It's over for Sen. Hillary Clinton.
It doesn't matter what happens in Texas, Ohio, or elsewhere. Her presidential bid is finished. Forget your delegate counts (pledged or not) and your polling data.
Consider instead the NY Times blog today and posts under the story, "Clinton Sharpens Her Attack on Obama"
Try to find authors supporting Mrs. Clinton. Instead, overwhelmingly, you'll find items from Democrats, that sound like this one...
"I went to an ivy league college with a lot of people who remind me of Mrs. Clinton. Bright, articulate, driven, but with an off-putting sense of entitlement. A know-it-all attitude that brooks no dissent."
It's as if scores of the party faithful are now emboldened to express heretofore repressed criticisms of Ms. Clinton, because they no longer fear retribution. Maybe this is cathartic for them. In any event, it is over.
Ann Coulter looks at the bright side
 |
| Ann Coulter, Wikipedia |
Nonetheless at a recent outing, after contemplating a question from an audience member as to whether there could be any positive aspect associated with both Clintons returning to the White House, Ms. Coulter replied calmly with a smile,
"At least we'd get the silverware back."
Hilarious!
Reflections on a summit for prosperity
Yesterday on a snowy, wet Saturday, the Wisconsin Chapter of Americans For Prosperity (AFP) held its "Defending the American Dream Summit" in Pewaukee and attendees listened to speeches from Dinesh D'Souza, Steve Moore and local county Sheriff David Clark.
Attendees also witnessed a color guard, a stirring video of the late Ray Charles singing "America The Beautiful" and a film that celebrated the life and legacy of President Ronald Reagan. There was much more. If AFP hadn't delivered quality, I wouldn't have stuck around for 8 hours. Other items from my notepad:
Wisconsin Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen made a notable observation about Thomas Jefferson's seminal phrase in the Declaration of Independence "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Mr. Van Hollen noted that unfortunately, many people in our nation have misconstrued Jefferson's intent to justify an expectation for government entitlements. Van Hollen notes, that Jefferson never envisioned life, liberty and the guarantee of happiness. Rather, the founding idea was to help people by removing obstacles, by protecting them and by giving them a fair chance, but not through guaranteed taxpayer sponsorship.
Todd Berry of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance gave a sober, tightly-constructed review of Wisconsin's fiscal mess and the accounting chicanery used to screen out our "structural deficit." Republicans are not without blame as significant red ink extends back to the Thompson administration.
Perhaps because Mr. Berry's group is nonpartisan, he chose not to identify more recent causes of our fiscal morass. Mr. Berry said "we" created off-the-books debt by issuing bonds to fund transportation projects. Yet, the last mega-hit to the transportation account was delivered two budget cycles ago -- compliments of Governor Jim Doyle and his "Frankenstein veto" when he transferred $400 million to public education funding. That move was not authorized by the legislature and of course it was not a "we" -- it was a "him".
Attendees also witnessed a color guard, a stirring video of the late Ray Charles singing "America The Beautiful" and a film that celebrated the life and legacy of President Ronald Reagan. There was much more. If AFP hadn't delivered quality, I wouldn't have stuck around for 8 hours. Other items from my notepad:
Wisconsin Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen made a notable observation about Thomas Jefferson's seminal phrase in the Declaration of Independence "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Mr. Van Hollen noted that unfortunately, many people in our nation have misconstrued Jefferson's intent to justify an expectation for government entitlements. Van Hollen notes, that Jefferson never envisioned life, liberty and the guarantee of happiness. Rather, the founding idea was to help people by removing obstacles, by protecting them and by giving them a fair chance, but not through guaranteed taxpayer sponsorship.
Todd Berry of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance gave a sober, tightly-constructed review of Wisconsin's fiscal mess and the accounting chicanery used to screen out our "structural deficit." Republicans are not without blame as significant red ink extends back to the Thompson administration.
Perhaps because Mr. Berry's group is nonpartisan, he chose not to identify more recent causes of our fiscal morass. Mr. Berry said "we" created off-the-books debt by issuing bonds to fund transportation projects. Yet, the last mega-hit to the transportation account was delivered two budget cycles ago -- compliments of Governor Jim Doyle and his "Frankenstein veto" when he transferred $400 million to public education funding. That move was not authorized by the legislature and of course it was not a "we" -- it was a "him".
NOW, that's an outrage
I never thought I'd find myself on the same side of anything as Ted Kennedy -- until NOW. A press release from The New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) has attacked Senator Ted Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama.
The chapter has called the Senator's action, the "ultimate betrayal" since apparently, a vote for anyone but Hillary is beyond their sensibilities.
In fairness, the NOW national organization has officially disavowed this insipid press release, but even that might not blunt the near-term reputation damage -- compliments of its New York chapter.
 |
| National Organization For Women, public logo |
I'm sure he gets better advice than mine...
but I do not understand why Senator Obama highlights relatively innocuous aspects of Hillary Clinton's history like service on Walmart's board (is that a crime?) when there is so much else to choose from.
Ms. Clinton burst on to the national scene in 1992 when she insulted American women who choose to stay home and raise their children (remember her "bake cookies" comment?). Then we learned about her involvement in FileGate and TravelGate.
Ms. Clinton later made preposterous statements to the press about a "vast right wing conspiracy" when asked about her husband's peccadilloes which were already well chronicled. One could go on and on.
Now she criticizes Senator Obama for the quality of clients he represented while in private practice. I bet Ms. Clinton would much prefer to discuss her board memberships than many other issues that stained her political dossier. Why does Senator Obama choose Walmart?
Ms. Clinton burst on to the national scene in 1992 when she insulted American women who choose to stay home and raise their children (remember her "bake cookies" comment?). Then we learned about her involvement in FileGate and TravelGate.
Ms. Clinton later made preposterous statements to the press about a "vast right wing conspiracy" when asked about her husband's peccadilloes which were already well chronicled. One could go on and on.
Now she criticizes Senator Obama for the quality of clients he represented while in private practice. I bet Ms. Clinton would much prefer to discuss her board memberships than many other issues that stained her political dossier. Why does Senator Obama choose Walmart?
Behaving un-presidential
I'm intrigued by all the disapproval of former President Bill Clinton's recent speech-making. When Senator Ted Kennedy is unhappy with the Clintons, it's an unusual time.
Some have criticized Mr. Clinton's bare-knuckled comments to promote his wife's candidacy as "un-presidential" and ask what happened to ex-Presidents and a long tradition of a muted retirement.
Some have criticized Mr. Clinton's bare-knuckled comments to promote his wife's candidacy as "un-presidential" and ask what happened to ex-Presidents and a long tradition of a muted retirement.
I've long been enamored with Mr. Clinton's intelligence, his command of complex issues and I believe he cares about the average citizen. He's also a fine speaker, gifted politician and a Dem with some fiscal moorings. After all, we haven't seen a surplus since Bill Clinton left the White House. His peccadilloes aside, one must give him some credit for those balanced budgets.
On the other hand, he used the Oval Office like a sex parlor, deceived the American people about it, lied under oath, rented the Lincoln bedroom, pardoned billionaire tax cheat Mark Rich and one could go on. How consistently did he behave in a "presidential" manner while in office?
I was disappointed by his indiscretions because I'd hoped Bill Clinton would be a Democrat I could admire without reservation. He is different from the tax and spend pack he runs with.
On the other hand, he used the Oval Office like a sex parlor, deceived the American people about it, lied under oath, rented the Lincoln bedroom, pardoned billionaire tax cheat Mark Rich and one could go on. How consistently did he behave in a "presidential" manner while in office?
I was disappointed by his indiscretions because I'd hoped Bill Clinton would be a Democrat I could admire without reservation. He is different from the tax and spend pack he runs with.
A toast to South Carolina
The Palmetto state makes me proud tonight. I love its motto: Dum Spiro Spero (while I breathe, I hope).
Consider the beginning to tonight's Republican debate in Myrtle Beach -- a chorus of men in suits and women in lovely white dresses all singing the Star Spangled Banner.
My, how radical. For me, it was a perfect start to the debate.
 |
| South Carolina state flag |
My, how radical. For me, it was a perfect start to the debate.
State of Wisconsin flubs identity handling (redux)
Haven't we seen this movie before?
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported today that a state mailing may have compromised the identities of thousands of Wisconsinites because of Social Security numbers that were inadvertently printed on mailing labels.
I published a column last year in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel after approximately 171,000 taxpayer social security numbers adorned the front of tax booklets. I also mentioned in that column, another breach (not cited in today's Journal Sentinel story) by a human resources aide who mishandled social security numbers of state assembly members.
In the midst of all of this carelessness, the State Department of Health and Family Services and Governor Doyle's spokesman, Matt Canter, are feigning indignation in order to place the blame squarely on the vendor, EDS.
I remember the Mea Culpa letter last year from the printer that accompanied a similar letter from the Department of Revenue explaining and taking responsibility for that debacle. At least, there was a semblance of accountability.
In today's JS story, the Governor's spokesman Matt Canter, suggests that there is a big difference between last year's data goof and this new one because last year, the printer had no use for the data compromised, but EDS needed the data to do it's processing this year. How does that make State government any less responsible? In both cases state government provided the data files containing our social security numbers to a vendor.
Here's the first step for a patient to heal thyself - admit you have a problem and stop blaming the vendor. Next, examine your processes and what went wrong- then implement new controls and test them, again and again - to ensure they are working. We don't need to have someone's head - just take responsibility, analyze it and fix it.
Also announced today was Governor Doyle's effort to expand tax incentives for research and development at Wisconsin companies. If only one could persuade his administration to research and develop better state processes for handling sensitive data.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported today that a state mailing may have compromised the identities of thousands of Wisconsinites because of Social Security numbers that were inadvertently printed on mailing labels.
I published a column last year in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel after approximately 171,000 taxpayer social security numbers adorned the front of tax booklets. I also mentioned in that column, another breach (not cited in today's Journal Sentinel story) by a human resources aide who mishandled social security numbers of state assembly members.
In the midst of all of this carelessness, the State Department of Health and Family Services and Governor Doyle's spokesman, Matt Canter, are feigning indignation in order to place the blame squarely on the vendor, EDS.
I remember the Mea Culpa letter last year from the printer that accompanied a similar letter from the Department of Revenue explaining and taking responsibility for that debacle. At least, there was a semblance of accountability.
In today's JS story, the Governor's spokesman Matt Canter, suggests that there is a big difference between last year's data goof and this new one because last year, the printer had no use for the data compromised, but EDS needed the data to do it's processing this year. How does that make State government any less responsible? In both cases state government provided the data files containing our social security numbers to a vendor.
Here's the first step for a patient to heal thyself - admit you have a problem and stop blaming the vendor. Next, examine your processes and what went wrong- then implement new controls and test them, again and again - to ensure they are working. We don't need to have someone's head - just take responsibility, analyze it and fix it.
Also announced today was Governor Doyle's effort to expand tax incentives for research and development at Wisconsin companies. If only one could persuade his administration to research and develop better state processes for handling sensitive data.
Public education and "choice"
Some public education voices extol a right to choice that includes free-from-faith learning environments. Public Teachers Unions have also historically chosen to fight performance standards intended to hold their members accountable.
Yesterday’s blog post from Patrick McIlheran is spot on. Mr. McIlheran makes the point that when parents choose alternatives to public education for their children, the principle of free choice often vanishes from teacher unions' consciousness and they behave as though they are the victims.
I'll always choose to support a strong public education system, but I also choose to reject the views of those who are antagonistic, if not hostile toward alternative education. We also need adoption of reasonable and enforceable performance standards for public school teachers.
 |
| Office.com clip art |
Yesterday’s blog post from Patrick McIlheran is spot on. Mr. McIlheran makes the point that when parents choose alternatives to public education for their children, the principle of free choice often vanishes from teacher unions' consciousness and they behave as though they are the victims.
I'll always choose to support a strong public education system, but I also choose to reject the views of those who are antagonistic, if not hostile toward alternative education. We also need adoption of reasonable and enforceable performance standards for public school teachers.
Hillary Clinton declares cause of US debt
 |
| freepik image |
Hillary Clinton has now identified "Republicans" as the sole cause of America's national debt. Yes, it's all a vast right wing piracy.
Stumping yesterday in Maquoketa, Iowa in town hall style, Ms. Clinton addressed the causes of America's political, social and economic woes and explained them with one word - "Republicans."
During Ms. Clinton's diatribe against all things Republican, she actually said to her audience...
"They have driven us into nine trillion dollars of debt."
Note: She didn't say "Congress" nor did she cite any spending complicity on the other side of the aisle - she said "they" i.e. Republicans.
At the conclusion of the event, Ms. Clinton listened intently to one admirer and then enthusiastically replied...
"Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely...totally partisan, totally ideological, that is not the way to get things done in America."
Go see The Kite Runner
My family and I usually go to the theater this time of year and yesterday I went along with no advanced knowledge of the movie we were going to see.
I rarely recommend a new film because I believe so few are worth seeing, however, I make an exception for The Kite Runner. If it doesn't capture your attention, enlighten you about the Middle East in some way, or stir your emotions -- I'll be surprised.
This film is based upon Khaled Hosseini's popular novel of the same title that tells a terrifying but ultimately redemptive tale that is set in Kabul, Afghanistan. The timeline takes us from Afghan life in the late 1970s under corrupt, albeit relatively stable rule, to the horrors of the Taliban in 2000.
The stylish opening when credits are still rolling suggested that this would be no ordinary production, but I didn't expect how effectively the film's creators would capture the depth and dimensions of both evil and goodness in that part of the world.
Suffice it to say that a "Best Picture" nomination must be in the offing and perhaps other nominations including best cinematography, best actor and best supporting actor.
I rarely recommend a new film because I believe so few are worth seeing, however, I make an exception for The Kite Runner. If it doesn't capture your attention, enlighten you about the Middle East in some way, or stir your emotions -- I'll be surprised.
This film is based upon Khaled Hosseini's popular novel of the same title that tells a terrifying but ultimately redemptive tale that is set in Kabul, Afghanistan. The timeline takes us from Afghan life in the late 1970s under corrupt, albeit relatively stable rule, to the horrors of the Taliban in 2000.
The stylish opening when credits are still rolling suggested that this would be no ordinary production, but I didn't expect how effectively the film's creators would capture the depth and dimensions of both evil and goodness in that part of the world.
Suffice it to say that a "Best Picture" nomination must be in the offing and perhaps other nominations including best cinematography, best actor and best supporting actor.
Anti-Hillary sentiment (real and imagined)
A contributor named Lisa (Posted: lisa December 8, 2007 11:29 PM ) doubts the veracity of my remarks concerning popular opposition to Hillary Clinton (see my post on Bill Moyers' blog.)
The distrust and polarizing features of Ms. Clinton's candidacy I mention in that post, are not only consistent with my own views (and those of a camp referred to these days as "A.B.H." (Anyone But Hillary) they are also supported by some non-partisan research.
The distrust and polarizing features of Ms. Clinton's candidacy I mention in that post, are not only consistent with my own views (and those of a camp referred to these days as "A.B.H." (Anyone But Hillary) they are also supported by some non-partisan research.
This report from USA Today and Gallup may help others see Ms. Clinton's baggage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102907/What-Behind-AntiHillary-Sentiment.aspx#2
Note how analyst Jeffrey M. Jones asserts in his subtitle, reasons for Ms. Clinton's negatives...
"
Basic dislike, policy disagreements, character concerns commonly mentioned"
Jones also contends that...
"...few candidates have ever begun the campaign with such polarized ratings."
Want more? Consider this Harris Poll:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744
What's unfortunate about some Hillary Supporters (HS), is that they'll routinely attribute criticism of Ms. Clinton to misogyny. What a slap in the face to all women in public affairs or women with alternative views on Ms. Clinton.
Millions of Conservative men will enthusiastically vote for a woman presidential candidate who shares their views. Unfortunately, such women are not available in this race.
Yet, some HS maintain American men will only support women if we don't feel "threatened" by them and by extension women we do admire are only sycophants - shrinking violets in need of male pollen.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102907/What-Behind-AntiHillary-Sentiment.aspx#2
Note how analyst Jeffrey M. Jones asserts in his subtitle, reasons for Ms. Clinton's negatives...
"
 |
| Hillary Clinton, official public photo |
Jones also contends that...
"...few candidates have ever begun the campaign with such polarized ratings."
Want more? Consider this Harris Poll:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744
What's unfortunate about some Hillary Supporters (HS), is that they'll routinely attribute criticism of Ms. Clinton to misogyny. What a slap in the face to all women in public affairs or women with alternative views on Ms. Clinton.
Millions of Conservative men will enthusiastically vote for a woman presidential candidate who shares their views. Unfortunately, such women are not available in this race.
Yet, some HS maintain American men will only support women if we don't feel "threatened" by them and by extension women we do admire are only sycophants - shrinking violets in need of male pollen.
Sadly, some people on the Left can't fathom how an African-American like Justice Clarence Thomas holds beliefs at odds with their own. Some even suggest he is an "Uncle Tom". After hearing that explanation, one might ask - who is actually bigoted?
Similarly, for gender card-playing HS who continue to make excuses and stereotype reasons for male opposition to Ms. Clinton, one might ask - who is actually sexist?
Similarly, for gender card-playing HS who continue to make excuses and stereotype reasons for male opposition to Ms. Clinton, one might ask - who is actually sexist?
Ron Paul on Glenn Beck's TV program tonight
We now know that Dr. Paul's supporters include those who accused TV host Glenn Beck of treason, those who threatened Glenn Beck's life and those claiming that the US Government perpetrated the horrors of 9/11.
People holding those views do not represent a plurality of Dr. Paul's supporters and he did distance himself from these angry voices on Mr. Beck's program, but the question remains -- why is this group attracted to the Paul candidacy?
 |
| Glenn Beck, Wikipedia |
People holding those views do not represent a plurality of Dr. Paul's supporters and he did distance himself from these angry voices on Mr. Beck's program, but the question remains -- why is this group attracted to the Paul candidacy?
 |
| Ron Paul, official public photo |
MEET THE LESS
 |
| Meet The Press, Wikipedia |
Mr. Russert spent the first 13 minutes discussing Romney's Mormonism and the next 11 minutes on abortion. What an abject waste of good interview time.
Here are issues, that could have dominated the interview: National Security, Healthcare Reform, Illegal Immigration, the Iraq War, Education, Tax Reform, Energy Policy or Federal Spending Reform.
The program did improve after that first 24 minute segment. However, Mr. Russert still squandered a third of the time playing to single issue viewers.
The program did improve after that first 24 minute segment. However, Mr. Russert still squandered a third of the time playing to single issue viewers.
After watching Bill Moyers I posted on his blog...
"Mr. Moyers,
Your dialogue with Ms. Jamieson suggests that you are genuinely astonished at all of the vitriol surrounding Hillary Clinton. While I do not approve of all of it - I understand where much of it comes from.
It's not related to gender or politics. Men and women, Republican and Democrat, draw such fire in campaigns.
A more intriguing question is - why is Mrs. Clinton such a polarizing figure? I believe the answer goes to the heart of who she is - many believe she has a deep integrity problem and that she is purely craven for power. It's easy to see into her soul.
If we must have a Democrat winning the White House in 2008, many Republicans including this writer would find Mrs. Clinton by far, the most objectionable of all candidates in her party.
Respectfully,
JJM"
Your dialogue with Ms. Jamieson suggests that you are genuinely astonished at all of the vitriol surrounding Hillary Clinton. While I do not approve of all of it - I understand where much of it comes from.
It's not related to gender or politics. Men and women, Republican and Democrat, draw such fire in campaigns.
A more intriguing question is - why is Mrs. Clinton such a polarizing figure? I believe the answer goes to the heart of who she is - many believe she has a deep integrity problem and that she is purely craven for power. It's easy to see into her soul.
If we must have a Democrat winning the White House in 2008, many Republicans including this writer would find Mrs. Clinton by far, the most objectionable of all candidates in her party.
Respectfully,
JJM"
Does party affiliation matter?
Representative Ron Paul hedged recently when asked whether he'd support the Republican nominee, regardless of who it might be and it's a safe bet it won't be him.
In essence, Dr. Paul replied that his support would depend upon the candidate's willingness to end the war and other positions about which Dr. Paul feels strongly. I respect his fidelity to core principles but I'm not clear why Dr. Paul remains a Republican except perhaps out of political expediency. Several of his views are out of touch with the party mainstream which begs the question -- does party affiliation matter anymore?
Growing up in fiercely independent and purple Wisconsin, I recall hearing a familiar line from adults, "I vote for the man, not the party." (And in those days, with few exceptions, like Shirley Chisholm, it was overwhelmingly men).
As an impressionable kid, I respected adults who publicly affirmed beliefs in something higher than party politics. A sincere allegiance to core principles will always trump those screaming people wearing funny hats at the party convention, or so I believed.
Now in my late forties, I'm often skeptical of the "I-vote-for-the-person-not-the-party person." Why? Unless one has a record of voting for both Republicans and Democrats, or a history of supporting third party candidates, the party-less advocate makes a politically safe and meaningless proclamation.
In essence, Dr. Paul replied that his support would depend upon the candidate's willingness to end the war and other positions about which Dr. Paul feels strongly. I respect his fidelity to core principles but I'm not clear why Dr. Paul remains a Republican except perhaps out of political expediency. Several of his views are out of touch with the party mainstream which begs the question -- does party affiliation matter anymore?
 |
| Shirley Chisholm: Wikipedia |
Growing up in fiercely independent and purple Wisconsin, I recall hearing a familiar line from adults, "I vote for the man, not the party." (And in those days, with few exceptions, like Shirley Chisholm, it was overwhelmingly men).
As an impressionable kid, I respected adults who publicly affirmed beliefs in something higher than party politics. A sincere allegiance to core principles will always trump those screaming people wearing funny hats at the party convention, or so I believed.
Now in my late forties, I'm often skeptical of the "I-vote-for-the-person-not-the-party person." Why? Unless one has a record of voting for both Republicans and Democrats, or a history of supporting third party candidates, the party-less advocate makes a politically safe and meaningless proclamation.
True Independents may be the most noble voters of all, but nobility is by definition....a rare attribute.
Financial humor
If so, please check out this month's "back story" from the November issue of Conde Nast Portfolio magazine. The piece I refer to is called the "2005 SUBPRIME-MORTGAGE APPLICATION"
Note the free bank check at the bottom of the page with inscription,
Note the free bank check at the bottom of the page with inscription,
"DUPLICATE AS NEEDED".
Portfolio is a new and inspired business periodical. I give its creators plaudits not only because I cackled for five minutes after reading the aforementioned spoof on lax mortgage underwriting practices, but also because this magazine contains incisive stories, fine writing and an attractive layout.
It is likely to succeed in an already crowded space.
**********************************
HUMBLE UPDATE -- FEBRUARY 1, 2015
Though I never posted anything about this print publication afterward, the magazine announced its closing back on April 27, 2009.
So much for my prediction. -- JJM
Portfolio is a new and inspired business periodical. I give its creators plaudits not only because I cackled for five minutes after reading the aforementioned spoof on lax mortgage underwriting practices, but also because this magazine contains incisive stories, fine writing and an attractive layout.
It is likely to succeed in an already crowded space.
**********************************
HUMBLE UPDATE -- FEBRUARY 1, 2015
Though I never posted anything about this print publication afterward, the magazine announced its closing back on April 27, 2009.
So much for my prediction. -- JJM
**********************************
Sad irony
I heard from an American Muslim troubled by my September 20, 2007 column, "National security vs. civil liberty in America" My reply to him follows...
"I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to respond.
Before I address the points you make below, I should like to make clear that I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (American and otherwise) are peaceful, decent, people of faith. Radical Islam represents only a small fraction of the one billion-plus Muslims in the world. Unfortunately that small fraction still equates to a large number of people that we must monitor and defend ourselves from, in order to preserve our freedoms.
As for the incident that took place at the Minneapolis airport in 2006, it is obvious that you are troubled by my use of the word “suspicious.” If the 6 clerics involved were simply and quietly praying as you maintain, the flurry of events that made their presence so newsworthy, would not have developed. After all, thousands of Muslims travel through American airports every day without the same type of fallout. Your benign characterization of their actions during the whole ordeal does not at all comport with statements from eye witnesses, the gate agent, or excerpts that I read from the police report.
Whether one chooses to describe the activities of the clerics as suspicious or merely provocative, misses the point.
In this day and age, after what we have all been through, greater sensitivity on the part of the clerics would have been highly advisable. People are understandably on edge, particularly in airports. By saying that, I do not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that anyone should refrain from public prayer and again, I do not share your view that all that occurred that day was harmless prayer misunderstood by ignorant Americans. I am fully aware of and greatly respect your practice of praying five times a day. I am also a person of faith and most Americans are not as woefully ignorant of Islam, as you believe.
After this whole sad episode, the clerics elected to sue not only the airline, but also the passengers that shared their concerns with authorities. Therefore, in the future, some who would be inclined to alert authorities to potential danger, will have to weigh the possibility of being incorrect and then becoming the recipient of a fresh lawsuit. I find that conundrum more than a little troubling.
Should you receive this message in time, I’d invite you to watch a local television program called 4th Street Forum, tomorrow afternoon @ 3PM, on Channel 36. The topic of my last column (that you take issue with) is explored during a panel discussion and I was privileged to participate. Within hours of taping that program, I learned that bombs exploded in Pakistan killing 134 people. The latest reports indicate that it was more death coming from the evil hand of al Qaida.
The timing of that tragedy and the taping of the aforementioned TV program was sad irony for me, but I draw no comparison between decent people like you and people who celebrate the murder of Western children, so please do not paint me with such a broad brush. I argue to preserve freedoms not just for myself, but for people like you as well.
That is why I sometimes get discouraged by reactions like yours. Yet I become encouraged when I read and hear other American Muslims like Muqtedar Khan who fully recognize where to place their energy and advocacy. If you are not familiar with Dr. Khan’s work, you may wish to read one essay in particular called “Memo To Mr. Bin Laden: Go to Hell! It can be found at http://www.ijtihad.org/BinladenII.htm
All of this notwithstanding, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish you well.
- John J. Maddente"
"I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to respond.
Before I address the points you make below, I should like to make clear that I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (American and otherwise) are peaceful, decent, people of faith. Radical Islam represents only a small fraction of the one billion-plus Muslims in the world. Unfortunately that small fraction still equates to a large number of people that we must monitor and defend ourselves from, in order to preserve our freedoms.
As for the incident that took place at the Minneapolis airport in 2006, it is obvious that you are troubled by my use of the word “suspicious.” If the 6 clerics involved were simply and quietly praying as you maintain, the flurry of events that made their presence so newsworthy, would not have developed. After all, thousands of Muslims travel through American airports every day without the same type of fallout. Your benign characterization of their actions during the whole ordeal does not at all comport with statements from eye witnesses, the gate agent, or excerpts that I read from the police report.
Whether one chooses to describe the activities of the clerics as suspicious or merely provocative, misses the point.
In this day and age, after what we have all been through, greater sensitivity on the part of the clerics would have been highly advisable. People are understandably on edge, particularly in airports. By saying that, I do not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that anyone should refrain from public prayer and again, I do not share your view that all that occurred that day was harmless prayer misunderstood by ignorant Americans. I am fully aware of and greatly respect your practice of praying five times a day. I am also a person of faith and most Americans are not as woefully ignorant of Islam, as you believe.
After this whole sad episode, the clerics elected to sue not only the airline, but also the passengers that shared their concerns with authorities. Therefore, in the future, some who would be inclined to alert authorities to potential danger, will have to weigh the possibility of being incorrect and then becoming the recipient of a fresh lawsuit. I find that conundrum more than a little troubling.
Should you receive this message in time, I’d invite you to watch a local television program called 4th Street Forum, tomorrow afternoon @ 3PM, on Channel 36. The topic of my last column (that you take issue with) is explored during a panel discussion and I was privileged to participate. Within hours of taping that program, I learned that bombs exploded in Pakistan killing 134 people. The latest reports indicate that it was more death coming from the evil hand of al Qaida.
The timing of that tragedy and the taping of the aforementioned TV program was sad irony for me, but I draw no comparison between decent people like you and people who celebrate the murder of Western children, so please do not paint me with such a broad brush. I argue to preserve freedoms not just for myself, but for people like you as well.
That is why I sometimes get discouraged by reactions like yours. Yet I become encouraged when I read and hear other American Muslims like Muqtedar Khan who fully recognize where to place their energy and advocacy. If you are not familiar with Dr. Khan’s work, you may wish to read one essay in particular called “Memo To Mr. Bin Laden: Go to Hell! It can be found at http://www.ijtihad.org/BinladenII.htm
All of this notwithstanding, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish you well.
- John J. Maddente"
National security vs. civil liberty in America
Published: Sept. 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.
Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.
Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.
I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?
Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.
A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.
During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.
That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.
On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.
Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."
He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."
So will I.
It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.
Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.
Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.
I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?
Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.
A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.
During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.
That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.
On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.
Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."
He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."
So will I.
To: Editorial board at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Their question to readers:
Would you be willing to pay a higher sales tax on gasoline to pay for bridge maintenance and replacement?
My reply...
Dear Editorial board,
My answer is no I would not and it’s the phrasing of your question that might draw scrutiny from other like-minded readers. That is, why do you presuppose that the only way to fund such infrastructure improvement is through an increase in the gas tax- or an increase in any tax for that matter? We already pay among the highest sales tax rates at the pump.
During the previous budget cycle, Governor Doyle, like a modern day Cesar Augustus, used his famous “Frankenstein veto” to instantly transfer over $400 million dollars from the highway fund to K-12 education. The magnitude of his audacity surprised pols on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps some of those funds might have remained better invested in infrastructure like that suggested by your query to readers in today’s paper.
In any event - why not ask a follow up question to JS readers?
“In order to fund such bridge work, would you allow the consolidation of school districts where enrollment no longer justifies operating such schools, or through asset sales of state owned property and land used by a paucity of our population, or through cancellation of marginally-necessary pet projects?”
OK, I understand space limitations -- but you get my point.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente
Would you be willing to pay a higher sales tax on gasoline to pay for bridge maintenance and replacement?
My reply...
Dear Editorial board,
My answer is no I would not and it’s the phrasing of your question that might draw scrutiny from other like-minded readers. That is, why do you presuppose that the only way to fund such infrastructure improvement is through an increase in the gas tax- or an increase in any tax for that matter? We already pay among the highest sales tax rates at the pump.
During the previous budget cycle, Governor Doyle, like a modern day Cesar Augustus, used his famous “Frankenstein veto” to instantly transfer over $400 million dollars from the highway fund to K-12 education. The magnitude of his audacity surprised pols on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps some of those funds might have remained better invested in infrastructure like that suggested by your query to readers in today’s paper.
In any event - why not ask a follow up question to JS readers?
“In order to fund such bridge work, would you allow the consolidation of school districts where enrollment no longer justifies operating such schools, or through asset sales of state owned property and land used by a paucity of our population, or through cancellation of marginally-necessary pet projects?”
OK, I understand space limitations -- but you get my point.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Is that what heaven looks like?
L ast week before leaving Thailand (more about that trip shortly), I learned my brief reader's comment about financial advisory services...
-
This morning, I attended a seminar about the "Psychology of Golf". The topic intrigued me because all of my personal golf instruc... -
Pointed, brilliant drifts of snow pierce the evening of winter. Curving upward they arch to a luminous, cyclopean moon. A guest, humble, I s... -
In Oliver Stone's 1995 biopic film about President Richard Nixon, there's a memorable passage attributed to H. R. Haldeman . Hald...