My thoughts on American Constitutionalism

Beej's Sunday Video Blog - Sunday, March 13, 2016 (North Andover, MA)

I discuss Donald J. Trump, my father Dr. Mukti L. Das, the Republican National Committee, Senator Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton, Senator Ted Cruz, Georgia, Jeb Bush the United States Constitution, my college friend Dan Haley and his former boss Mitt Romney, growing up in Massachusetts and other such topics. The first Sunday edition of my Video Blog is here for your consideration. I found inspiration from John Legend's very public discussion with his classmate at UPenn, Donald Trump Jr., in which he called Trump's father and many of his supporters racist. While I have not formally done the same, I feel Trump's danger emanates from an equally pernicious place. Let me know what your thoughts are.

A Call for a More Perfect Political Union

Today's Senate passing of a bill to end the fiscal impasse delivers a stinging defeat for hard liners in Congress. While the opportunity to come together and work as a proper legislative body was lost long ago, I continue to fear that the idiocy of the far right will continue in to the next budget discussion only months away.  How members of a legislative body can be elected and serve with such destructive political philosophies continues to bewilder me. Creation of consensus from wide ranging viewpoints, not the perpetuation of poles, is the true sign of leadership. I call upon my friends from all political leanings to pledge to form a new political class which does just that. I suspect that history will not judge kindly this epoch and the errant cowboys who held our Federal government hostage for two weeks; let history also note that this low point served as a foundation for a better and more sound political union. For now, I am thankful that this ugly episode has passed. God bless America and guide her to that more stable place. 

My Time with "Hizzoner" - Mayor Edward I. Koch

New York, 1996

It was 1996 and I was a Legal Assistant at the law firm of Robinson, Silverman, Pearce, Aronsohn & Berman in New York.  I already knew that being being paralegal had no glory.  My time at Teitelbaum, Hiller, Rodman, Paden & Hibsher had already disavowed me of that notion.  But I wasn't yet looking for glory. I had graduated from Middlebury two summers ago and was still finding my way in the world. Having worked for my father's company as an executive at an early age, I thought I had a good internal gauge of my own capabilities, but had yet to prove them to many in the outside world. At my dad's company only recently, I had navigated ourselves to a large contract from the United States Navy for advanced strategic computer based linguistic systems at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. I personally bid for the project, procured and negotiated the contract, and built and delivered the computer hardware -- and all as a teenager.

Far from my life at my father's company, in New York I was a relatively new paralegal just out of college.  With as much innovation and intelligence as I was allowed to exercise, I would produce litigation files, research which polluters had polluted which amounts and when for one of many massive EPA Superfund litigations, or help prepare court filings. The work was unsophisticated, but required diligence and some level of care.  I arrived every morning at 1290 Avenue of the Americas ready to do whatever the lawyers I worked for would tell me.  I grew to dislike my job for many reasons: (a) I worked in New York yet made a salary that made living with any degree of style very challenging, (b) I worked for lawyers who I looked up to (merely because they were lawyers, and heck, what did I know in those days?) but who didn't share the same respect or fascination for me, and (c) I was, in effect, the lowest member of the "legal professional" totem pole; a role I didn't like one bit.

I met former Mayor Ed Koch, or "hizzoner" as he was affectionately called, while working at Robinson Silverman.  I had joined the firm along with several attorneys from Teitelbaum Hiller, which was collapsing in an old fashioned law firm split dust-up. Except for the fact that I knew Robinson Silverman was larger and had fancier offices, I knew nothing else about the firm.  When I first learned that Ed Koch worked there, I was clearly awestruck. While I had met prominent figures before, I had never had an opportunity to work in the same space as them and had never met them the way I met Mayor Koch.  Koch and I first met in the most unorthodox way: as we were both entering the men's room at our firm. I had gone to the men's room on a thankless errand for myself, to do what people do when they have to use the restroom. Mr. Koch had surely done the same. Yet the interaction that ensued would help alter my remaining time at the firm and ultimately shape my career.

My dissatisfaction with being a Legal Assistant had grown over time, and was now nearing its peak. I was looking to move on but wondered whether leaving the firm so soon after arriving would adversely affect my resume and job prospects.  Arriving at the rest room, however, none of those thoughts were primary. Rather, in addition to the need that had brought me to the restroom, I had a litigation project that Peter Paden, another partner at the firm, had given me, deeply on my mind. I entered the rest room and pulled up to a urinal.  As I approached, I saw that another person, mostly bald with tufts of grey hair, had also approached a urinal nearby. I glanced over, exercising the locational awareness that most humans like having when peeing next to others.  About the same time, my new bathroom companion glanced over at me. I instantly recognized this fellow restroom patron as the former Mayor of New York and quickly returned my gaze to my appointed task. Processing the fact that I was about to pee next to Mr. Koch distracted me from actually doing so, because what followed next was the most awkward 40 seconds of silence of my young career. As both Ed Koch and I stood there attempting to urinate, staring at our respective urinal walls, neither of us actually could. Finally breaking the silence after about forty five seconds, Mayor Koch zipped up, looked over at me, and with a wry smile said, "well, I guess I must have gotten stage fright."

Over the next few months, Mayor Koch made an effort to say hello to me, call me into his office on occasion, and share thoughts on politics, the profession, and on people. He and I shared a culinary love: Peking Duck House in Chinatown, and we referred to that love often. Beyond food, we talked about politics in New York. I recall asking him why he had switched parties to endorse Rudy Guiliani over David Dinkins, who had defeated Mayor Koch only one term prior. After all, Mayor Koch had supported Dinkins in the general election after his defeat in the primaries. Why the switch? Mayor Koch explained that Dinkins bore significant responsibility for the lawlessness of the anti-Semitic riots that raged in Crown Heights and that the riots had convinced him that Dinkins was no longer deserving of his support. The person is more important than the party, he quickly added. Having supported Guiliani in the previous election, Mayor Koch explained to me that he was pulling his support, suggesting that Guiliani's candor and tone bothered him.  The people of New York, Mr. Koch beamed, "deserved better."

When I told him about my dream of being a lawyer despite my disdain for being a paralegal, he spoke candidly about the challenges of the profession but also bullishly about its potential to protect and foster civil rights and aid in the governance of free people. "Bhijit," the Mayor told me in his New York accent, "if being a lawyer is what you want, go get it. Don't worry about your resume, just go do the best you can - nobody will fault you."  Soon after, I followed his advice and left the firm on my own journey to go to law school.

While I didn't keep in touch with Mayor Koch except to thank him after starting law school, his love for his city and the passion with which he lived his life remind me today, as they informed me in 1996, that a life worth living is born of conviction and the courage to pursue it. “How’m I doin?” he famously used to ask his constituents.  You did great, Mayor.

Rest in Peace.

Challenges Remain for FDI in Indian's Retail Sector

My friend Vikas Bajaj's article, India’s Embrace of Foreign Retailers, The New York Times, Oct. 9, 2012, touches on an important policy debate raging in India's political circles. The outcome affects much more than retail. Retailers like Walmart bring logistics and infrastructure on the back end that have far greater benefits to the country than policy makers who oppose foreign single brand retailers understand. Unlike developed countries, India desperately needs the logistics and infrastructure improvements if the country's economy is to be competitive globally.

Democratic National Convention - First Night Recap

I spent part of my evening watching the DNC's convention being held in Charlotte. The speech of the evening belonged to Governor Deval Patrick, from my home state of Massachusetts, who gave the audience the gem that Mitt Romney, as governor, was "more interested in having the job than doing the job."

I thought Governor Martin O'Malley, who was Mayor of Baltimore when I was a law clerk at the Federal Court there, was good, on point, and got his message across that America should move "forward, not back," a message that was reinforced by convention goers wielding placards.

The keynote was delivered by San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, who was the first Latino keynote speaker at a Democratic National Convention and was introduced to the convention by his twin brother who is running for US Congress.  His performance, with a touching tribute to his immigrant grandmother and mother wasn't as strong as I had expected. While his focus on investments in education as a necessary condition for future economic growth in America is on point, he didn't have the depth to really move the convention. That said, he was better than many of the speakers at least week's RNC convention in terms of audience response.

The last big speech of the evening belonged to First Lady Michelle Obama, who spoke passionately about the President and her role as a mother and First Lady. I thought she humanized both the President and the basis of his decision making, suggesting that his was a personal cause not a political one. Her tribute to her father and her emphasis on her roll as "mother in chief" as she called it, was moving.

I agree with CNN analyst and former advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton, David Gergen, that the Democrats showed up ready for prime time and are on track to handily beat the impact of last week's RNC convention if their performances continue at the current pace.  Not hard to agree with Gergen given how bad some of the RNC speeches were, including the bizarre one from Academy Award winner Clint Eastwood.

Stay tuned.

Elizabeth Warren for US Senate

I like Scott Brown.

He seems like a nice guy. But, in this age of national and global turbulence, I believe Massachusetts deserves better than nice.

Economic reform. Healthcare. Abortion. The Supreme Court. Welfare. Our basic liberties.

Nice is good. We deserve the best.

I'm with Elizabeth Warren.

Romney's Abortion Free America?

Mississippi would likely have company in being virtually abortion free if Mitt Romney were to become our next President. Political chameleons like him have no qualms about appointing more Justices like Scalia and Thomas to the Court. Is that what you really want, my fellow citizens?

The 2012 Supreme Court

See The New York Times article, US Judge Temporarily Blocks Miss. Abortion Law, for more information on how Supreme Court decisions since Roe v. Wade allowing state regulation of abortions in the first and second trimester have eroded the exercise of a woman's right to choose to safely end a pregnancy through the imposition of regulation which effectively force abortion clinics to close. The next President will likely be nominating at least one Justice to the Supreme Court, if not more. 

Obama's Bad Weed Trip

I have recently taken to the web to decry President Obama and Attorney General Holder for their misguided and overzealous enforcement of federal law in an area where both their political philosophies and latent campaign assurances did not require it. The current stance could very well lead the Roberts court to another restriction on Federal power and has already led many reasonable Californians away from Obama.

See The New York Times article, Cities Balk as Federal Law on Marijuana Is Enforced, for more information on the somewhat arbitrary enforcement of Federal law in California and the disarray it is creating in the reasonable regulation of California's medical marijuana statute.

This November's election, in which voters in several states including Colorado and Washington approved the legalization of marijuana has further heightened the conflict between federal and state laws governing pot use and possession. This interesting Seattle Police Department post entitled Marijwhatnow? A Guide to Legal Marijuana Use In Seattle further demonstrates the dilemma now faced by state officials, including police officers. Kudos to the Seattle Police for their brave position in the face of the currently enunciated federal law. To their further credit, the Seattle Police Department wrote the guide in a lighthearted manner, as noted by NPR in What Are They Smoking In Seattle? Check Out Police Dept.'s Guide To Pot Use, including a link to this Lord of the Rings clip:

Neither snow nor rain... nor default? The Postal Service faces a new hurdle

As if we haven't received enough bad news from the U.S. over the past few years, the United States Postal Service, in many ways the most approachable and frequent access point for most Americans to their federal government, is in dire condition. As reported by the New York Times  (Postal Service Is Nearing Default as Losses Mount), the USPS is near default. Saddled by a bloated employee base, federally mandated service standards that may not be relevant in today's electronic world, and declining revenues, the USPS appears to be another once proud part of the federal machinery that is simply broken.

It is hard to suggest there are easy answers. For one, postal employees and their unions will need to be flexible if there is to be a credible plan to rescue the USPS. Congress should also look at creative ways to allowing the USPS to enter fields that it has by statute been barred from in the past. That is not to suggest that we should allow the postal service to become a competitor to private businesses in a large sphere of commerce (though, based on their competitiveness vs. FedEx and UPS, other businesses in other fields have little to fear).  Creative ways to cut costs, as proposed, such as co-locating smaller post offices in supermarkets, are important, but won't create a lasting solution. Slightly lower costs with significantly lower revenues still creates a deficit.

Today's trends suggest that fewer and fewer pieces will be mailed every year going into the future. That trajectory seems clear. Clearly, there are times of the year like Christmas when the mail service sees a spike in volume.  Unlike at the Christmas Tree Shops, it isn't Christmas yearlong in the real world. With the electronic age, paper communication is a dying format. The newspaper business in the Americas faces the same decline, as do paperback books (NYT: The Dog-Eared Paperback, Newly Endangered in an E-Book Age).  As the most visible outpost of the federal government, the USPS could fashion itself as a complete portal to government affairs and communications, which it does not do very well today. Yet, even with increased purpose and renewed efficiency (assuming that is possible in such a bloated system), the postal service delivers mail and services to the vast outer reaches of the Union and many of the routes and tasks carried out by the USPS are inherently unprofitable and unlikely to ever be otherwise. 

Providing a federally subsidized mail service to Tin City, Alaska (from where former Alaska Gov. Palin might actually have been able to see Russia - see Slate's article) may simply not be of enough strategic importance to us anymore. At the heart of the matter, therefore, we need to come to a consensus on whether a federal mail service is important in this day; the electronic age -- and competition from private goods carriers -- have cast considerable doubt upon the answer. Unlike the proverbial check, the solution may just not be in the mail.

Debt Ceiling Irresponsibility

The looming crisis over the United States federal debt ceiling, which involves the amount of borrowing the United States government is allowed to undertake under the Public Debt Acts and subsequent legislation, is a crisis being perpetrated by the House of Representatives that has the potential to destabilize the global economy and permanently disfigure the credibility of the United States of America.  The Congress should immediately back away from this standoff by passing a resolution immediately raising the debt ceiling to a number that is reasonable for the next several months of federal operation until a final budget can be negotiated that sets the debt ceiling for the next year ahead.

I take further note of the incredibly irresponsible and un-statesmanlike conduct by House Speaker John A. Boehner, whose refusal to answer President Obama's phone calls yesterday is not only unbelievable but irresponsible given how constitutionally close the Speaker is to the President. It is the duty of every elected federal official to treat the office of the President with respect, regardless of policy disputes that may legitimately remain. Boehner's actions should not be condoned and are reminiscent of the breach in protocol by Rep. Joe Wilson who yelled "you lie" while President Obama was addressing a joint session of Congress in 2009.

NY Times: Debt Ceiling Talks Collapse as Boehner Walks Out, July 22, 2011

Thoughts on the Awful Carnage in Norway

The people of Norway have just experienced unbelievable carnage. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their relatives and friends at this time of great loss. It now appears that the acts of terrorism are those of a lone right-wing lunatic with anti-Islamic beliefs and domestic in nature, not the work of Islamic terrorist as first believed. That said, violence is violence; terror has no nationality or ideology. An awful day for Norway and peace loving people everywhere.

NY Times: At Least 80 Are Dead in Norway Shooting, July 23, 2011

Another heavily guarded Karzai aide killed in Afghanistan

J. M. Khan in 2002

A question all politically aware thinking people must ask themselves is what our plan for Afghanistan will and should be going forward. Last month, we saw the brazen attack on the Intercontinental hotel, one of Kabul's nicest and most fortified. Earlier this week, President Hamid Karzai's brother was gunned down at home by his own guard. Today, we get news that one of Karzai's closest aides, Jan Mohammed Khan, was killed a few hours ago.  As outsiders, we cannot know if the money, effort, and blood that the international community has committed to "fixing" or "containing" Afghanistan is actually doing anything close to what we hope or need. However, if we are to use these events as proxies for what is happening in the country, the story may indeed be bleaker than any of us fear to imagine. If Karzai's own brother and top aides are not safe, who in the country is and what has all our investment in creating order out of lawlessness actually done?

NY Times: Karzai Adviser Is Killed at Kabul Home, July 17, 2011

The United States, China and the Dalai Lama

The risks of running up huge foreign debt as a nation is that your moral compass as a people gets unduly influenced by the magnetic field of money.

NY Times: Dalai Lama and Obama Meet to Talk About Tibet, July 16, 2011

Thoughts on yet another Mumbai terrorist attack

The citizens of Mumbai have seen this before.  Bombs, Bombay, and terrorism against this big bustling city that just takes it and moves on has become a recurrent theme. While the year 2003 was an especially bad year for explosions in the city, terrorism has hit with alarming frequency and with little or no opposition from India's military or intelligence operation. Just over five years ago to the day, on July 11, more than 1,000 people were killed or injured from seven coordinated bombs in the city. Who can forget the terrorist attacks of the 26th of November, 2008? Surely not Ajmal Kasab, the lone surviving gunman of the 2008 attack, who celebrated his birthday today. Did anyone in the intelligence apparatus of India know it was Kasab's birthday today? Did anyone have even one conversation about whether someone might use the date to plan attack? Did anyone care? Probably not.

So what do we do about all this terror, death and destruction? What can we do? While there is no one answer to solving terrorism, one thing is quite clear: India's government, politicians and public institutions have failed their people. Government is instituted by people to ensure, at a minimum, the common peace.  India's government, with rather striking universality across its many states and cities, has failed to deliver clean water, roads, and air. But those are relative luxuries, it would appear. India has also failed in its basic duty to protect its citizens against attacks, both foreign and domestic. Whether it is a completely failed response to terrorism that happens nearly weekly in the northeast states, or the internationally publicized attacks in Mumbai like those of earlier today, India's politicians are more interested in pointing their many fingers at Pakistan than in trying to make their people safer.

Zaveri Bazar, which has been hit before by terrorist blasts, had no improved infrastructure, no CCTV monitoring, no bomb detection or prevention methods. In fact, with the exception of the haphazard approach taken by hotels in Mumbai, nowhere in the city will you find any coordinated approach implemented by the government to prevent, deter, monitor, or detect the type of terrorism that the city regularly now faces.

The politicians will make bold and impassioned speeches tomorrow. They will point fingers. They will appeal for the public's strength, unity and determination. The next day, they will return to business as usual, as will the amazingly forgiving and tolerant public that elevates these politicians to power every year. Bribes will be paid, favors will be handed out. Scams will be hatched, public tax revenue will be squandered. Yet, sadly, nobody will do anything to make it even a touch less likely that today's attacks won't be the same as tomorrow's ones.

The brave citizens behind the Public Concern for Governance Trust have long advocated for better governance in India. It is time to head their calls. It is indeed time for the people to stand up, not just to the debased humans that perpetrate these acts of violence, but also to the politicians that allow them to continue to feast on an unfettered buffet of terrorist opportunity.

What do Ron Paul, Jimmy Carter and Barney Frank have in common? Drugs!

In the days of divided American politics in which we find ourselves living, it is a rare issue that brings politicians on opposite ends of the political spectrum together to co-sponsor legislation. Somewhat surprisingly, federal control over marijuana happens to be just such an issue.

Last week, former President Jimmy Carter wrote a insightful Op-Ed piece in the New York Times urging the administration to call off the American led war on drugs launched under the the Nixon administration and reaffirmed by President Reagan. President Carter made reference to the "courageous and profoundly important recommendations" made by the Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes as its members former Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, former US Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, entrepreneur and Virgin founder Richard Branson, and former Presidents Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico), César Gaviria (Colombia), and Fernando Henrique Cardoso (Brazil). At its core, the Commission concluded that the "global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." While the finding is harsh, it is indeed hard to conclude otherwise.

The principal recommendation made by the Commission is that governments "end the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others." This is a sensible recommendation that should be adopted. The escalation in rates of incarceration for non violent drug offenders is absurd. When President Carter left office in 1980, about a half million prisoners inhabited American jails. Today, nearly five times as many people are incarcerated and according to President Carter, the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses has increasing more than twelvefold since he left office.

I recall a conversation I had with my judge, the Hon. Benson Everett Legg, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, about a few policy issues related to drug sentencing. Judge Legg, who had seen many federal drug cases by the time I clerked with him in 2000 and has undoubtedly seen many more, shared his frustrations regarding the effectiveness of federal drug prosecutions. According to the judge, as soon as federal or state prosecutors cleared one Baltimore street corner of a drug dealer, another would surely pop up nearby. The inner city simply lacked opportunities for the young (and predominantly African American) men who were being convicted of selling drugs to the suburban (and predominantly white) consumers of those drugs. Supply and Demand 101: where there is demand, a supply will be available. These were not the musings of a liberal Democrat but rather a moderate to conservative jurist who had once been prominent in the Maryland Republican party. Judge Legg's views are hardly unique, however. Many federal judges are frustrated with drug policy and sentencing in the United States. (See generally articles in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the Sentencing Project and salon.com)

Judge Legg's observations about Federal drug prosecutions on the streets of Baltimore back in 2000 are mirrored in the Commission's findings that "apparent victories in eliminating one source or trafficking organization are negated almost instantly by the emergence of other sources and traffickers." The futility of the war on drugs on the streets of the US and the amazing surge in the number of people in U.S. prisons and the phenomenal incarceration costs thereof represent the tip of the drug policy iceberg. As President Carter and the Commission note, a growing number of Latin American countries have witnessed an appalling surge in drug-related violence, corruption and gross violations of human rights as a result of the US led and funded war on drugs.

Against this backdrop, Reps. Barney Frank (D), a Massachusetts liberal, and Ron Paul (R), a Texas libertarian, who are often not on the same page on policy matters, will introduce a bill in the House today that would effectively end most federal control over marijuana by deferring to individual states on such matters and only invoking federal authority in cases involving cross-border or inter-state smuggling. If passed, the bill would allow individuals to grow, use or sell marijuana in states where it is legal. While the bill is not a legalization measure, it represents a solid and wise first step in the rationalization of federal drug policy.

I have long endorsed liberalization of drug policy, especially with regard to cannabis, and I welcome this most recent, even if long-shot attempt to do just that. To sign a petition to your member of Congress urging his or her support for the Frank/Paul legislation, please click here.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, 1928 - 2011

Dr. Jack Kevorkian Dies at 83; A Doctor Who Helped End Lives
(NY Times)

I met Dr. Kevorkian through one of my closest friends at Michigan Law School, Nick Holmes, who along with his mother and sister were close friends of Dr. Kevorkian. Nick's mother and sister were integral parts of Dr. Kevorkian's legal team and were important in his several acquittals. I only met Dr. Kevorkian twice, once on the campus of the University of Michigan and once for Thanksgiving dinner at the Holmes residence. He was a brilliant man whose compassion and love for human dignity are made even more ironic by the "Dr. Death" title that the media gave him. I weeped for him the day of his conviction (though we all agreed that he had made several strategic and tactical errors in the positioning and defense of the Youk case) and felt such joy the day he was finally released.

Until I met Jack, I was unsure of how I felt about medically assisted suicide. My professor in law school, Yale Kamisar, is a leading advocate against the right to die. And while I think there are compelling arguments on both sides, I have come to conclude that the right to die with dignity is as fundamental as the right to live. If my difficulties with doctors and the medical system, as an able bodied middle-age man is any example, I can't imagine being afflicted with a terminal disease and in constant pain and at the mercy of an uncaring doctor and medical system. Dr. Kevorkian, was right.

Jack, the world never understood you but is better as a result of your brave and tireless work on behalf of those who were too weak to advocate for dignity, even in death. May you live in eternal peace.

For the NY Times obituary, please click here.

It's time for sensible drug legislation

The movement in the Netherlands to reverse its leadership in the area of sensible drug laws compels me to again support drug legislation reform in the United States. I hope some of you will join me on the Founders Wall at the CCPR.


To contribute to the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, please click here.
For news updates on the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform, please click here.

For an NY times article on the most recent movement in the Netherlands, click here.

Just Another Victim of 9-11...

My mom's long time colleague and fellow Sociology Professor, Shirley Kolack, was married to Sol Kolack, the New England Director of the Anti-Defamation League. Sol, who passed away a few years ago at age 80 but whose image and principles are still vivid in my memory, stood for everything this inexplicable decision by the ADL does not: equality in law and culture for all religions and faiths. (Debate Heating Up on Plans for Mosque Near Ground Zero, New York Times, July 30, 2010)

While I can understand and appreciate a desire to be sensitive to the families of the nearly 3,000 victims forever lost at the site, we have to remember that the attack itself was committed by radical Muslim extremists against us and our way of life, which includes at its core religious pluralism and diversity. The hundred or so Muslims who also died in the attacks, who make up about a percent of the victims, and the families who loved them should not be forgotten.

Abraham H. Foxman's decision to endorse the Palin/Gingrich position opposing a Islamic Center near ground zero goes far beyond the professed goal of being sensitive to the majority of the victims and approaches the realm of religious intolerance that the ADL was formed to fight. Kudos to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, for standing up for the principle of religious freedom, which may have just become another sad victim of that horrible day in 2001.

This is not the time to bail on General Motors...

While the debate about whether the government should bail out Detroit rests on largely theoretical grounds, the failure of General Motors in this economy would have a significant and sustained negative impact on the nation's industrial base. Some argue that saving General Motors is merely a stop gap measure to prop up an ailing industry giant that cannot ever again emerge as a world leader. While there is some evidence to support the contention, I would argue that General Motors can and will emerge as a strong player in the global marketplace. It should certainly be given some help to attempt such a recovery.

As a car buff for nearly the last thirty plus years, I have often been a critic of Detroit and its ailing car makers. The early eighties saw the atrocious Cadillac Cimarron, a compact car built upon GM's J platform. Unfortunately, the Cimarron was nothing but a Chevrolet Cavalier with a Cadillac badge. Years of such antics did not help General Motors compete with the Japanese and German automakers, who continued steadily towards technologically advanced vehicles that were aesthetically pleasing, reliable and safe. GM's mandate has not always been to build world class cars without regard to other considerations. In fact, General Motors, like much of the US industrial base, has been hamstrung by prehistoric union arrangements that have kept labor and medical costs astronomically high. It is hard to build a world class car when nearly $2,000 of every car you build pays for entitlement programs for past and current employees. The market may have wanted GM to change, but its past often did not allow for it. Surely unions did not account for all of GM's woes, and management shares significant culpability, but organized labor did play an important role in where GM is today.

Remember $19 car rentals at Avis, Hertz and Budget in most markets? Those rates did not come easily. They came from years of Detroit's subsidization of auto rental companies, which served as repositories for vehicles the markets could not and would not absorb. GM and other domestic auto producers needed to manufacture those vehicles to finance and pay for the massive labor and health care entitlement program obligations they had accumulated over time. Despite its baggage, over the past two years, General Motors has made significant strides to returning to a respectable position amongst global auto makers. Transformation of an industry that for years served as a jobs bank for nearly three percent of the US labor force cannot happen overnight. First must come products, which after a drought of nearly a decade, have come to GM. Products like the new Cadillac Escalade, the 2008 Cadillac CTS Sedan, the Chevy Corvette, and the 2008 Chevy Malibu are vehicles that can compete on a global scale. The upcoming Chevrolet Volt, and the re-engineering of the energy supply for consumer vehicles that comes with it, will put GM and America in a strong position for automotive leadership. The problem is time. GM needs more of it, and so does America. The aid that GM needs can come in the form of legislative assistance through revision of "closed shop" rules in certain states, it can come in the form of incentives for new products, and it can come in the form of tax incentives and loan guarantees. I haved argued that all of them will be needed in some form or another.

No strong industrialized global economy currently exists without a healthy or emerging automotive industry. Manufacturing in Germany and much of continental Europe has survived on the wings of Daimler-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo, Fiat and Renault for years. England's manufacturing fortunes, once uplifted by Rover and Jaguar, have waned as those brands were acquired and traded. Japan and Korea all have growing automotive industries and China and India are waiting in the wings with domestic offerings of their own. America cannot afford to lose the industrial base that auto manufacturing provides. Perhaps never, but definitely not now.

We also cannot risk the industry on the theory that foreign automakers will somehow fill in the gap left by the US companies. The retooling and re-engineering required to allow suppliers who service GM, Chrysler and Ford to serve purely foreign manufacturers will take years, not months, and will spread the "rust belt" well into America's manufacturing heartland. Millions of US jobs are vested in the hundreds of automotive suppliers that feed the big three. In this case, the sum is significantly greater than all of its parts. I hope the current outgoing Congress will show leadership on this issue and give GM and its ailing siblings the loan guarantees and aid they need to continue the transformation of America's important auto industry from an outdated jobs bank into a potent force for global automotive leadership.

For another viewpoint, see Mitt Romney's article in the New York Times.

Barack Obama for President

Dear Friends,

As most of you have known for some time, my frustration with the political process stems not from a belief that it does not work, but rather that those who share the center-liberal leaning beliefs that I do have accepted political defeat as a necessary condition. Some have argued that our leaders don't materially affect our lives while others feel that any impact is offset by the hassle involved in exercising one's ability to make a choice. This proposition, though wrong today as in the past, must now be totally banished from our thoughts.

In 2000, we watched Al Gore and Joe Lieberman go down to defeat. In 2002 and 2004, we watched as George Bush's political machinery gained momentum by convincing enough people that the external threat from global terrorism warranted changing our entire way of life. Over the following several years, we watched as Bush, his allies and handlers ran roughshod over our way of life and the great American constitutional system that put up as much resistance as it was designed to present. I remember watching in horror from London as the election results from 2004 came again. Much like 2000, moderates and liberals had lost their voices at the most critical time. Little did I know that the damage Bush would inflict on America would be as severe as it has turned out to be.

Since those two elections, with the events of 9-11 as his own personal weapon of mass destruction, George Bush and his forces have systematically reduced our constitutional protections one by one. Most of us watched this happen, constantly deferring meaningful opposition to some later day.

Well, my dear friends, we no longer have the luxury to defer the expression of our political will. Please join me in supporting Democrat Barack Obama in the quest to regain America. Let us allow our political will to launch a movement: a movement to restore human rights and the protections of the Bill of Rights, a movement to ensure opportunity for all Americans, and perhaps most importantly, a movement to return America to its rightful place as a beacon for hope and opportunity for all of mankind.

Please make a contribution today and join me in helping elect Barack Obama as our next President of the United States. To make a donation, please click on the following link: DONATE NOW.

Thanks,
Beej