say I completed yesterday.  I have now read every book (book 7 twice), watched the first 6 movies, and listened to all 7 books on my Ipod.  I have to tell you, if you haven't listened to Jim Dale's reading of these books, you are really missing out.  He is amazing.

Having spent every commute the last few months listening to the journey of Harry and friends, I felt kind of naked (and bored) on my commute in today.  But alas, have no fear.  I will go back to listening to music on my trip except for mondays when I am the guy in the subway laughing for no reason (but really because I am listening to Wait Wait Don't Tell Me).

Until Monday,

AYD

What's his concern, that one of the children will grow up to be President of the United States?

 

So Chicago didn't win.  I guess Obama hasn't healed all old wounds just yet, and I guess he isn't the pied piper.  But the choice of Brazil just makes too much sense.  I have no idea the IOC's reasons, but here are mine:

1)  Rio has a real thriving middle class.  I was really impressed with the city and its people

2) The IOC likes to reward up and coming countries.  With the thriving middle class already existent, the economic boom that can come from the Olympics can really put Brazil over the top.

3) Brazil could represent the future.  It is a growing country with tremendous natural resources.  The Olympics could help it on its way to be a real economic leader as its natural resources become more and more needed across the world.

4) Brazil is already an international sports country and Rio an international sports city.  2014 World Cup is in Brazil (the 5th country to host it twice).

5) Brazil is not perfect.  Rio is actually the most dangerous city in the world.  However, most of that violence comes from Favellas, little pockets of government housing that are ruled by drug gangs.  Most of the violence is contained in the favellas although ordinary street crime sometimes leaks into the city streets (really the beaches).  With the Olympics comes scrutiny and with this scrutiny, the Brazilian authorities will have to act.  For the most part, from my research and time spent there (which is granted minimal), it appears that the favellas are allowed to self-govern as long as it does not harm international commerce (i.e. tourism).  Perhaps something will be done about the abject poverty and conditions that citizens of the favella live under.

Chicago and Madrid would have been noble choices.  However, would they really get as much out of the Olympics as Brazil will?  Would Chicago really benefit economically from the Olympics as Rio?  Could Madrid really use the noteriety as much as Rio?

I was in Rio for 3 days and Brazil for 11.  I fell in love with the country and the people.  As an American citizen, I am disappointed in the result.  As a citizen of the world, I couldn't be more excited.

"What the... totally Democratic-controlled Massachusetts state government should have done is just be honest about it. They should have written a law this way: If there's a Republican governor, there's no appointment. And if there's a Democratic governor, there is an appointment."

-- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by the Los Angeles Times, on how Massachusetts deals with replacing a U.S. Senator.

 

The Goldstone mission set out to find Israel guilty of War Crimes and it did. That was its mandate and it performed up to par. To sanitize the biased mission it turned to Richard Goldstone, an honorable and distinguished human rights lawyer. It is a shame than Goldstone allowed his integrity to be smeared by taking on such a mission. The interest of this commission was not one of international law, but one of international politics. This is a point Israel could drive home much more effectively if the messenger (Avigor Lieberman) weren't so reprehensible.

The evidence that this is not about international law comes from the very fact of the investigation. "International Law" and "Human Rights" only matter to the UN when Israel is involved. As pointed out in today's Haaretz

The United States has killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the last few months encouraged Pakistan to make an extremely brutal military move in its Swat Valley. The United States was not required to account for it because everyone understands that this is the price of the terrible War on Terror. Russia committed blood-curdling war crimes in Chechnya, while China deprives its citizens of basic rights and is conducting a wicked occupation in Tibet. They are not asked to pay for this because everyone understands that you don't mess with superpowers.

But not only superpowers are immune. Saudi Arabia practices an open, declared policy of discrimination against women and the international community does not see. Sri Lanka is crushing the Tamil national movement, causing a ghastly humanitarian disaster, and the international community does not hear. Turkey is brutally oppressing the Kurdish minority, and the international community does not speak.

 

So now the PR war will begin. Even as Daily Kos members debate this issue over the coming days, the site itself is running an advertisement espousing the Israeli response through the MFA.  The critics of Israel will now cite the UN report as "facts" merely because they come from the UN. They will not be willing to even consider that the source may be tainted.

They will not consider that the UN does not investigate war crimes by the US, China, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and on an on. They will not consider that this is the same body that pronounced "Zionism is Racism." This is the same body that has never held an emergency session to consider Tibet or East Timor or Syria, but only Israel. And how many resolutions have been passed deploring Israel and how many have been passed about Palestinian terrorism?

Is any of this a result of anti-Semitism. Yes, there is some anti-Semitism in there. This is the same body that has stood silent as Palestinians accused Israel of injecting Palestinian children with HIV, that let Syria claim that Jews used the blood of Syrians to make Matzah. But it is not really about anti-Semitism. It is about realpolitik. It is about the fact that there is but one Jewish state and many many more Arab and Muslim states.

And so we have the Israeli version of events which is going to be rejected by the international community and we have the Goldstone version of events which is going to be rejected by Israel and Israel's supporters as, among other criticisms, the selective, and often erronoeus, application of international law.  The resultof the Goldstone report is going to be two-fold.  First, it will be used as a bat to bludgeon Israel by those who had created the Goldstone report specifically to have a UN report with which to bludgeon Israel.  And in response, Israel will strengthen in its resolve.  Each of these results will inhibit peace, instead of progress toward peace.

And in the end, that is the shame of the Goldstone report.  It used the imprimateur of international law to try to score political points for the opponents of Israel.  It had no interest in using international law to procure justice, as Goldstone did in Rwanda and Irwin Cotler, the Goldstone Report's greatest critic, did for Nelson Mandela and countless other human rights causes.  And if there is no justice, there can be no peace.   

 

Barack Obama is President of the United States.  Barack Obama is President of the United States.  Barack Obama is President of the United States.  By their conduct, apparently some Republicans need to keep reminding themselves of these facts.

South Carolina Republican Congressperson Joe Wilson screamed "you lie" in the middle of President Obama's nationally televised address to Congress.  In one sense, this is a shocking lack of civility and decorum.  In another sense, it is just another example of how Republicans are fundamentally unable to accept the results of the November election.  It is also indicative of either their inability or unwillingness to engage in civil debate.

There are rules that have always governed the decorum that is expected when addressing the President of the United States.  As a democracy that has seen seamless transitions of power every 4 or 8 years, it has always been essential that regardless of the person in the Office of the President, the office always deserves our respect.  Respecting the office, if not the office-holder is what has always set our Democracy apart.

I don't know if it is because Barack Obama is part Black or because the Republicans lack any cohesive ideas with which to oppose the President or because they are taking their lead from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (while failing to realize that those guys are entertainers and politicians are elected representatives in the highest offices in the land), but Republicans have thus far been unable to conduct themselves with the slightest bit of civility or decorum.

In a prior version of this article, I got feedback from Republican friends that this is no different than what occured in the last 8 years.  But this is simply not so.  Democrats were critical of the administration.  Sometimes individual Democrats did show disrespect to the White House.  Some protesters carried poorly conceived signs comparing President Bush to Hitler, but this was not seen from any Democratic Member of Congress, and this fringe, if you can call it that, was certainly not endorsed by Democratic politicians.   

And it is not just when addressing the President.  The mentality that allows calling the President a liar in the middle of his address to Congress is the same mentality as screaming about death panels at town hall meetings.  Republicans are seemingly not interested in an actual debate.  They are not interested in hearing voices, but in supressing them.

The actions of Joe Wilson and the actions of the larger Republican community harken back to a dark day on November 4, 1995.  The day that Yitzhak Rabin was murdered.  That day was a lesson that political rhetoric ignored can lead to political violence.  As Ehud Sprinzak wrote in his terrific book Brother Against Brother: Violence and Extremism in Israeli Politics from Altalena to the Rabin Assasination, "it was the culmination of a process of delegitimization of the Israeli government by Israeli unltranationalists."

So what were the signs of the culmination?  First their was the angry and extreme rhetoric.  Yitzhak Rabin was an "accomplice to murder" in the eyes of the Israeli far-right and Barack Obama is trying to indoctrinate our children into Socialists according to the Republicans.  Second, there were allusions to violence.  In Israel it was the "theoretical" discussion of whether it was ok to kill someone who tried to give away "Jewish" land and in the United States it is wearing a gun to a speech given by the President all the while screaming about freedom.  Political rallies where Israel's far right tried to scream down members of Israel's ruling coalition.  And then of course, there are the Nazi Comparisons.