I don't know who told American police that they are supposed to behave like Rambo - smashing down doors, tasering a 68-year-old retiree who is yelling that he's okay and telling them to go away, handcuffing and arresting a 7-year-old girl because she was out of control in a primary school room - the examples are too numerous to be treated as aberrations.
Are American police being so routinely trained to go after the Taliban and al-Qaida and they forget that in most American cities these terrorists just don't exist - and certainly not in the form of 7-year-old girls and 68-year-old ex-Marines. Their gear looks like something out of a recent computer-generated action film and their actions follow suit.
And, I also don't know who has told the media that the police are only doing their job and trying to prevent being sued later if they don't follow the Rambo techniques right up to causing the death of a citizen.
Well...I probably could make a good guess who is responsible for the police violence and over-reacting that precipitates the media's explanations. It is undoubtedly the justice system - lawyers who are trying to adjust their advice to court rulings that defy common sense. I can say that because I'm a lawyer. And lawyers are as honorable as the next guy, but something has gotten way out of balance.
Was it the Miranda ruling that gives suspects the right to remain silent or was it the brutality of some of the modern gulag style killings by deranged outlaws who ought to be in prison and out of society's view forever or was it simply the fact that modern warfare and the high tech equipment that goes with it has made police more dangerous, sometimes, than the suspects they are pursuing?
I don't know the answer, and I'm sure you don't either.
But, I do know that no 7-year-old girl ought to handcuffed and arrested - never - not for any reason. Children who misbehave - even violently - can be subdued by adults - police if the school administrators and teachers are afraid to act for fear of being sued.
And, I know that a 68-year-old man was terrorized, tasered, and killed because he had been ill and thought he needed medical help. What he got was a SWAT team looking for bin Laden - and like bin Laden - he was gunned down, not as bin Laden was, correctly, by troops who were looking for the terrorist and found him. The American was gunned down by a domestic bunch of armed hoodlums who don't know the difference between helping someone in need and going after a terrorist.
Something needs to be done, and quickly.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
French Poll Shows Hollande in Lead
The latest French poll, taken after last night's debate, shows that Francois Hollande has a lead over Nicolas Sarkozy, 53% to 47%.
In addition, the centrist leader, Francois Bayrou, has said that he will vote for Hollande but that he will give no instructions to his party members, most of whom are center-right by conviction. This is a very risky move for Bayrou, but we can discuss that another day.
Today, President Sarkozy gave a rousing patriotic address to 10,000 supporters in the southern French city of Toulon. His speech set out in stark terms the differences between his vision of France and the vision of Hollande - controlled immigration, careful budgets, reduction of the national debt, creation of private sector jobs, tax relief for those who work and contribute to the French economy and culture.
Hollande also spoke to a large crowd of supporters in toulouse. His vision includes adding 60,000 public sector jobs, keeping the flood gates open to both illegal and legal immigrants, local voting rights for non-citizens, taxing the very wealthy at a 75% rate, placing price controls on petroleum products and paying the difference between the controlled price and the market price with tax dollars.
The difference is real and will either keep France on a footing to continue its leadership in Europe if Sarkozy is elected, or drive the French economy into the tailspin that the 14 years of the Socialist Mitterrand government produced, which this time around would mean a lowering of the French credit rating and higher costs when the government borrows its operating funds.
Sunday we will know which direction France will take for the next five years. I only hope the French electorate thinks long and hard before taking the short term easy road offered by Francois Hollande and his Socialist allies in the big labor unions.
In addition, the centrist leader, Francois Bayrou, has said that he will vote for Hollande but that he will give no instructions to his party members, most of whom are center-right by conviction. This is a very risky move for Bayrou, but we can discuss that another day.
Today, President Sarkozy gave a rousing patriotic address to 10,000 supporters in the southern French city of Toulon. His speech set out in stark terms the differences between his vision of France and the vision of Hollande - controlled immigration, careful budgets, reduction of the national debt, creation of private sector jobs, tax relief for those who work and contribute to the French economy and culture.
Hollande also spoke to a large crowd of supporters in toulouse. His vision includes adding 60,000 public sector jobs, keeping the flood gates open to both illegal and legal immigrants, local voting rights for non-citizens, taxing the very wealthy at a 75% rate, placing price controls on petroleum products and paying the difference between the controlled price and the market price with tax dollars.
The difference is real and will either keep France on a footing to continue its leadership in Europe if Sarkozy is elected, or drive the French economy into the tailspin that the 14 years of the Socialist Mitterrand government produced, which this time around would mean a lowering of the French credit rating and higher costs when the government borrows its operating funds.
Sunday we will know which direction France will take for the next five years. I only hope the French electorate thinks long and hard before taking the short term easy road offered by Francois Hollande and his Socialist allies in the big labor unions.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
The French Presidential Debate
The long-awaited French presidential debate took place Wednesday evening. The Socialist Francois Hollande sat across the table from French President Nicolas Sarkozy for three hours of questions posed by two journalists who had some trouble keeping the debate on an even keel. It was ferociously hot and unpleasant most of the time between the two candidates.
Hollande won the toss and went first in the answer sessions. His first two minutes were filled with telling the TV audience that he would correct Sarkozy’s errors and unify the French people as Sarkozy had not done, repeating several times that Sarkozy was seen by the French as divisive and supportive only of conservative issues and the rich.
Sarkozy answered by accusing Hollande of talking about unity but really being the voice of the Left and its powerful French labor unions.
In what was often a technical debate on national finances, President Sarkozy also hit home the fact that his term had seen no recessions (unique in the EU, since 2009, he added) and that he had actually reduced France’s national debt.
Hollande struck back with the idea that Sarkozy’s government had allowed the unemployment rate in France to increase from 5% to 10% since 2008. Sarkozy repeated that the world financial crisis was mostly responsible for that and that, again, France had done better than the 18% unemployment average rate now existent in the EU.
After much bickering about figures and results, the two men finally moved on to other topics, but left the impression that Sarkozy is interested in containing the national debt and keeping expenses reasonably low to support France’s position in the financial world so that it can continue to borrow the funds it needs to operate. Hollande seemed more interested in creating government jobs and spending money to keep the French people from suffering in the current world crisis. Sarkozy answered consistently that these ideas are just what got Spain and Greece into such financial trouble.
When Hollande attacked Sarkozy’s tax policies, which rebated a percentage of taxes paid over 50% back to taxpayers, Sarkozy said, “you are for fewer rich but I am for fewer poor…” suggesting that his tax policies stimulate business and therefore increase employment opportunities. Hollande wants to impose a 75% tax on people who have incomes of more than 1 million Euros per year.
Sarkozy repeated several times that, in trying to prove what is not true, Hollande resorted to lying, something later commentators saw as a risk for Sarkozy.
Hollande, in turn, said that Sarkozy was blaming the financial crisis and others for everything that was wrong with his government. Sarkozy countered that the Socialist Party in the National Assembly had voted against every bill brought to the floor by Sarkozy’s conservative government, and so they should not complain if things went against their wishes.
For me, dear readers, the real news of the evening was in the attitude and comportment of Hollande and Sarkozy.
President Sarkozy politely called his opponent ‘Monsieur Hollande’ all evening. Hollande never used Sarkozy’s name, something rather disrespectful in French culture.
Sarkozy’s use of the word ‘liar’ was nevertheless harsh in a presidential debate. A later analyst pointed out that the last time such a term was used was in 1988 in the Mitterrand-Chirac debate, and it was considered shocking back then.
But, again for me personally, the attitude of Francois Hollande was one of impoliteness. He never adhered to his time limits. He constantly interrupted Sarkozy when Sarkozy was trying to give his answers. He talked over the journalists trying to restore order when he spoke out of turn, and, finally, even during Sarkozy’s two-minute summary, Hollande interrupted and was rebuked by the journalists. President Sarkozy was silent while Hollande gave his summary.
The last poll before the debate showed Hollande at 54% and Sarkozy at 46%. There will surely be another poll tomorrow or Friday.
After that, it will be up to the French voters to decide on Sunday who will live in the Elysée Palace for the next five years.
Hollande won the toss and went first in the answer sessions. His first two minutes were filled with telling the TV audience that he would correct Sarkozy’s errors and unify the French people as Sarkozy had not done, repeating several times that Sarkozy was seen by the French as divisive and supportive only of conservative issues and the rich.
Sarkozy answered by accusing Hollande of talking about unity but really being the voice of the Left and its powerful French labor unions.
In what was often a technical debate on national finances, President Sarkozy also hit home the fact that his term had seen no recessions (unique in the EU, since 2009, he added) and that he had actually reduced France’s national debt.
Hollande struck back with the idea that Sarkozy’s government had allowed the unemployment rate in France to increase from 5% to 10% since 2008. Sarkozy repeated that the world financial crisis was mostly responsible for that and that, again, France had done better than the 18% unemployment average rate now existent in the EU.
After much bickering about figures and results, the two men finally moved on to other topics, but left the impression that Sarkozy is interested in containing the national debt and keeping expenses reasonably low to support France’s position in the financial world so that it can continue to borrow the funds it needs to operate. Hollande seemed more interested in creating government jobs and spending money to keep the French people from suffering in the current world crisis. Sarkozy answered consistently that these ideas are just what got Spain and Greece into such financial trouble.
When Hollande attacked Sarkozy’s tax policies, which rebated a percentage of taxes paid over 50% back to taxpayers, Sarkozy said, “you are for fewer rich but I am for fewer poor…” suggesting that his tax policies stimulate business and therefore increase employment opportunities. Hollande wants to impose a 75% tax on people who have incomes of more than 1 million Euros per year.
Sarkozy repeated several times that, in trying to prove what is not true, Hollande resorted to lying, something later commentators saw as a risk for Sarkozy.
Hollande, in turn, said that Sarkozy was blaming the financial crisis and others for everything that was wrong with his government. Sarkozy countered that the Socialist Party in the National Assembly had voted against every bill brought to the floor by Sarkozy’s conservative government, and so they should not complain if things went against their wishes.
For me, dear readers, the real news of the evening was in the attitude and comportment of Hollande and Sarkozy.
President Sarkozy politely called his opponent ‘Monsieur Hollande’ all evening. Hollande never used Sarkozy’s name, something rather disrespectful in French culture.
Sarkozy’s use of the word ‘liar’ was nevertheless harsh in a presidential debate. A later analyst pointed out that the last time such a term was used was in 1988 in the Mitterrand-Chirac debate, and it was considered shocking back then.
But, again for me personally, the attitude of Francois Hollande was one of impoliteness. He never adhered to his time limits. He constantly interrupted Sarkozy when Sarkozy was trying to give his answers. He talked over the journalists trying to restore order when he spoke out of turn, and, finally, even during Sarkozy’s two-minute summary, Hollande interrupted and was rebuked by the journalists. President Sarkozy was silent while Hollande gave his summary.
The last poll before the debate showed Hollande at 54% and Sarkozy at 46%. There will surely be another poll tomorrow or Friday.
After that, it will be up to the French voters to decide on Sunday who will live in the Elysée Palace for the next five years.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Senator Rubio's Immigration Effort
Florida’s Republican Senator Marco Rubio is taking the immigration issue to a level not seen in American politics before.
His idea - to propose an alternative to the Dream Act that would legalize certain young people who came to the US while they were children and grant non-immigrant visas so qualified young people could remain in the United States for college or to serve in the military - has not yet become a bill in the Senate, but his approach to drafting it is certainly out of the box for a GOP Senator.
Rubio asked for the help of Gaby Pacheco, a 27-year-old immigrant activist who did not rule out working with Senator Rubio.
Just hours after Pacheco had been approached by Rubio, she was called by the White House, along with other activists, to meet with President Obama’s top advisors on immigration issues. They were told to beware of the GOP and Rubio. Pacheco’s answer: “We’re not married to the Democratic or Republican parties....We’re going to push what’s best for the community.”
These events illustrate how the new effort by Rubio has changed the immigration debate in Washington, exposing the strains in both parties as Obama and the GOP try to master the issue that could sway the crucial Hispanic vote in November.
In recent weeks, Rubio has quietly approached other immigrant advocates who are usually White House allies but who are frustrated with some of the President’s policies.
Some of the activists say they are open to Rubio’s effort, even though it would not include a citizenship path provision like that in the Democratic-backed Dream Act because Rubio’s idea would at least provide current relief to people who risk being deported.
The dilemma is real for President Obama. If he continues to treat Senator Rubio’s efforts as merely trying to paper over the GOP’s primary debates on illegal immigrants that tarnished the party’s image with Hispanics, Obama runs the risk of alienating the very group he hopes to have in his corner come November.
The President has painted himself as the best friend the Hispanic community has, yet his bill is going nowhere and his administration has deported more than 1 million illegal immigrants, while the Hispanic community is being courted by GOP Senator Rubio, one of their own, to help in crafting a bill that would give them relief and make the GOP look a whole lot better in their eyes.
Granted the Dream Act is stalled in the House where GOP members do not agree with its “path to citizenship” provision, but the GOP may put the Rubio bill on the table before November and ask Democrats in the Senate to compromise so that some forward movement on this difficult issue can be made.
That would put the White House and Obama in a tough spot - refuse Rubio’s compromise and look like the party that opposes immigration reform, or sign and be painted as unable to do anything on their own, relying on the GOP House for leadership. Not a happy position for an incumbent Democratic President in an election year.
For now, the White House is saying that it is impossible to fully judge Rubio’s plan until it is submitted in writing as a bill.
But, it is not just the President who has a problem. GOP standard bearer Mitt Romney took very conservative positions on illegal immigration in his primary battles in order win conservative GOP votes. Now, he will have to decide whether to risk agreeing with Rubio’s approach and chance alienating these GOP voters or refuse Rubio’s ideas and seem to be against an election issue critical for the Hispanic community.
Romney has acknowledged the Rubio effort, saying “I’m taking a look at his proposal....It has many features to commend it, but it’s something that we’re studying.”
Meanwhile, Rubio is talking to conservative GOP voters and media leaders to ask that they hold off on attacking his ideas until he can present a finished product in the form of a bill.
Conservatives have blasted Rubio’s idea as an amnesty, while some Democrats have dismissed the effort by Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who was elected to the US Senate in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative after taking conservative positions on illegal immigration, saying that he is trying to create a second class of Americans, permitted to live in the United States but unable to achieve full citizenship.
But, Rubio’s effort seems to be driving a wedge between Obama and his unhappy Hispanic supporters.
Rubio has conferred with leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, including Illinois Democrat Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, a vocal critic of Obama’s deportation policies and Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, one of the country’s important Hispanic advocacy groups. “It’s clear that there wouldn’t be an effort to be talking about this right now if it weren’t for Senator Rubio engaging on this,” Murguia said.
Rubio’s outreach to Pacheco, brought to the United States illegally when she was 8, and other young undocumented immigrants, came after they had been unsuccessfully asking for months to meet with Obama. The Senator called Pacheco on her cell phone and they talked for half an hour. He later met with an activist group at Miami-Dade College. “He said, ‘If you feel at any point that this is something you guys cannot support, let me know,’ ” according to Pacheco.
The President meanwhile, has had some rough going in recent weeks, including tense encounters between top White House aides and Hispanic leaders, who are asking that the President sign an executive order preventing the deportations of anyone who would qualify for the Dream Act path to citizenship. In one meeting between Congressional Hispanic Caucus members and White House domestic policy adviser Cecilia Munoz, California Democrat Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard grew so frustrated that she walked out, according to sources familiar with the encounter.
The White House has told Hispanic activists that Rubio has not demonstrated he could win support from fellow Republicans and that the President would push an immigration plan next year if re-elected.
But Pacheco, who is still undocumented after graduating from college, said Obama should see the situation as more urgent. “We’re at a point of desperation, at a point where we cannot continue to live the way we’ve been living,” she said.
As for Senator Rubio, one thing seems clear. He actually understands what being a US Senator is all about - taking on tough issues, talking to everyone about them, finding compromises and selling them to key players and the public.
His idea - to propose an alternative to the Dream Act that would legalize certain young people who came to the US while they were children and grant non-immigrant visas so qualified young people could remain in the United States for college or to serve in the military - has not yet become a bill in the Senate, but his approach to drafting it is certainly out of the box for a GOP Senator.
Rubio asked for the help of Gaby Pacheco, a 27-year-old immigrant activist who did not rule out working with Senator Rubio.
Just hours after Pacheco had been approached by Rubio, she was called by the White House, along with other activists, to meet with President Obama’s top advisors on immigration issues. They were told to beware of the GOP and Rubio. Pacheco’s answer: “We’re not married to the Democratic or Republican parties....We’re going to push what’s best for the community.”
These events illustrate how the new effort by Rubio has changed the immigration debate in Washington, exposing the strains in both parties as Obama and the GOP try to master the issue that could sway the crucial Hispanic vote in November.
In recent weeks, Rubio has quietly approached other immigrant advocates who are usually White House allies but who are frustrated with some of the President’s policies.
Some of the activists say they are open to Rubio’s effort, even though it would not include a citizenship path provision like that in the Democratic-backed Dream Act because Rubio’s idea would at least provide current relief to people who risk being deported.
The dilemma is real for President Obama. If he continues to treat Senator Rubio’s efforts as merely trying to paper over the GOP’s primary debates on illegal immigrants that tarnished the party’s image with Hispanics, Obama runs the risk of alienating the very group he hopes to have in his corner come November.
The President has painted himself as the best friend the Hispanic community has, yet his bill is going nowhere and his administration has deported more than 1 million illegal immigrants, while the Hispanic community is being courted by GOP Senator Rubio, one of their own, to help in crafting a bill that would give them relief and make the GOP look a whole lot better in their eyes.
Granted the Dream Act is stalled in the House where GOP members do not agree with its “path to citizenship” provision, but the GOP may put the Rubio bill on the table before November and ask Democrats in the Senate to compromise so that some forward movement on this difficult issue can be made.
That would put the White House and Obama in a tough spot - refuse Rubio’s compromise and look like the party that opposes immigration reform, or sign and be painted as unable to do anything on their own, relying on the GOP House for leadership. Not a happy position for an incumbent Democratic President in an election year.
For now, the White House is saying that it is impossible to fully judge Rubio’s plan until it is submitted in writing as a bill.
But, it is not just the President who has a problem. GOP standard bearer Mitt Romney took very conservative positions on illegal immigration in his primary battles in order win conservative GOP votes. Now, he will have to decide whether to risk agreeing with Rubio’s approach and chance alienating these GOP voters or refuse Rubio’s ideas and seem to be against an election issue critical for the Hispanic community.
Romney has acknowledged the Rubio effort, saying “I’m taking a look at his proposal....It has many features to commend it, but it’s something that we’re studying.”
Meanwhile, Rubio is talking to conservative GOP voters and media leaders to ask that they hold off on attacking his ideas until he can present a finished product in the form of a bill.
Conservatives have blasted Rubio’s idea as an amnesty, while some Democrats have dismissed the effort by Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants who was elected to the US Senate in 2010 as a Tea Party conservative after taking conservative positions on illegal immigration, saying that he is trying to create a second class of Americans, permitted to live in the United States but unable to achieve full citizenship.
But, Rubio’s effort seems to be driving a wedge between Obama and his unhappy Hispanic supporters.
Rubio has conferred with leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, including Illinois Democrat Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, a vocal critic of Obama’s deportation policies and Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, one of the country’s important Hispanic advocacy groups. “It’s clear that there wouldn’t be an effort to be talking about this right now if it weren’t for Senator Rubio engaging on this,” Murguia said.
Rubio’s outreach to Pacheco, brought to the United States illegally when she was 8, and other young undocumented immigrants, came after they had been unsuccessfully asking for months to meet with Obama. The Senator called Pacheco on her cell phone and they talked for half an hour. He later met with an activist group at Miami-Dade College. “He said, ‘If you feel at any point that this is something you guys cannot support, let me know,’ ” according to Pacheco.
The President meanwhile, has had some rough going in recent weeks, including tense encounters between top White House aides and Hispanic leaders, who are asking that the President sign an executive order preventing the deportations of anyone who would qualify for the Dream Act path to citizenship. In one meeting between Congressional Hispanic Caucus members and White House domestic policy adviser Cecilia Munoz, California Democrat Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard grew so frustrated that she walked out, according to sources familiar with the encounter.
The White House has told Hispanic activists that Rubio has not demonstrated he could win support from fellow Republicans and that the President would push an immigration plan next year if re-elected.
But Pacheco, who is still undocumented after graduating from college, said Obama should see the situation as more urgent. “We’re at a point of desperation, at a point where we cannot continue to live the way we’ve been living,” she said.
As for Senator Rubio, one thing seems clear. He actually understands what being a US Senator is all about - taking on tough issues, talking to everyone about them, finding compromises and selling them to key players and the public.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)