Immigration and New Jersey: We, The People

“It was the perfect setting for an immigration related press conference: an old train terminal in Jersey City’s Liberty State Park, within view of the Statue of Liberty, where countless immigrants poured off ferries from nearby Ellis Island to board trains for points West. It was here that Gov. Jon Corzine signed an executive order creating a new blue ribbon panel on immigration during a well-choreographed, well-attended event. But there was a less jubilant undertone as well -- it was clear that the Governor did not want the tension that characterized the recent Morristown anti-immigration rally to replicate across the state." (Friedman, PoliticsNJ.com)

New Jersey shares the immigration history with New York. And I think it is great that Gov. Corzine has moved to establish a commission to deal with the issue in New Jersey.

However, it is not unlikely that the issues and the proposed solutions facing Morristown will begin to replicate themselves around towns in New Jersey. It is a very questionable solution to the immigration issue to deputize all local law enforcement officials. The already overburdened local police cannot necessarily take on yet another task that should be borne in cost and labor by the federal government.

It is not unsurprising, though, that the federal government lacks the staffing at our borders and at the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS] to deal with the immigration issue. Prior to 9/11 the matter was just not a priority in anywhere but the border states of Arizona, New Mexico, California and Texas. And the Border Patrol and the INS were agencies that received huge cutbacks to help pay for the Bush tax cuts. So, know what your tax cuts are paying for before you buy them.

It is estimated that there are somewhere between 12 to 20 million ‘illegal’ immigrants in the United States. That is not a number reached over night. It is a combination of lack of attention by the federal government and small business owners that like the cheap labor. You cannot simultaneously yell and scream about the ‘illegals’, and enjoy the benefits of tax cuts and the cheap labor.

In my home town of Flemington, there is a growing population of Latino families that work day and night to provide for their family members. They work sometimes two and three jobs; they pay high rents and live in overcrowded apartments, walk or bicycle to work, have no health care, and are subjected to racism nearly every day. Indeed, the landlords who rent these overcrowded apartments and the employers who hire Latino workers at below minimum wage aid and abet in the creation of these problems.

Flemington has a mayor who has referred to the Latino population as ‘the ethnics’ or the ‘ethnic problem’ in public, and made jokes about the ‘five-footers’ in private to other Council members. I am compelled to think that such a person is ill equipped to handle this issue as the matter comes to a head.

We need to remember that more than half the population came from immigrants, through Ellis Island. I cannot say that every member of my family [or any family, for that matter] came here legally or illegally dating back more than 125 years ago. But they came, they worked, they learned English without any government requirement that they do, and their ancestors flourished. From factory workers, tailors, garment workers, push cart vendors, and union organizers, etc, they became lawyers, doctors, teachers, business owners, mayors, councilmen, senators, presidents and political organizers.

These is America, and let’s not forget what makes us great. It’s we, the people.

Summer time at the Shore….in Florida.

I am on vacation in Florida this week, so my posts will be shorter than usual. We flew out on Spirit Airlines, out of Atlantic City ---a very sane airport experience in New Jersey, by the way. Way better than Newark Liberty or Philadelphia, I think. Too early in the morning this time, but a good flight.

Florida and New Jersey share a great deal in common. Too much development. Traffic all the time on every road. Rising property taxes. [but their ‘high’ property tax ‘problem’ is amusing compared to ours].

They both have toll roads: The New Jersey Turnpike, and “Florida’s Turnpike”. Don’t call it the Florida Turnpike. And fast ways to pay the tolls: New Jersey has EZPass; Florida has Sun Pass.

There is an interesting political balance: the northern part of the state slants Republican, while Southern Florida and the urban areas of Dade and Broward Counties slants somewhat Democratic. That’s because Dade and Broward are where most folks from the northeast retire ---and many of those folks from New Jersey and New York have already been ‘pre-Democratic Party-ized’.

Some differences:

Florida had the president's brother as their governor for eight years. We did not.

New Jersey has a state income tax; and Florida does not.
They make tons of money on vacationing families by surcharges on hotels, car rentals, air port fees.

New Jersey has Cape May. Florida has Key West. Key West is 90 miles from Cuba. We're not.

New Jersey has 21 Counties; Florida 67 Counties.

New Jersey has The Shore. Florida has beaches. And more beaches. On both sides of the state.

New Jersey has part of Gateway National Park; Florida has Everglades National Park.

New Jersey has deer on the roads. Florida has alligators.
Either way, if you hit an alligator in Florida, stay in your car.

One thing Florida has that I miss in New Jersey: Drive-in Movie theaters. We should get us some. They're fun.

Press one for intelligence and two for good sense

I had the opportunity this week on Sunday of appearing on the radio show of Julie Briggs, on WMTR up in Morris County. Last week, I was driving back from a gig in New York state early Sunday morning, and I was flipping the AM dial looking for Oldies station WMTR 1250 ----the show I found was Julie’s show "Ask The Experts". She had on her show an author and strong advocate for making English the official language of America, and I called in.

These are the folks who get all upset when they have to press ‘1 for English’ or if they overhear a conversation in Spanish between two people on the street, and don't know what is being said. Horrors.

I've met folks like him before, most recently a Republican on Main Street in Flemington. He believes the same thing as the book author, that “English Only” should be the law of the land. The guy I met wants to charge the Federal government with the task of eradicating the United States of any and all folks and documents who don’t speak/contain the “King’s English” [his words not mine]. I think the irony of his comment was lost on him.

I inquired of him as to whether or not all government documents and all their contents were to be now translated into English and only English. His answer: an emphatic absolute “Yes!” "Each and every one of them?” I inquired. “Yes, again”, he proudly declared, “Each and every American document and all its contents. This is America. We speak English here. Always have.”

The devil is always in the details, methinks. So, I inquired further of his "English Only" plan. "What about 'E Pluribus Unum'? That’s on our money. That’s the ultimate ‘government document’. Do we now place the translation, 'Out of Many, One' instead of the Latin phrase?"

“Latin’s a dead language. That would make no sense,” he declared.

“'Dead language'? It’s lasted on our money all these years, though,” I countered. "And, besides, I don’t think that Latin was named the official language of Rome. I think they just got to spread it around the Ancient World with their Roman legion of armies." But I digress.

“What about the word ‘America’?” I asked. "Our nation was named for Amerigo Vespucci, the Italian merchant, explorer and cartographer who mapped out our continent and named the land after himself." Talk about an ego!

“That’s just silly,” he countered. Well thought-out answer, I thought. I was just trying to get the parameters of his “English Only” policy, I explained kindly.

"What about other legal terms in Latin?" I asked. "Do lawyers need to change them to English now, too? Does 'bona fide' now become “good faith”? Or can “habeas corpus” no longer can be used, but “We command that you have the body” now can? How about “The Magna Carta?” Must it now be called "The Great Paper”?

Where will it all end?

Just some thoughts on the matter. Or should I say, “Iustus nonnullus sententia in res” at least until the law changes.

But for your amusement and education, here is a man from Carpentersville, Ill who is demanding that the town pass an English Only ordinance.

And he is wearing his shirt inside out. Go figure.

Hugely disappointed with the Democrats?.....just who won back control in 2006?

Sixteen Senate Democrats, and Senator Joe Lieberman, an Independent, voted in lockstep with all 43 Senate Republicans late Friday evening in supporting an expanded surveillance bill that is virtually identical to the proposals written by the Bush administration.

Makes you ponder just who won control of Congress in 2006.

The bill, as written, does not contain any safeguards to ensure average Americans are not caught up in the surveillance activities. Additionally, the Senate put oversight of the surveillance process into the hands of the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, and embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, granting the officials extraordinary powers to approve spying activities without any independent oversight or review.

The key points of the legislation allow the Bush administration to bypass the secret court set up nearly thirty years ago to authorize intelligence officials to conduct surveillance activities. The secret court will be permitted to review the approval process - but not until 120 days after the spying has already commenced.

And this piece from the Associated Press:

Senate Passes Bush Terrorism Spy Bill

Saturday 04 August 2007

Washington - The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown
over national security, voted late Friday to
temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to
eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without
court warrants.

The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic
version of the bill.

Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to
bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it
Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress
give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation
this weekend.

The White House applauded the Senate vote and
urged the House to quickly follow suit.

The bill "will give our intelligence professionals
the essential tools they need to protect our nation,"
said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent
that this legislation become law as quickly as
possible."

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan
largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised
to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a
court review to begin within 10 days.

The Senate bill gives Bush the expanded
eavesdropping authority for six months. The temporary
powers give Congress time to hammer out a more
comprehensive plan instead of rushing approval for a
permanent bill in the waning hours before lawmakers
begin their month-long break.

The Senate vote was 60-28. Both parties had agreed
to require 60 votes for passage.

Senate Republicans, aided by Director of National
Intelligence Mike McConnell, said the update to the
1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA,
would at least temporarily close gaps in the nation's
security system.

"Al-Qaida is not going on vacation this month,"
said Sen. Republican leader Mitch McConnell of
Kentucky. "And we can't either until we know we've
done our duty to the American people."

In the House, Democrats lost an effort to push a
proposal that called for stricter court oversight of
the way the government would ensure its spying would
not target Americans.

"The rule of law is still critical in this
country," Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., said before the
losing the mostly party-line 218-207 vote that fell
short of two-thirds majority needed for passage. "It
is exactly when the government thinks that it can be
the sole, fair arbiter that we most need a judicial
system to stand in and strike the balance."

"We can have security and our civil liberties,"
Tierney said.

Current law requires court review of government
surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United
States. It does not specifically address the
government's ability to intercept messages believed to
come from foreigners overseas.

The Bush administration began pressing for changes
to the law after a recent ruling by the special FISA
court that barred the government from eavesdropping on
foreign suspects whose messages were being routed
through U.S. communications carriers, including
Internet sites.

Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S.
spies from tapping in on foreign suspects. However,
they initially demanded the FISA court to review the
eavesdropping process before it begins to make sure
that Americans aren't targeted.

By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled
down that demand and approved a bill that largely
mirrored what the Bush administration wanted. It
requires:
Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence
Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
The administration relented to Democrats leery of
Gonzales by adding McConnell to the oversight.
FISA Court review within 120 days. The final
Democratic plan had called for court review to begin
immediately and conclude within a month of the
surveillance starting
The law to expire in six months to give Congress time
to craft a more comprehensive plan. The White House
initially wanted the bill to be permanent.

Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP
plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said
"provides a weak and practically nonexistent court
review."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., angrily chastised his
colleagues for bending to the administration's will.

"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a
member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S.
Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy - not the
executive branch."

Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were
outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with
the White House.

"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats,"
said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for
the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let
themselves be manipulated into accepting the White
House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it,
when they're in control - it's mind-boggling."

It was not immediately clear whether House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi would endorse the Senate bill after days
of rejecting White House offers.

"I hope that there are no attacks before we are
able to effectively update this important act," said
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House
Judiciary Committee.

Bush has said he would reject any bill that his
intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an
attack on the country."

"We've worked hard and in good faith with the
Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to
put our national security at risk," Bush said after
meeting with counterterror and homeland security
officials at FBI headquarters Friday morning. "Time is
short."

Presidents have authority to call Congress back in
session from a recess, but the last time it was used
was in 1948, by Harry Truman.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the
administration plan "more likely to protect the
American people against terrorist attacks by those who
want to do us harm."

Flemingtoon: Real Life Funnies

Back in the 70s and 80s, I used to read the Village Voice each week. I thoroughly enjoyed all the features, especially the work of Stan Mack and “Real Life Funnies”. Here’s the scoop on Mack from our friends at Wikipedia:

“Stan Mack is a reporter/cartoonist who pioneered a documentary style of cartooning with his notorious New York comic strip Stan Mack’s Real Life Funnies, which ran in The Village Voice for 20 years.”

The subheading for the strip was “All Dialogue Guaranteed Overheard”.

Inspired by his work, I offer, “Flemingtoon™”, with all dialogue overheard on the streets of Flemington. I, however, do not hear as well as Stan Mack, and cannot make the same guarantee. However, I will assure you that I will make every effort possible to be as accurate as I can be.

This was over heard at the Salsa festival in Flemington. [Sorry for how blurry this is; I am still working on the process of creating the strip, and uploading it on to the blog].

Flemingtoon™”: Real Life Funnies

Like Yogi Berra said, "This is like deja vu all over again."

When it comes to Republicans, the great Yogi Berra is right.

Case in point: Jim Bunning is a Republican Senator from Kentucky. And in his prime, he was a great pitcher with the Phillies. Also, he is in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Bunning became the first pitcher to record 100 wins and 1,000 strikeouts in both the American and National leagues. He also threw no-hitters in both leagues, including a perfect game on Father’s Day 1964. A good baseball career in anybody’s book.

However, in the Senate, he sometimes acts like a first year rookie, just up from the minor leagues.

Yesterday, the Senate was debating a bill that would re-authorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and boost it by $35 billion over the next five years. This bill would add more than 3 to 4 million children and adults, to the 6.7 million already receiving health care under the joint federal-state program.

And who crafted the original bill in 1997? None other than the bipartisan team of Senators Kennedy and Hatch. With that kind of team, you’d think you’d have all bases covered.

But not for Senator Jim Bunning.

Senator Bunning decided to throw a curveball and add the “Bunning Amendment” to the SCHIP bill. His "amendment”, had it passed, would have knocked thousands of New Jersey and New York children from poor working families out of the batter’s box when it came to health care.

Senator Lautenberg made the good call on Bunning’s pitch: “The amendment was a direct shot at New Jersey’s FamilyCare program, which covers children from families that make up to 350% of the federal poverty level – working and low-income families that don’t qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford health insurance in a high cost-of-living state like New Jersey. Had the amendment passed, only children in New Jersey would have been immediately affected.”

Bunning said this on the Senate floor, which is what qualifies him for acting like he is pitching Single-A ball in Kentucky:

"Why should people in every other state subsidize government health care for families in New York and New Jersey?" Bunning said before the vote. "If people in these two states think this is a priority, then they should be willing to pay more."

Senator Bunning, here’s the real score on who's subsidizing who:

According to the Northeast-Midwest Institute [a Washington-based, private, non-profit, and non-partisan research organization], New Jersey gets back only 55 cents for every dollar it sends Washington, while Kentucky gets back $1.45 it sends.

Senator Bunning, you may have thrown no-hitters in The Show ----but in the Senate, you’re nothing but a Bush-Leaguer.

The Republicans who face tough races finally give a SCHIP

SCHIP [State Children's Health Insurance Program] is a program that provides health insurance for 6.6 million children nationwide. NJ FamilyCare, which receives SCHIP grants, covers 127,000 kids and 83,000 adults. Yesterday, there was a bill in Congress which would serve to increase funding, and extend coverage to more of New Jersey's poorest working families.

And all the New Jersey Republicans in Congress, with the exception of Frank LoBiondo and Michael Ferguson, voted against New Jersey’s children. Shame on them for voting against children from poor families in New Jersey.

Yup, those are family values for Republicans.

LoBiondo and Ferguson face very tough races next year, have been targeted by the DCCC…and now they’re showing their “compassionate conservative” side. Good for them, and I hope they finally start to vote against the war, too. But I doubt it.

Shame on the rest ---- Republican Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen, Scott Garrett, Jim Saxton and Chris Smith who voted NO. They, who vote to increase the number of troops sent to Iraq, but vote against the interests of New Jersey’s working families.

According to the Courier Post, Rep. Frank Pallone is a big supporter of the increase in aid to working families of New Jersey: "There shouldn't be any doubt today about what the Republicans are trying to do: They're trying to destroy the SCHIP program," Pallone said. "This bill would cover another 5 million children who're currently uninsured. . . . They're not proposing to cover any additional kids. They want to cut back."

This is a bi-partisan bill that has received support from forty-three governors, Democrats and Republicans, wrote to Bush last month supporting SCHIP renewal.

Republicans like Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen, Scott Garrett, Jim Saxton and Chris Smith who voted no criticized the bill by saying things like the bill represents "the single largest step in Washington-controlled, bureaucratized, socialized health care."

Tell that to the children who won’t get health coverage because your president will likely veto the bill.

And people ask me why I am Democrat. Republicans worry about such different things than I do.

I love Paris in the the spring

"When it comes to public records archives, New Jersey will always have "PARIS." At least that's the idea behind the Public Archives and Records Infrastructure Support program, dubbed PARIS, that was established "to boost efficiency, integrity and security of public records systems at the county and municipal level." (Lockwood, Star-Ledger)

Paris is on every one's mind these days. No not 'France' or 'Hilton' ---the Public Archives and Records Infrastructure Support program. It is essential for a town in a democratic society.

Flemington was one of many municipalities to pass a resolution this week asking the Governor to restore funding to the PARIS program. This is a very important program to aid towns in the management of "strategic and emergency records management, preservation, and storage needs of county and municipal governments." It is a no-brainer to support this resolution; the New Jersey State League advocates for all municipalities to let Governor Corzine know what you're thinking. Amazingly enough, though, a Councilman in Flemington actually voted against it.

The grant funds are accrued through fees charged to the public for the recording and filing of various public records at county clerks offices. Last month, the state announced this year's batch of PARIS grants, which totaled $21.8 million to New Jersey's 21 counties and 37 municipalities.

As the storage of information becomes more and more important in these days of electronic filing of financial transactions, property and zoning documentation ----maintenance of such records is essential for towns to be responsive for residents and businesses. If you're a borough clerk, you need to keep careful records. I have taught through the Municipal Clerks Academy, and I know the important work clerks do.

Just some thoughts.

Where are my free speech rights? I think I left them around here somewhere.

An old joke:

This guy is walking around and around a lamp post at night. This cop passes by and demands an explanation. "I lost my keys”, slurs the guy.

Cop: "Oh, so you lost them under the lamp post?"
Guy: "Naw, lost 'em two blocks down there. Under my car."
Cop (angrilly): "So why look for them under the lamp post?"
Guy: "Cause the light's so much better here!"

Unfortunately, the light’s not that good anymore in private planned urban communities in New Jersey like Twin Rivers. You’ll have to look elsewhere for your free speech rights –---maybe where the light is better.

Here in New Jersey, our Supreme Court says it’s OK to sign away your free speech rights if you want to live in a private community. When someone buys in to Twin Rivers, they sign an agreement that signs away a portion of their free speech rights. And the court said, in this case, that that is okay as long as the restrictions are not “unreasonable”. One may think that the act of signing away your constitutional rights in and of itself is an "unreasonable" requirement.

“This is America! How can they sign away their constitutional rights so easily?” you may inquire. I think as others do, that you need to be very careful about which rights you sign away. Some day you may discover that you need it bad: “Aha! Where is my freedom of speech? I think I put it here someplace….”

The trend in corporate America is to develop more and more large privatized areas –where the First Amendment must be given up at the door. Restrictions to freedom of speech in shopping malls in NJ were first challenged some years ago. Now the arena it's private condo communities. This is not a trend that bodes well for civil liberties. What could be next?

On the side of COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER TWIN RIVERS was the A-Team --- Prof. Frank Askin and the ACLU [Ed Barocas, the Legal Director of the ACLU explains why he thinks his team scored a ‘victory, anyway].

On the other side was the TWIN RIVERS HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION and their great attorney, ----my good friend, Barry Goodman. Barry and his team are the key reasons for the Twin Rivers 7-0 victory. Go ahead, Barry –do your victory lap. You deserve it.

The Twin Rivers-type communities of America may be wonderfully looking private neighborhoods with perfectly landscaped sloping lawns. The homes have doors and window fixtures all the same contractually-agreed-to-color. But, it is a slippery slope off of those lawns in to a privatized/corporatized America where people are willing to give up constitutional rights to achieve a little security ---and aesthetic beauty.

Maybe the folks who’ve bought into the private planned urban communities don’t even know they have waived their free speech rights to begin with. I don’t know.

But, remember what Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety [and in this case, some aesthetic beauty] , deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Wonder if Ben would have moved in to Twin Rivers?

Every candidate has a silver punchline

I have been speaking on the topic of humor in politics for about fifteen years to the New Jersey State League of Municipalities. And I have been the keynote speaker at about 20 other state leagues and national conferences of elected officials. When humor is used appropriately, it can make important points, diffuse tension, bring new people to see your point of view ---and most importantly ----show your human side.

Sometimes politicos do very well on TV when trying to be funny. Some do not.

The 2008 candidates for president have been sort of funny in the debates. Sometimes there are planned ‘quips’. Sometimes spontaneous. But I am sure that with most of the candidates hitting The Daily Show, The Tonight Show, Letterman, Leno, Conan O’Brien ----they each have someone on their staff to write good one-liners or to consult with them on how to deliver a punch line. I was once even called on to help Jim Florio be funny at the New Jersey Legislative Correspondents Dinner.

Here are some of the better one-liners from recent appearances by the 2008 candidates from USA Today, that voters may use to decide who they support:

Sen. Joseph Biden, made short, funny work of a question about his propensity for verbal gaffes and verbosity in general.

"Can you reassure voters in this country that you would have the discipline you would need on the world stage?" moderator Brian Williams asked him at an MSNBC debate in April.

"Yes," Biden said. As it became clear that was his entire answer, the audience roared.

What do you pray for? Was asked of Senator Hillary Clinton, at a forum on faith: "Oh Lord, why can't you help me lose weight?"

John Edwards and the $400 haircut: The haircut was a private expense that was listed on a publicly disclosed campaign-spending report. The former North Carolina senator did damage control last month on NBC's The Tonight Show With Jay Leno. Asked why he and his wife, Elizabeth, eat at Wendy's on their wedding anniversary, Edwards said: "You can't spend money on food when you're spending money on haircuts"

Sen. Chris Dodd, is making pre-emptive cracks about his age (63) and late-in-life fatherhood (his daughters are 5 and 2). "I'm probably the only one who gets mailings from AARP and diaper services," he often says.

Barack Obama faces potential wariness about his name. He introduces the topic by describing his first run for office: People everywhere asked, "Where did you get this name, Barack Obama? They'd mispronounce it to me. They would call me Alabama or Yo-Mama, and I'd have to explain it was Obama; my father was from Kenya, from Africa; my mother was from Kansas."

Sometimes funny ads can help:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has moved up to double-digits in Iowa polls since starting a series of ads called "Job Interview." Each is a skit with a crass interviewer and the bemused governor.

In one, the interviewer reviews the Democrat's résumé — congressman, U.S. energy secretary, United Nations ambassador, Nobel Peace Prize nominee — and chews food as he asks, "So, what makes you think you can be president?"

Even the Republicans try their hand at humor:

Mitt Romney: The Mormon faith, with its polygamous past, poses a similar challenge for Romney. He handled it this way at a St. Patrick's Day breakfast in 2005, when he was governor: "I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman … and a woman …and a woman."

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani pulled that off at a CNN debate last month when microphone problems interrupted his answer to a question about his differences with Catholic bishops. Told lightning was the culprit, he laughed and said: "For someone who went to parochial schools his whole life, this is a very frightening thing."

How long did God take to create the world? Was asked of Mike Huckabee, at a debate: "I don't know. I wasn't there."

And two old standards from both sides of the political aisle:

One classic was the fake telegram then-senator John F. Kennedy read from his father at the 1958 Gridiron Dinner in Washington: "Don't buy a single vote more than is necessary — I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide." With that, Kennedy defused allegations that his rich father was trying to buy him the 1960 election.

Reagan scored a similar coup regarding his age, 73, when he ran for re-election in 1984 against Walter Mondale, then 56. "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," Reagan said during a debate. Mondale laughed and the issue became moot.

Humor: A tool in the rights hands. A horrible mistake in others'.

STOP THE PRESSES: Republicans in Warren County Want MORE Government

"Warren County voters will decide this November whether the freeholder board should expand from three members to five. The current three-member board authorized the public referendum Wednesday. A group of residents had been circulating a nonpartisan petition to get the expansion question on November's ballot.” (Olanoff, Express-Times)

The good bet is that this year in November the voters in the northwest county of Warren will add two new Freeholders to their ranks. Currently, they have three freeholders, and they are the last holdout in the state to have a freeholder board that size. All the current freeholders are Republicans.

Hunterdon County added two more freeholders in 1998. And, quite frankly, I am not sure if it has made any difference with regard to the efficiency in the County workload or the cost of running the government.

However, I am always shocked when those purveyors of smaller and smaller government ---the conservative libertarian Republicans --- actually wish to increase its size. Their reason can be summed up in the words of Hackettstown Councilwoman Nancy Brown who said, “It's not bigger government, it's better representation.”

Yeah! That’s the ticket! When Republicans want bigger government, they just say that it’s ‘better representative government’ that they want. Now, I see. Why wasn’t that clear before?

The truth is, even with just three freeholders, Warren County residents have outstanding representation. Case in point: Hudson County has a population of 608,975, and nine freeholders. That’s 67,663 people per freeholder. Now, Warren County has a population of just 102,437 and the current three freeholders. That’s 34,145 per freeholder. Warren County has fewer residents per freeholder by almost half: So, even with just three freeholders, Warren County residents have better representation than those who live in Hudson.

Another supporter of bigger government in Warren, is Mr. Libertarian Conservative Republican himself, the former Warren County freeholder and current Assemblyman, Mike Doherty. Of course, when it comes to stem cell research, that’s where his desire for bigger government stops. He firmly opposed the New Jersey Stem Cell Research Bond Act, a $450 million bond referendum that will provide financing for stem cell research grants to eligible institutions over a 10-year period. This is even though the people in a completely democratic process will decide this on in November.

The real reason Doherty wants bigger government in Warren: So that the Republicans can meet privately in caucus to discuss county legislation without violating the Sunshine Law. That’s it: Private meetings of Republicans to discuss legislation.

Right now, if two of the three Republican legislators meet to discuss any county issue ---even casually at a political event --- it is possible that they could violate the Sunshine Law.

Doherty told the Express-Times, "Down in Trenton, we caucus before we go in for a vote…[A]nd we cannot do that here in Warren County, and that's a detriment to good government."

So, a “detriment” to good government is the lack of secret meetings of Republicans? Because the Republican freeholders cannot meet privately to discuss county business, Doherty wants bigger government? Is this better government?

Folks in Warren County should have a better reason than that to increase the size and cost of their county government.

The Spin Doctors

I do read RedJersey every once in a while, just to see what the other side blogs on and on and on about. This week it is the Iraq war.

And FYI ---imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: Previously, they were "Red Generation", and now they are "RedJersey.net" ---trying desperately to model themselves after BlueJersey.

And, by the way, they are not “RedJersey.com”. RedJersey.com is a bicycle racing shop up in New Hampshire. And they probably get more hits than RedJersey.net.

Anyway, this post was recently on RedJersey, and it caught my attention:

Perceptions Can Change
By Eric Pasternack | July 25, 2007
The public opinion about the war may be changing. Back in May, a CBS/NY Times poll reported that only 23% of the public thought the war effort in Iraq was going well. Furthermore, 45% of respondents indicated that the war was going badly. These statistics stand in stark contrast to the latest CBS/NY Times poll where only 35% of people think the war is going badly while 29% percent think the war is going well.
This trend is encouraging. But it will also mean that the Democrats will increase their rhetoric and will stop at nothing to prevent success in Iraq.

“The trend is encouraging”? Less than 30% of the American public thinks the war effort is going well, and RedJersey cites that as trending in a positive direction?

And then RedJersey states that, “These statistics stand in stark contrast…" ---where in May a poll showed that 23% though the war was going well, and now 29% think the war is going well. That is what RedJersey calls “Stark contrast”?

OK, so they are bad at analyzing numbers. But RedJersey showed their real chutzpah when they questioned the patriotism of the Democrats in Congress with a statement like:

“But it will also mean that the Democrats will increase their rhetoric and will stop at nothing to prevent success in Iraq.”

The delusional assumption that the Democrats wish to prevent success in Iraq is offensive to every independent thinking resident of New Jersey. And Red Jersey owes our Congressional delegation an apology ---both the Ds and the Rs. While the members of our Congressional delegation may differ on their points if view on the war, neither side has ever questioned the other side's patriotism.

Success in Iraq is measured by your president’s own criteria:
Your president said we went in to Iraq because there were WMDs.
Current status: None.

Your president said we needed to oust Saddam Hussein.
Status: Hussein is dead.

Your president said we needed to establish democracy there.
Status: The Iraqi Parliament was elected earlier this year.

And now they are acting just like Congress ---- they are taking off for the summer.

The ultimate support of the troops in Iraq is to bring them home.

If RedJersey.net is going to put that kind of a ‘spin’ on public poll numbers about the war or the Democrats' patriotism ---then maybe they should point their URL to "RedJersey.com" ----and at least let their readership learn something about real ‘spinning’ ----in the form of information about cycling.

Farewell to the front end

"New Jersey motorists would say farewell to front license plates under a proposal from a key state lawmaker. Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Parlin, said Monday he would introduce legislation in the fall that would require only a rear license plate. "New Jersey is one of the few states that require tags in the front and back" of vehicles said Wisniewski, who chairs the Assembly Transportation Committee.” (Jennings, Daily Record)

Property taxes. Auto insurance. Global climate change. Sprawl. Property taxes. Stem cell research. Cost of keeping the beach's clean. Property taxes. Corruption. Pay to Play. Did I mention property taxes?

These are all very important issues.

But the issue that has got Assemblyman John Wisniewski all in a snit are ‘front end license’ plates. The Parlin Assemblyman is going to introduce legislation that will require tags only in the rear of your New Jersey car.

Has this replaced “Property taxes, auto insurance, global climate change, property taxes and corruption” as the top issues in NJ? Are people marching on Wisniewski’s office demanding that he fight for their rights to be ‘back-enders’ only? Is there a boycott of foreign cars that have a spot for a special license plate up front?

How did this become an issue?

Now, I know that Wisniewski has supported some very important and progressive bills in the Assembly. And he is the chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee. For example, he has supported A4, which Implements CORE proposals, including "Uniform Shared Services and Consolidation Act"; user -friendly budgets; revision of county superintendent of schools title and duties. He has supported A 1936 {"Concerns coverage for childhood immunizations]. And he supported A1955 "Transportation Trust Fund Renewal and Reform Act of 2005."

All in all, he seems like a pretty nice guy and a concerned legislator. So, why the focus on eliminating the front license plates in NJ?

Possible reasons:

Perhaps Assemblyman Wisniewski wants to make sure that New Jersey drivers can assert their First Amendment rights while driving:

“If we eliminate the front plate, that would be the perfect place for individuals to display whatever their cause may be.”

Also, the state has 17 specialty plates dedicated to causes ranging from organ donation to agriculture to Liberty State Park to the Pinelands to cancer research. Alumni from eight colleges can also get plates touting their school.

Maybe it's peer pressure from other states: Assemblyman Wisniewski wants New Jersey to be just like the other states: "New Jersey is one of the few states that require tags in the front and back of vehicles.” And we certainly cannot be alone in our ways when it comes to our cars’ front ends.

Could be that he likes to use analogies: "The front plate is really superfluous; To use an analogy, it's like the appendix in humans.”

Well, the only time doctors remove an appendix is when it causes problems. Are the front plates really causing that much of a pain in the rear to drivers in NJ?

Stay tuned.

Healthcare debate

Paul Mulshine is a conservative opinion columnist for the Star-Ledger in New Jersey. By 'conservative', I think he is a neo-con. Yesterday, he wrote a column on SICKO, the new Michael Moore doc on healthcare in America. With more than 40 million people uninsured, and millions more under-insured this has reached beyond a screaming crisis. And Republicans and so-called neo-cons are poised to kill any attempt to make national health care a priority. Mulshine is one of them.

His column from the Sunday, July 22, 2007 of the Star-Ledger:

Moore's the real sicko

I drove to the local multiplex the other night to see Michael Moore's latest movie. My wife came along, but she wisely choose to see the latest Harry Potter flick instead. I envied her.
Michael Moore has always seemed to me to embody the essence of the middle-class socialist as described by George Orwell. "The underlying motive of many socialists, I believe, is simply a hypertrophied sense of order," Orwell wrote. "The present state of affairs offends them not because it causes misery, still less because it makes freedom impossible, but because it is untidy."

That certainly seems to be the case with Moore. He has no real empathy with the forlorn characters he puts up on the screen. They are just vehicles for his enduring urge to have the government run things. And in Moore's world, the government always runs things better.
The supposed high point of "Sicko" is a trip to Cuba he makes with some rescue workers who claim various injuries from responding to the 9/11 attacks. After a quick tour of Havana, he trots them off to a gleaming hospital where they receive top-notch medical care. Moore assures us that the care is exactly the same as a typical Cuban would receive.
Not quite. Anthony Boadle, the Havana correspondent for Reuters, reported that the hospital featured in the film was "Cuba's flagship hospital with a view of the Caribbean sea, a sharp contrast to many Cuban hospitals that are crumbling, badly lit, and which lack equipment and medicines."
Moore also glosses over the fact that the average Cuban lives in conditions that would appall the typical American. When I traveled there in 1994, I was amazed to find people raising pigs and chickens in the halls of what had once been gracious apartment buildings. The livestock supplements a diet of rice, beans and not much else. This points to the sole unique accomplishment of the Cuban socialists in the area of health care: They have cured obesity. I kept waiting for just one lighthearted moment during which Moore would contrast his own immense bulk with the trim physiques of the Cubans.
But there are no light moments in "Sicko." Moore pounds his points home the same way those immense hams of his pound the sidewalks as he visits Canada, Cuba, France and England.
The central premise of the movie is Moore's assertion that "we remain the only country in the Western world without free and universal health care." This is nonsense. Moore spends day after day in France, for example, without discovering that the French do not have a no-fee system like the English, but in fact have a system of basic insurance, supplemental insurance and co-pays. The typical resident of neighboring Germany, meanwhile, has 14 percent of gross pay deducted for a so-called "sickness fund." The big difference between other countries and the United States is not that they have free health coverage. It's that they have mandatory health coverage.
And even those countries that have entirely state-run systems are not quite as "free" as Moore makes them out to be. Early in the movie, he highlights the case of an American couple with a deaf child whose insurance company would not pay for cochlear implants in both ears. Being able to hear from just one ear was sufficient, the company said.
That may sound cruel, but according to a recent article in the Nottingham Post, an English family was told the same thing by the national health service there. The big difference was that the American company eventually relented and let the kid have his implants. As for the English kid, his parents had to shell out $63,000 for the second im plant.
Moore highlights an American cancer victim who died after he was denied a bone-marrow transplant. But that patient might not have fared any better in England, where a so-called "post-code lottery" either awards or denies treatment to patients based on how much money is in the budget of the health care district in which they live.
There is indeed plenty wrong with the American health-care system. But the government takeover Moore advocates would not cure it. Later in the movie he notes that 65 percent of American kids don't know where England is. In other words, the same government that can't teach kids to read a map is going to somehow be entrusted with our lives.
This sort of thing might be amusing if Moore had a lighter touch. But the movie didn't induce a single chuckle in the audience the other night. Perhaps that's because there was only one other person in the theater with me. The other theater-goers were all off watching something the English really are good at: acting out the Harry Potter books.

My answer:

Mr. Mulshine,

I assume that you trust the current for-profit health care system because you have health care. If you did not, and had not for years on end, you might feel differently. There will always be problems with the limited resources of ‘healthcare’ per se ----whether such resources are distributed by the for-profit industry or by the government in a socialized single payer system. The real issue is the current system of for-profit healthcare in America has left more than 40 million uninsured and millions of others grossly under-insured, period.

Your critique of the system in the UK does not address that issue. Just as the capitalist system needs regulation and systematic adjustment by the FED in order to operate functionally and provide people with the foundation of credibility in order to operate successfully, so now does the healthcare system in America. The government would never allow 40 million people to be under-educated or under-fed or un-housed without some major initiative to correct the issue.

The Clintons had the right idea: Everyone in America deserves and needs to be covered, period. Whether this comes about by a single payer system or Congress requiring all private companies to cover everyone in America in an affordable way if they wish to operate as companies ---and figure out a way to do it, is fine by me. But this will continue to be an issue until it is solved.

Joseph R. Novick

His response:

"If you understood your own point, you would be opposed to it.”

Snippy, pointless, and typical for a neo-con. The neo-cons, on just about any issue, are as predictable as ever.

Laughing AND Thinking

I perform around the state and the nation at comedy clubs, national and state conferences and for corporations [www.comedyworks.org]. Many times audience members will ask me, “What makes you laugh?”.

Good political comedy makes me laugh. Humor that not only brings down the house….but the Senate, too. And presidents--- ---showing the hypocrisy and the contradictions in their politics, by poking fun at them. Author Richard Delgado in “Storytelling for Oppositionists and Others: A Plea for Narrative”, 87 MICH. L. REV. 2411, 2413-14 (1989) said, “Stories told by underdogs are frequently ironic or satiric; a root word for "humor" is humus-bringing low, down to earth.”

Historically Mark Twain and Will Rogers were both great political humorists. In the 1960s Mort Sahl set the standard for a generation of political comedians to come. Today we have Lewis Black, Jon Stewart, Will Durst, and Jimmy Tingle ---just to name a few. And the road show, "Laughing Liberally" is very popular. We even have President Bush in 2006 debating Governor Bush from 2000, moderated by Jon Stewart.

The use of humor is a great way to hold accountable the powers that be; in this case His Majesty The Decider is great grist for political humor. Making people think and laugh at the same time.

Here are some of the best lines from Late Night TV for this week:

"A report card on Iraq shows progress on only eight of 18 areas. Eight out of 18. And, of course, President Bush is thrilled. That's the best report card he's ever got in his life." --Jay Leno

"Louisiana Senator David Vitter held a press conference this week, where he admitted yes, he was a client of the DC madam, but he said those stories of hookers dressing him in diapers were not true. Boy, what do you do there? Are you supposed to take the word of a politician over a hooker? It's a tough decision for people." --Jay Leno

"This week, President Bush announced he's launching a new campaign to solve the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. When asked why, Bush said, 'It's fun to finally be working on a problem that I didn't cause."--Conan O'Brien

"At his press conference yesterday, where he admitted being involved with prostitutes, Louisiana Senator David Vitter apologized to his longtime supporters -- the working men and the working girls of Louisiana." --Jay Leno

"The DC madam said he sometimes paid $300 an hour just to have the hookers talk to him ... and they didn't have sex. Another example of government waste." --Jay Leno

"In other political news, John McCain's communications director has quit. McCain did not have an immediate comment ... because his communications director quit." --Jay Leno

"Things not looking good for President Bush. His approval rating has dropped so low the only thing he's above now is the law." --Jay Leno

"As you know, we are now entering our fifth year of making very good progress in Iraq. Obviously, the president defining progress now as 'moving forward through time.' ... But this spring, Congress finally asked the president for some specifics about our progress and its level of goodness. They required him to submit regular reports, and our first report card is in [on screen: Bush saying the Iraqis have made progress on eight of 18 benchmarks]. Yes! There you have it -- eight of 18. Otherwise known as a 'Gentleman's F.'" --Jon Stewart

"According to a new AP poll, the most popular presidential candidate among registered Republicans is 'none of the above.' At the moment, Rudy Giuliani is running third, just behind 'Good Lord, not him.'"--Conan O'Brien

The King of Schnorrers?

At times I take great inspiration from quotes that pop up serendipitously during web research. This week the quote ---

“The Past: our cradle, not our prison; there is danger as well as appeal in its glamor. The past is for inspiration, not imitation, for continuation, not repetition.”

---popped up for me in a Google search on an entirely different topic.

The quote is from Israel Zangwill, a humorist, journalist, writer, and political activist. He counted amongst his friends and colleagues, H.G. Wells. He coined the phrase “The Melting Pot”, in a play of the same name. He also wrote social satire such as "The King of Schnorrers" (1894). He was a political activist and humorist --- a combination I greatly admire. Oh, for those of you who don't know and might be afraid to inquire: A schnorrer is a person "who asks for little things like cigarettes or little sums of money, without offering a return" or someone who "will get money out of you any way he can, often through an air of entitlement...[but] chide you for not giving enough. A schnorrer is distinguished from an ordinary beggar by dint of his boundless chutzpah." But I digress.


The quote moved me to think about the upcoming 2008 election, and which direction we need to take the nation.

I believe we need to embrace the empowerment that the past ---the 1960s---has made us know we are capable of. I believe we need to create a progressive vision for America that is inclusive, democratic and self-sustaining. Check out, if you have not already done so, OpenLeft.com.

We need to shed ‘political spin’ for ‘intelligent discourse’. We need to be skeptical, but not cynical. To that effect, I recommend Al Gore's new book, ----“The Assault on Reason."

From the Amazon.com description of Gore’s new book ---

“It's the political environment he's concerned about in The Assault on Reason: the way we debate and decide on the critical issues of the day. In an account that balances theoretical discussion of the foundations of democracy with a lacerating critique of the Bush administration, Gore argues that the marketplace of reasoned debate our country was founded on is being endangered by a variety of allied forces: the use of fear and the misuse of faith, the distractions of our entertainment culture, and the concentrations of power in the national media and the executive branch."

Yup, the past is prologue. We have lots of work to do for 2008.