New York and Supreme Court Bruen Decision

In the Bruen decision the Supreme Court rejected New York's "may issue" concealed carry gun licensing standard. The decision's text is here. New York had required concealed carry applicants to demonstrate "good character" and a "proper cause". There were no appeals. So if the local police liked you they might let you have a concealed carry permit. 

But if the local police didn't like you, for any reason, good or bad, legal or not, you couldn't get a concealed carry permit.

To put this into historical context consider that in 1956 Alabama Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a concealed carry permit after his house was firebombed by white segregationists. Alabama in 1956, just like New York until recently, had a "proper cause" standard. 

Because local authorities in 1956 Alabama were inevitably either supportive of or the same white segregationists who were firebombing and shooting Black people, they unsurprisingly denied MLK's application. Similarly New York's gun licensing standards disproportionately denied Black would be concealed carry applicants. 

Brooklyn Museum Hiring Fracas

The Brooklyn Museum recently hired a white woman to be its curator of African Art. Some people didn't like this hiring decision, to put it mildly. 

A recent decision by the Brooklyn Museum to hire a white person as an African art consulting curator has prompted opposition on social media and from an anti-gentrification activist group that argues the selection perpetuated “ongoing legacies of oppression.” In response to a letter from the group that stated its concerns, Anne Pasternak, the director of the Brooklyn Museum, said in a statement on Friday that the museum “unequivocally” stood by its selection of Kristen Windmuller-Luna for the position. “We were deeply dismayed when the conversation about this appointment turned to personal attacks on this individual,” Ms. Pasternak said. 

She also extolled the expertise of Dr. Windmuller-Luna, calling her an “extraordinary candidate with stellar qualifications.” Dr. Windmuller-Luna, 31, has Ph.D. and M.A. degrees from Princeton, and a bachelor’s degree in the history of art from Yale. She has worked at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Princeton University Art Museum and the Neuberger Museum of Art in Purchase, N.Y. Her appointment to the Brooklyn Museum was announced late last month.

In its letter earlier this week, the activist group Decolonize This Place called the museum’s selection of Dr. Windmuller-Luna “tone-deaf” and said that “no matter how one parses it, the appointment is simply not a good look in this day and age.”

“Seriously, @brooklynmuseum? There goes the neighborhood for good,” opined Philadelphia journalist Ernest Owens on Twitter.

Unintended Consequences: New York Lesbian Mothers and Kansas Conservatives

By the time I was a teen my father no longer practiced corporal punishment on me. He thought it was no longer effective on me and disrespectful to both of us. However one of his favorite sayings when he thought I (or anyone else regardless of age or relationship) was about to do something ill-advised was to throw up his hands and declare "You can do whatever you want to do. You're (almost) grown." Left unsaid was the sentence "But don't come crying to me when it doesn't work out, dummy!" I've adopted that saying and use it often. I was reminded of this advice while reading two stories concerning recent events in New York and Kansas. In each instance, policy changes that were implemented have proven to have some consequences which were either not fully anticipated (New York) or were the exact opposite of what was promised (Kansas). This doesn't necessarily prove that the policy changes were stupid ideas, though my bias would make me argue that's definitely the case in the Kansas situation. But it does show that before people make legal or policy changes they do need to think things through a little more carefully. Fewer people would get hurt and bloggers wouldn't have fodder for quick posts before devoting their undivided attention to their day job. Both stories showed that good intentions don't necessarily lead to good results.  Both stories also illuminated that liberals and conservatives can be equally dogmatic and/or have blind spots when it comes to certain base principles.

As we've discussed before when it comes to custody and child care disputes the only primary principle that the state generally adheres to is that the man is always wrong and must pay is that the best interests of the child are paramount and the biological parent(s) is (are) responsible for the well being of the child. There are a few exceptions to this insofar as biology but these exceptions are generally to the detriment of the man. In most states if you are a married man and your wife produces a child you are held responsible for the well being of that child even if you prove that your wife was cheating with the mailman. Too bad, so sad, you're the dad. On the other hand if you are a stepfather or boyfriend and your wife or girlfriend has children and you and she break up, generally speaking you won't have financial responsibility, custody or visitation to those children. You can seek it but it's not by any means guaranteed. You're not the biological father. You would have such responsibilities if you adopted the children. A lesbian couple in New York (or rather one half of a lesbian couple) discovered this the hard way when they broke up and the woman who was not the biological mother tried to obtain visitation/custody to the child which they had both parented.

The Marriage Equality Act, which New York State passed in June 2011, allowed Jann Paczkowski to marry her partner, Jamie, with the assurance that “the marriages of same-sex and different-sex couples” would “be treated equally in all respects under the law.” But when the couple separated and Ms. Paczkowski sought joint custody of the 2-year-old boy they were raising together, she discovered the limits of that assurance. On June 30, 2014, a judge in Nassau County family court ruled that Ms. Paczkowski did not have legal standing to seek access to the boy — because even under the Marriage Equality Act, she was not his parent. 

In his decision, Judge Edmund M. Dane acknowledged “inequity” and “imbalance” in the law, adding that if Ms. Paczkowski were a man in the same position, the law might point toward a different ruling. But in the end, he left Jann with no contact with the boy. The decision devastated Ms. Paczkowski, 36. “You can see how angry and upset I am,” she said on a recent afternoon, seated beside her court-appointed lawyer after a morning spent moving cars for an auction house. She had not seen the boy since a brief visit on Mother’s Day. Children born to a married couple are legally presumed to belong to both spouses; for those born before a marriage — like J. and numerous children born to gay parents before the Marriage Equality Act — only the biological parent is presumed to be the parent.

I am not sure that this is some bias against gay people. The law in New York did allow for non-biological parents to adopt the children of their partners. For whatever reason Jann Paczkowski did not do that. So since there was no adoption the state went with Jamie Lechner as the sole parent. Although gays can marry and have children biology only allows one of them to be the biological parent. Heterosexuals are much less likely to have this issue, by definition.  LINK
This can be "fixed" legally but the flip side is that the fix wouldn't just apply to gay couples, who are after all an overwhelming minority of all couples. If New York allows non-biological and non-adoptive "parents" standing in custody or visitation cases that would mean that every girlfriend, boyfriend or ex-spouse would also have standing to sue for custody or visitation in every single type of living arrangement. That might be less than ideal. Or maybe that is what people want. I can't call it. It would also allow biological parents to sue every single boyfriend, girlfriend or ex-spouse for child support. That is definitely a bad idea in my opinion. I mean if you live with someone for a year or so and then decide that it's not working out do you really want them coming after you for support for a child that is not yours? Or perhaps you discover that Mr. or Miss Right is really horribly wrong and a substance abuser to boot so you leave. Should they be able to assert co-parenting rights to your child when they are not the biological or adoptive parent?

Moving to the Midwest, the state of Kansas, under the leadership of Republican Governor Sam Brownback took a shift far to the right on both cultural and economic issues with results that so far, at least economically have been been just short of disastrous.
One of the basic ideas that animates supply side neo-conservative economics is that tax rates on the wealthy, capital and/or corporations are too high. What needs to occur is that the tax rates on these segments of society should be lowered. This will be good for everyone because the wealthy will be inspired to invest more and hire more, available jobs will increase and those nasty government busybodies will have less funding with which to harass decent God fearing Americans. Low taxes= high prosperity. Well Kansas tried that. It didn't work. Instead of budget surpluses, low unemployment and solid revenue streams Kansas finds its job growth lagging the nation's, a gaping hole in its budget that must be plugged and cuts in the state's bond rating which of course means that the cost to borrow money will increase. This is not exactly what Brownback promised when he and his supporters pushed through significant cuts in both income and sales taxes to the point where some people of lower means were paying more in sales taxes than higher income people were paying in income taxes. Prosperity was evidently not just around the corner. Trickle down economics once again failed to deliver the goods. Obviously though I suppose it might depend on what you thought the "goods" were. If your preferred response to gaping revenue cuts is to then cut public spending (i.e. education) even further than possibly everything is working according to plan. The thing is though is that even other Kansas Republicans are starting to admit that things haven't gone according to plan and are beginning to distance themselves from Brownback's agenda. Brownback and his ilk may have tacked too far to the right.

HUTCHINSON, Kan. — In his 40 years living in Kansas, Konrad Hastings cannot remember voting for a Democrat. He is the type who agonizes over big purchases, trying to save as much money as possible. He is against stricter gun laws, opposes abortion in most cases and prefers less government involvement in his life. 

But when he casts his ballot for governor in November, he plans to shun the leader of this state’s conservative movement, the Republican incumbent, Sam Brownback, and vote for the Democratic challenger. 

“He’s leading Kansas down,” said Mr. Hastings, 68, who said he voted for Mr. Brownback four years ago, when he easily won his first term. “We’re going to be bankrupt in two or three years if we keep going his way.” Voters like Mr. Hastings are at the heart of Mr. Brownback’s surprising fight for political survival. Most criticism of Mr. Brownback has centered on the tax cuts, which slashed individual income tax rates and eliminated taxes on nonwage earnings for nearly 200,000 small businesses. The most recent fiscal year ended with state revenues more than $300 million short of expectations. Based on decreased revenue from the tax cuts, the state’s nonpartisan legislative research department estimates that the budget will have to be adjusted by $1.3 billion, either through spending cuts or additional revenue, over the next five years in order to remain balanced.

Opponents of the governor have used this to stoke fears that he would cut vital services. Both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have downgraded Kansas’ credit rating.

LINK
People obviously have different ideas about abortion, gay marriage, gun control and so on but when you start messing with their money everyone tends to notice. States are generally required to have balanced budgets so if there is a shortfall either taxes must increase or spending must decline. Different political groups have different preferences for which choices should be made and that's fine. What's not fine is pretending that there is a free lunch. If you cut taxes, generally revenue is going to drop. There is a political class that is entirely invested in pretending that this isn't true but it is. Now the bill is coming due in Kansas.  Governor Brownback has a 7 point lead over his Democratic challenger, which is pretty close for a reliably Republican state like Kansas. Time will tell what political choice Kansans make but once again it should be obvious to people that trickle down economics is very good at cutting taxes on the wealthy, on capitalists or corporations. It is somewhat limited however when it comes to producing prosperity for everyone, all else equal.

What's your take on these two stories?

Do you think that a non-biological gay parent should be treated the same as a biological heterosexual parent?

Will Governor Brownback be re-elected? Are tax cuts the way to prosperity?

NYPD officers abuse teen-caught on audio

It is often instructive to look back at the history of white supremacy in this country and see how non-whites had to deal with openly racist whites who had no problem being violent. When we look at the pictures or video of peaceful civil rights protesters having dogs set on them or being beaten with tire irons or having things thrown at them it is hard, in 2012 not to at least occasionally question how people could allow that to happen or why didn't more people stand up and fight back or so on. Those are painful questions to be sure. At any given point in time most people are just trying to survive. By definition, most people are not heroes. Cemeteries are full of would be heroes. People did what they had to do to survive. There is no shame in that.

But although those days are thankfully gone, there are unfortunately quite a number of people who would have fit right in working for Bull Connor or Ross Barnett. Evidently many of these people are NYPD police officers. We've written before on the stop-and-frisk program that Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly have instituted that is primarily aimed at Black and Hispanic men, especially young men or boys. This program doesn't catch many people carrying either drugs or guns but it does put a lot of fear, anger and rage in many New York Black and Hispanic citizens. Unfortunately until very recently this has not received any attention in the mainstream press and what attention it has received has been cautiously positive or only mildly critical. Generally speaking the people that write or edit for the New York Times or the New Yorker or the Wall Street Journal or the American Enterprise Institute are not the people being stopped and frisked so they tend not to have the mad rush of killing rage I had when I saw the below video. This is a racial quota which doesn't seem to excite their delicate constitutional sensitivities.

One thing that it is really important to understand is that the stop-and-frisk program, which has been expanded to include public housing and some private rentals as well is NOT a program in which someone does something suspicious and only THEN receives police attention NOR it is a program in which Officer Friendly and Dudley DoRight stop you and politely ask you a few questions before apologizing and sending you on your way after some sports discussions.

No.

It is as the video shows, a program in which young men of color are criminalized just for existing. It is a program in which showing signs of manhood and citizenship like demanding to know why you were stopped, asking for badge numbers, looking in someone's eyes or refusing to answer questions causes insane and profane racist rage, insults to your family, threats of arrests or beating, and occasional actual beating. This is the kind of stuff that was supposed to have gone out of style in 1960s Mississippi but as we can see it is thriving in 2012 NYC, under a supposedly enlightened Mayor, a relatively liberal Governor and a President that claims to understand civil liberties.

This is why come what may, with no offence intended to anyone who is a police officer, or is related to or married to a police officer, I really really don't like cops. Period. Never have and never will. Fortunately I have never had an experience to the extent of the young man in the video but I've had a few run-ins in my time. This is also why I do not like NYC and have little desire to visit, though I have friends and family there. Imagine if Alvin was your son, brother, cousin or husband. What does that sort of physical and verbal abuse from so-called authority figures do to racial relations? This is why it is ridiculous to claim, as some do, that affirmative action is harming racial relations. No, the NYPD is harming racial relations!  

The NYPD has a serious problem and it needs to be fixed yesterday. I simply do not get why Black and Hispanic New Yorkers have not gone after Bloomberg the same way they went after Giuliani. Malcolm X once joked that anywhere south of Canada is Mississippi and this video shows the truth of that joke. Honestly if I were in that situation I would definitely be in fear of my life and have to act accordingly. I'd rather be judged by a jury than those two beasts. Listen to full audio of Alvin's stop here, courtesy of The Nation.

Questions

1) Ever been in a similar situation with police?

2) How can we fix the police department?

3) Is the teen a hero?

4) Should the police officers be fired?

5) Where are the Feds?

Affirmative Action, Education, Stuyvesant High School

The Supreme Court will shortly start its new term. It is going to take up yet another affirmative action case. Hopefully The Janitor will have a post on this with his normal attention to historical and legal detail. I want to talk about educational affirmative action from a slightly different and rather painful aspect. First things first. I am a strong supporter of workplace affirmative action. I have seen too damn many people get hired, groomed, and promoted for reasons that have little to do with qualifications. I actually did pretty well on standardized tests and naively had a belief that advanced degrees and skill sets mattered. I was shocked to learn that other things matter much more. Does your boss like you? That is really the greatest single factor on whether or not you're going to succeed in your job, though perhaps not your career. I have performed superhuman feats for bosses who for whatever reason didn't like me and didn't find my diligence worthy of reward or even notice. Other times I have been less than heroic but still received strong support and encouragement from bosses that liked me. Go figure. Since blacks and whites generally live apart and inhabit separate social worlds is it really possible for whites to judge blacks fairly? Can I get a fair evaluation at work from someone who, outside of the work environment, does her best to avoid people who look like me?

My career has occasionally suffered because I'm not plugged into certain (white) social networks. You need to know which assignments to take or decline. You need strong allies not only among your peer group but also among higher level managers. Otherwise, you can spend years grinding away and then look up and wonder why people with similar or less education and experience have zoomed past you. I sometimes think it would be wise for workplace promotions, hiring and assignments to be based on standardized aptitude testing. Either you know the material or you don't. There would be no more worries about losing promotions to a peer whose husband is a business partner of a higher ranking boss or to another peer who plays golf with your direct boss. Yes both of these things happened to me. It seems I am still peeved. Snicker. Of course companies would HATE this idea because it would prevent managers and company officers from hiring and promoting as they see fit. Managers might correctly argue that a workplace test alone doesn't provide enough useful information about the person's professional competence. If the below people all pass the test, should they be promoted?

• Someone who ignores basic American hygiene standards and makes people scheme on how to avoid sitting next to him in meetings?  
• Someone who dresses like she's working a street corner and has her peers making weekly bets on how much leg or chest she will show?
• Someone who falls asleep in meetings or at their desk? 
• Someone who refuses to travel even though the promotion requires travel?
• Someone whose accent is so bad that few people can understand him and everyone makes fun of him behind his back?
• Someone who knows her theory but freezes in crisis or when reality and theory clash?
• Someone whose first response to any idea is always negative and who enjoys spreading bad news? 
• Someone who is expert in his field but is also a loud profane bully that delights in humiliating people who make mistakes and picking fights just for fun?
• Someone who gets in a squabble with a subordinate and then makes fun of that person in front of their children?

And yes these are all real life examples with which I am directly familiar. So in the workforce, where there are other considerations besides pure knowledge, a single test isn't the best way to determine aptitude. I might have to concede that.
But in an academic arena, shouldn't pure knowledge be the ONLY consideration? And if so, what is the best way to measure that knowledge? Or should there be other things besides knowledge taken into account to measure academic success?

NYC's Stuyvesant High School has been in the news recently for a couple of reasons, neither one much good. A number of kids were caught cheating. Stuyvesant is a hyper-competitive school in which only the best of the best are admitted. Admission is based solely on a standardized test which is used by the eight top schools in NYC. Stuyvesant has the highest cut off. Stuyvesant has a student body which is, shall we say, different from the usual demographics of NYC schools. The school is roughly about 72% Asian and 25% Caucasian. This has resulted in some people trying to tip toe around some unfortunate implications while others snicker and glory in same. Recently a group of apparently mostly Black and Hispanic civil rights and educational groups decided to file a complaint with the Department of Education. Their claim is that use of the test violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it causes racial disparity. I think their heart is in the right place but I'm not sure I can support their framework here. I remember occasionally having teachers in college or before who radiated contempt for black people. Few things were more pleasurable to me than to score among the highest in the class or correct them when they were wrong. There is something wonderful about objective knowledge. No matter how much someone might believe in black inferiority, they can't stop you from succeeding educationally. As I wrote above I wish I still had that clear approach in corporate life. I think it is approaching shamefulness to make a public argument that amounts to "this must be discrimination because I'm not good at it". Obviously the Caucasian and Asian parents don't wish to change the admissions criteria because their children are succeeding under the rules. Manjit Singh's statement is likely reflective of his parents' thoughts as well.

The test-only rule has existed for decades, as have complaints about its effect on minority enrollment. In May 1971, after officials began thinking about adding other criteria for admission, protests from many parents, mostly white, persuaded the State Legislature to enshrine the rule in state law.  Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said at a news conference on Thursday that the schools were “designed for the best and the brightest” and that he saw no need to change the admissions policy or state law. “I think that Stuyvesant and these other schools are as fair as fair can be,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “There’s nothing subjective about this. You pass the test, you get the highest score, you get into the school — no matter what your ethnicity, no matter what your economic background is. That’s been the tradition in these schools since they were founded, and it’s going to continue to be.”

When asked the uncomfortable question of why the racial imbalance existed, some students mentioned the intensive tutoring services that are out of reach of poorer families. But others did not hesitate to say that they believed the family culture of Asian and white students put a higher value on educational achievement than others.

“African-American and Hispanic parents don’t always seek out extra help for their kids and their kids don’t score as high,” said Manjit Singh, a senior. “But it’s the same test for everyone, so how can it be discriminatory? If you can’t handle the test, you can’t handle the school, and you’re taking up someone else’s spot.”

Noah Morrison, a senior who is black, was not ready to change the policy, either, but he agreed that “there needs to be more racial diversity at this school.”
“There are no black people and it’s horrible,” he said. “The test is fine, but there need to be more opportunities for people to do well on it. There need to be more test-prep programs in underachieving middle schools with high black and Latino populations. It’s a socioeconomic problem.”

Ms. Miles, for her part, said the city needed do a better job disseminating information about the test and the free preparatory programs available. The city’s Education Department has been offering such a program, with weekend and summer coaching sessions to promising but disadvantaged sixth graders — and, this year only, seventh graders — for more than 20 years. Its original mission was to increase the number of blacks and Latinos, but after a legal challenge in 2007, income became its main eligibility criteria. Since then, however, the program has shrunk —2,800 students attended in 2008, down from 3,800 two years before — and even among those who participated, black and Latino students were far less likely to take the entrance exam than Asians and whites.

So it's rough. There is a question then about why Black and Hispanic students aren't doing as well on the test or even taking the test as often as Whites and Asians. I think there are a number of reasons for that which need greater discussion than we can do in just one post. Poverty, single parent homes, hunger, exposure to lead based paint, low birth weight and other factors all have impact on educational achievement. But the big factor here and one I have struggled with myself sometimes upon entering the cold cruel corporate world is living up (or down) to stereotypes. Henry Ford once said "Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right".  Dr. Claude Steele, Shelby Steele's twin brother, has done some research which confirms Ford's off the cuff observation. And not only are black people watching too much television but media often subtly or not so subtly tells black people that they aren't worth s***.

And if you don't think that the attempt to succeed will make any difference in your life because of false stereotypes and very real racism in the job market and the justice system, then you might want to protect your ego by not even trying. After all, being admitted to a competitive high school in NYC won't stop the NYPD from harassing and insulting you if you happen to be Black or Hispanic. Hearing "I don't care if you are an A+ student, put your black a$$ against the wall!!" would tend to mess with your equilibrium.

It also comes down to just doing the work. This isn't easy. But if you believe that people are basically the same, then you have to accept that work can get you where you want to go. We all have different gifts. There are few people who can play professional sports or have the patience for delicate lab work in physics or biology or can sit down and create new music or so on. But when you go to a concert and see someone play a guitar for three hours without a mistake or go to a basketball game and watch someone seemingly defy gravity it is worth remembering that you are watching the end result of years and years and years of hard work, competition, dedication, and insane drive. Academics aren't any different.

So my solution to the Stuyvesant issue is not to file a federal complaint of racial discrimination. I don't think that is warranted here. My solution is to change the culture, put down the video games, turn off the television and hit the books. And as I support affirmative action I think that there must be more public and private partnerships to identify and nurture talented Black and Hispanic children, convince them that they can succeed and give them all the training and then some that they need for the test. Success is their heritage not failure. If WEB DuBois could get a Ph.D. from Harvard in the 1890s, near the nadir of American racism, today we have no reason to let a little high school admissions test stop us. Because the Manjit Singhs of the world aren't going to have sympathy for you.
I usually do my grocery shopping in an area close to the U-M engineering and physics schools. The demographics have changed rather significantly since I went to U-M. There are a lot of East Asian nationals and Asian Americans who have settled nearby and work or attend school. They've evidently put in the work to get those jobs or attend the classes. So go and do likewise ladies and gents. Go and do likewise. Game on.



Questions:
Is there a valid Federal racial discrimination complaint here?
Why aren't there more Blacks and Hispanics attending the best schools?
Should disparate impact be removed as a possible racial discrimination cause?
What sort of school reforms do you want to see implemented?
Do you think intelligence is racially based?

Bloomberg, Broccoli, Smoking and Health Care

As we wait for the US Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (popularly and derisively known as "Obamacare" ) it might be useful to remember the slippery slope/limiting principle argument against the mandate to purchase private health insurance.  This was often referred to as the Broccoli argument. Opponents invoked the spectre of an empowered and leviathan Federal government ordering everyone to eat their vegetables. The law's supporters thought that this argument was completely ridiculous, not worth a response, and prima facie evidence that the mandate's opponents either had damaged amygdalae or had spent too much time surfing libertarian websites looking for pictures of S.E. Cupp.

I am not a fan of NYC Mayor Lord Michael Bloomberg because I think his bland corporatist persona is the cover for a raging power mad nutter who seeks control over other people just because he knows what's best for everyone. He may not have Sauron's One Ring but he certainly acts as if he does. This is most evidenced by his out of control NYPD that on his orders has effectively disregarded the Fourth Amendment for Black and Hispanic citizens in Gotham, especially if they happen to be young and male. Bloomberg says it's for their own good of course. But his need for control over people is not just limited to continuously stopping and frisking every single black male within the city or spying on Muslim citizens in other states. No, Bloomberg is convinced that he knows what people should be eating and how they should be eating. So his health department is poised to ban 32oz sodas. Of course that didn't go far enough and his health department, no doubt emboldened by the impending soda ban as well as the current trans fat ban, publicly mused about the desirability of banning milkshakes and popcorn as well.
LINK

The 11-member health panel met on Tuesday in Queens and approved the plan. A public hearing on the issue on July 24, with a final vote is scheduled for Sept. 13. If approved, the new regulations would go in effect on March 2013.Certain members spoke up, however, saying that the proposal should include other items. Board member Bruce Vladeck questioned why large tubs of popcorn were not included in the ban, according to the New York Daily News. Another member, Dr. Joel Forman, pointed out that even 100 percent juice and milk-containing beverages have large amounts of calories and should not be excluded.While Dr. Kenneth Popler, board member and president of the Staten Island Mental Health Society, recognized that it would infringe on New Yorkers' rights, he felt that the health benefits were worth it, the Wall Street Journal reported. Obesity has led to 5,800 deaths a year in New York City and costs taxpayers $4 billion, according to statements presented at the meeting.

So, while the kommissars in NYC were deciding how next to extend their personal preferences under color of law, one of the largest employers in the Metro Detroit area decided that it would no longer hire people who smoke. Period. 

Job seekers who smoke aren’t welcome at the Detroit Medical Center. The health system on Wednesday joined a growing number of companies to require new applicants to be tested for smoking.The policy does not apply to current smokers, though they are encouraged to stop smoking and participate in cessation programs, the DMC said in an announcement. In Michigan, the DMC joins the Lansing-based Sparrow Health System, the Oakwood Health System in Dearborn and the Crittenton Hospital Medical Center in Rochester to adopt the no-smoking policy for applicants. “I think it’s becoming a pretty common practice across the country, especially in hospitals and (other) health care” employers, said Paula Rivera-Kerr, spokeswoman for Dearborn-based Oakwood Healthcare System, which adopted a similar policy Oct. 1. 

Dr. A. Mark Fendrick, a University of Michigan physician who is director of its Center for Value-Based Insurance Design, said that because businesses spend significantly more on health costs for smokers than for non-smokers “it’s no surprise to see various types of screening and benefit-design changes” to discourage smoking, among current and future employees. “Projections about increased health costs are a major concern to employers right now,” he said. While several states have passed laws banning such hiring policies, Michigan has not, leaving smokers without legal grounds to challenge such a hiring decision, said Tim Howlett, an attorney with Detroit-based Dickinson Wright law firm and acting chair of the State Bar of Michigan Association’s labor and employment law section.

LINK

Now just to get the obvious out of the way I don't smoke. I don't permit smoking around me. I try to eat right. I fully understand that if you don't eat well and exercise you're more likely to live a sub par existence. I have little patience for fat people that try to protect their ego by trying to pretend that fat people don't have health issues. I get that large agribusinesses and food interests often push poisonous products onto consumers.  I think that everyone should minimize or eliminate things like sugar, fat, salt, blah, blah, blah from their diet.  And I actually LIKE broccoli. But those things are individual choices. Should your employer be able to discriminate in hiring based on lifestyle? Well if your lifestyle is related to your job, I would say yes. You won't find too many overweight cheerleaders or bodybuilder jockeys. But if you're doing something that is unrelated to your job on your private time, what business is that of your employer's? And if we say well it's because of health costs, then how far do we want to go? You may have a family history of chronic diseases. Should your employer be able to not hire you because of that? And if we allow discrimination in hiring because of smoking why not obesity? But that's in the (semi)private marketplace so the rules may be different.

In NYC though we have the city government seizing the ability to tell you what you can eat and how much of it you can eat. Again, they claim to be doing so because of health costs. This health cost argument was the same reason the federal government claimed the right to be able to force you to purchase health insurance. Now if you don't bend the knee to Lord Bloomberg and accede to his latest caprice, then you, as a business owner will be fined. Of course if you decide to ignore the fines and tell Lord Bloomberg exactly what he can do with them, sooner or later large serious men with guns will magically appear to either shut your business down or take you away to some place unpleasant. But it's for the public good.

Now can someone tell me again why the broccoli argument was so outrageous?

What's your take?

Should private companies be able to refuse to hire smokers? Obese people?

Is Bloomberg out of control or is this (considering rising obesity rates) a necessary and good decision? Should the government be involved in determining portion sizes and food choices?

Limits to Religious Freedom: Circumcision and Herpes

I'm not religious although I don't think I'm necessarily anti-religious. People can believe what they like and within certain constraints act as they like based on their religious beliefs. If you want to believe that there's someone in the sky watching you or some Force in the universe that is interested in the doings of human beings, it doesn't really impact me. Go for it.  I came down on the side of the Catholic Church over the contraception provision controversy. Basically I think that as long as you aren't hurting anyone else the state should pretty much stay out of your affairs. I think that's a general good rule for most citizens and it's a constitutionally protected right for religious institutions. You mind your business and I will mind mine. Good fences make good neighbors. Each captain runs his own crew. We all have to tend our own gardens. Live and let live. And so on.
But.............
There are limits. You don't get to sacrifice babies to Baal. You don't get to force your children to become temple prostitutes for Ishtar. The Catholic Church has no constitutional right to priest-boy sex. Although your religion might find dogs unclean you can't go around banning or killing other people's dogs. And it's iffy because parents do have the right to oversee and direct medical care for their minor children but if a parent wanted to use prayer instead of medicine to treat a gunshot wound to a child I would not lose sleep if the state intervened, treated the child and arrested the parent. Those sorts of actions would make me hostile to religion, not just because the religious person is accepting myths that to me make no sense, but because they are harming other people. That's the red line I think.


So if you tell me that your religion requires that a grown man undertake bloody oral genital contact with a baby so that said baby becomes an acceptable member of your religious society , then I'm gonna reach for my baseball bat and keep a close eye on you while I call the cops. Because that is FAR across any sort of red line.

A baby died at a New York hospital in September after contracting herpes from a controversial circumcision ritual.The infant died at Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn, where the cause of death was listed as "disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction," according to the New York Daily News.

Now, the Brooklyn District Attorney's office is looking further into the case, the Jewish Week reports. The boy is the second New York area infant in recent years to die from complications related to the Orthodox Jewish ritual of metzitzah b'peh, during which "the mohel places his mouth on the freshly circumcised penis to draw blood away from the cut,"according to the New York City Department of Heath.For its part, the state health department — then headed by Antonina Novello, appointed by Republican Gov. Pataki, who himself had strong ties to the Orthodox community — reached its own agreement with chasidic leaders in June of 2006, hailed by Rabbi Niederman in a press release as a “historic protocol” and the one to which Zwiebel referred to above.

The 2010 letter to rabbis from the commissioner of the state health department, referenced above, noted that “over the past five years” there have been “several documented cases” of herpes simplex Type 1 viruses in newborns who underwent metzitzah b’peh in New York City. 

When it came to light that two more babies had been infected (apparently not by Fischer), Frieden issued an “Open Letter to the Jewish Community,” which recommended — but stopped short of requiring — a cessation of the practice altogether, instead endorsing alternatives to the practice, like using a sterile glass tube (which is done in modern Orthodox circles). 

Now putting aside the generally accepted hypocrisy that male circumcision is just fine while female circumcision is a Stone Age evil that must be stamped out, it seems to me that whatever your feelings might be about the propriety of chopping away genital tissue from newborns, at the very least you would have to admit that a man having oral contact with a boy's bleeding penis as part of a religious ritual is not safe and shouldn't be legal. 

Unfortunately because of political considerations in New York this has not attracted a huge amount of media attention. Finally law enforcement is looking into it because of the death of the babies, but honestly it never should have come to that. This is something where religion and state must clash and the state MUST win. The men who performed this deed should be identified, arrested and prosecuted with the full vigor of the law. The city and state of New York need to give out information about the health dangers of this practice and convince parents not to allow it. And finally if the parents refuse to change their behavior they ought to be arrested and charged the same way we would charge any other parent who harms a child. I don't see a lot of grey here. It's black and white for me. Man putting his mouth on boy's privates= man going to jail.

But what do you think?

1) Should this practice be outlawed? Do you see religious freedom problems?

2) Should the parents and/or rabbi go to jail?

3) Is focus on this practice anti-religious?

4) If outlawed would this interfere with parental prerogatives?

Brooklyn False Rape Charges: Darrell Dula

Imagine that you (or a man you love) were wrongly accused of raping someone. You're arrested, fingerprinted and thrown into jail to await formal charges. Now in the 24 hours while you're familiarizing yourself with jailhouse protocol over telephone usage, how to avoid unwanted advances, which gang it would be proper for someone of your race and ethnicity to join, when not to look into another prisoner's eyes, the importance of responding promptly to guard commands and other important orientation action items, the victim admits to the police and prosecutors that she made it all up and actually signs a document stating so. 
Well that's lucky for you yes? You won't have to stay a minute more in jail and perhaps you can see about getting everything expunged from your record. No harm no foul. These things happen and maybe you and the arresting officers can have a beer summit at the White House some day.
But wait, now imagine that the prosecutor decides to go ahead with charges anyway because either they think the supposed victim is lying or because they don't like you very much or maybe they figure they need to keep their conviction rates high and you look like an easy win. And in addition they don't tell you or your attorney that the victim lied. And they keep you in jail for a year...
Such things couldn't happen in this country could they?

But sadly of course they do.

A Brooklyn man spent nearly a year behind bars on charges he raped an Orthodox Jewish woman — even though she recanted her accusation a day after making it.
Darrell Dula, 25, was released Tuesday and will likely have the case against him dropped after being in jail since June 28, 2011.
“I feel good. Thank God,” Dula told the Daily News Tuesday night as he played with his 3-year-old son for the first time in a year in front of his Crown Heights home.“I’m glad to be home with my family,” he said. “I’m still in shock. I’m traumatized. It wasn’t a good experience. They took me away on my son’s birthday. It was heartbreaking.”
The stunning turn of events came after Brooklyn prosecutors turned over a newly discovered statement that Dula’s 22-year-old accuser made to cops in which she says he never raped her. The alleged victim made a complaint to police on March 31, 2010, accusing Dula and his pal Damien Crooks, 32, of being part of a crew who raped, beat and pimped her out since age 13.
A day later, the woman told detectives she was a hooker for five years and made up the rape allegation, records show.
“I once again asked [her] if she was raped,” a detective wrote in a police report after the interview. “She told me ‘no’ and stated to me, ‘Can’t a ho change her ways?’ ”
The woman also signed a recantation, but the case proceeded and in spring 2011, a grand jury voted to indict Dula, Crooks and two others who were allegedly part of the crew.

LINK

And of course the prosecutor who directly handled the case, Abbie Greenberger,  is now blaming her bosses for the situation. I guess that makes sense. No one wants to be the scapegoat. I understand and feel the same way. Of course when I mess up no one spends a year in jail....

Greenberger said she found inconsistencies in the 22-year-old accuser’s account, but couldn’t convince her boss there was a problem.
“When I brought the inconsistencies to Lauren Hersh (chief of the sex-trafficking unit at the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office), I was told that I didn’t do my job right and that I’m trying to dismiss the case and that I should work harder,” Greenberger told the Daily News.

See the problem here believe it or not isn't just that the victim lied, although that is bad enough and she ought to face the same criminal penalties that the man faced. No the REAL problem (and perhaps Old Guru and/or The Janitor can weigh in on this) is that the prosecutor did not disclose this information to the defense attorney and/or judge. I'm no lawyer but I kind of thought that the prosecutor had a duty to do justice, not just win a conviction. Maybe not.

Now why did the prosecutor continue with this farce? Could it have been that the District Attorney has gotten a little too cozy with certain elements within the local Orthodox Jewish community? Could the DA have believed the so-called victim was telling the truth before she recanted? Could the DA have believed this fellow was better off in jail, regardless of whether or not he actually committed this crime? Could the DA have been responding to a feminist constituency that doesn't always seem to understand that women are no more moral than men and are just as capable of mendacity?
I don't know. All I know is that I would like to have believed that if I were wrongfully accused and the police and prosecutors knew that then they would take the necessary steps to stop the machinery of justice from moving forward and throw that bad boy in reverse, to right before the time when they told me "You're under arrest". But honestly I knew that was an unreal expectation even before I read this story. All it takes is being in the wrong place at the wrong time and your life can suddenly change. I don't have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around for bail or attorneys.
How do we fix this?
My ideas are pretty simple. 

• Hold prosecutors and police personally and criminally responsible when they lie or hide evidence. They do a necessary if often unpleasant job. But they should not be above the law or get a free pass for this sort of thing.
• When someone lies about rape and it can be proven as a lie, send them to prison for the same amount of time that the assailant would have served. 
• Stop with the fiction that women never lie about things. They do. The entire point of the adversarial justice system is to hopefully let the truth come out and in such a way that someone is not convicted of a crime without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires a defense attorney that is going to get after the accuser.
• Stop hiding the victim's (or in this case liar's) name from the public. Perhaps if more people had been aware of who this woman was someone might have come forward earlier. Rape is a horrible crime and should be punished most severely. But in order to do that we must ensure we're punishing the right people. That's why we need as much transparency as possible within the system.

What are your thoughts?

McDonald's NY Beatdown

Women start fight and lose badly

Our recent post on battered women syndrome engendered some discussion about when violence is appropriate. I think it's legitimate in self-defense. Unfortunately some people have a rather elastic concept of self-defense and would extend it to such actions as shooting someone while he's shaving or burning his bed while he's asleep.


Self-defense is legitimate while the aggression is taking place and when the force used is proportional to the threat. I can't shoot someone because they stepped on my blue suede shoes. But some citizens, either from their basic nature or bitter experience, have decided that a deliberately disproportionate self-defense response is the best way to discourage further attacks. Two very stupid, drunk and violent women recently discovered that the hard way in a Manhattan McDonald's. 

An argument between a cashier and two irate customers at a Manhattan McDonald’s turned violent, leaving both customers injured and all three facing charges. The entire incident, which was captured on video, happened Thursday morning at a McDonald’s on West Fourth Street in Greenwich Village, CBS 2’s Chris Wragge reports. It appeared to have started when two female customers argued and yelled obscenities at the cashier when he questioned a $50 bill they gave him. One of the female customers then slapped the cashier. A woman is then seen jumping over the counter while the other woman goes behind the register...

Video Below

Both men AND women need to avoid starting fights.You don't know what other people consider to be a "proportional" response to your provocation. If I were moronic enough to walk up to Ray Lewis, Chuck Liddell or Bernard Hopkins, curse them out and slap them in the face, I would expect that there would be consequences and repercussions. Cause, meet effect.

I think some women have learned the wrong message from the modern female empowerment environment we live in. Like those old Dave Chappelle skits, you can decide to "keep it real". But every now and then you're gonna run into someone who REALLY doesn't give a f***. And this was so stupid. Cashiers are often told to verify large denomination bills. It's not something worth starting a damn fight over.

QUESTIONS
1) If two men had cursed a cashier out, slapped her and jumped over the counter with bad intentions before catching a beatdown from the woman, would this story be described as horrific or humorous? Do the women have a legal case against McDonald's?
2) Do you think the man's response was disproportionate? Would you accept an argument from him that he was acting to protect himself or team members? Or do you now have sympathy for the women?
3) Was it news to you that McDonald's is hiring violent ex-cons?
4) Bonus question: What causes the sort of brainlessness shown in this video?

Secure Communities and States' Rights

Many people who are pro-comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) usually get very upset when some states create laws which seek to identify illegal immigrants and turn them over for processing and presumed deportation by the Federal government.

The normal complaint by CIR partisans is that the states have no right legislating on immigration issues, that such things are the sole purview of the federal government and that to let states attempt to even address the state specific portions of this national problem, (increased costs for schools and hospitals, business licensing revocation, etc) is tantamount to accepting a "states' rights" constitutional interpretation with the negative baggage that such a charge implies. Federal Supremacy is the mantra of this group They tell us that only the Federal government has the authority to act. The states have NO BUSINESS attempting to preempt the Federal government, enforce federal law on immigration or resist Federal rules on immigration. What the Feds say or do goes. They are the Big Dogs on this issue.

So imagine my surprise when some states with more CIR-friendly governors or senators, gave a great deal of criticism and finally open resistance to the Federal Secure Communities Program. This is a program which mandated that states share fingerprints of arrested people with the FBI , which runs criminal background checks and shares the fingerprints with DHS/ICE for immigration violations. Massachusetts, Illinois and New York all announced that they would no longer participate in the Secure Communities program. In this they were supported and cheered on by the New York Times, which atypically wrote an ode to states rights.

Add Massachusetts to the groundswell of states and localities opposing President Obama’s misconceived and failing immigration dragnet.

Gov. Deval Patrick announced on Monday that his state would not participate in Secure Communities, the fingerprint-sharing program that the Obama administration wants to impose nationwide by 2013. Gov. Andrew Cuomo halted New York’s involvement last week. Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois rejected it last month. They join a long list of elected officials, Congress members and law-enforcement professionals who want nothing to do with the program for the simple reason that it does more harm than good.

What these states’ actions mean, practically speaking, is unclear. States like New York signed contracts with the Department of Homeland Security to enter Secure Communities, and now the administration insists that they must participate. If they send suspects’ fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for criminal checks — as states must and will continue to do routinely — then the F.B.I. will share that data with the Department of Homeland Security. There is no way to opt out.
We’ll see about that. The idea that the federal government can commandeer states’ resources for its enforcement schemes seems ripe for legal challenge.

WOW. Imagine that.  A state refusing to assist in enforcing and obeying Federal Law. Isn't this the EXACT sort of thing that the NYT and pro-CIR partisans normally get rather rabid about? This is the same NYT that previously wrote about Arizona: (emphasis added)

And although appeals are certain, Judge Susan Bolton offered clear and well-reasoned arguments affirming the federal government’s final authority over immigration enforcement.

Now the NYT writes "We'll see about that"? and "..ripe for legal challenge"? Who wrote this editorial, Lester Maddox? What are the reasons given for supporting this state rebellion on immigration enforcement? Was it some sort of liberal appeal to the 10th Amendment? A new found appreciation for a weak central government? A sudden attack of Jeffersonian principles?

No.

The reason that some states were getting upset and finally refused to comply was that the program was actually working!!! People that had no legal right to be in the United States were being identified and processed for deportation-in accordance with Federal law. Some of these people were dangerous violent felons. Some weren't. But none of them had any right to be in the US. Period. The correct and legally authorized consequence is for the unlawful resident to be deported back to his country of origin. There can be no question that the Federal government has the right and the authority to do this.

However the Administration for what appear to be political reasons not so surprisingly sought a way to soften and maybe even neuter its own successful program. ICE director John Morton, released a memo reminding prosecutors and agents of their "discretion". Among other things that should be considered before detention or deportation were such things as:

• the circumstances of the person's arrival in the United States and the manner of his or her entry, particularly if the alien came to the United States as a young child

• the person's pursuit of education in the United States, with particular consideration given to those who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States

• whether the person, or the person's immediate relative,has served in the U.S. military, reserves, or national guard, with particular consideration given to those who served in combat

• the person's ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships

The problem is that these qualifications look rather suspiciously like what was just voted down in the failed Dream Act. So this could be a stealth Dream Act, done administratively rather than via law.

There are costs to illegal immigration. I'm sure that several illegal immigrants are hardworking people just trying to make a better life for themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that the US simply can not accept everyone who would like to live in this country. There are over one billion people in the world that live on less than $1.25/day. Neither the US nor any other developed country can allow all of those people to enter, and certainly not without permission. And permission is what is key here.

Most people have some compassion. But few people would allow someone to enter their house without consent, set up shop and then shriek of injustice if you tried to force them out. That's the death of law. The states that are resisting Secure Communities don't appear to recognize the Federal right to control and regulate immigration. To quote my blog mate The Janitor* 

"States can't preempt federal programs.  At most they can refuse to take federal dollars altogether but for programs which are specifically executed by the federal government, a state cannot block those initiatives"

This shows me that at least some of the politicians, activists and media personalities that were caustically opposed to state initiatives on immigration didn't really care about federalism so much as they cared about stopping deportations. If people really want open borders and unlimited immigration and no deportations they should say so.

*The use of this quote should most definitely not be taken to mean that The Janitor agrees with this post. I just thought it was a really cool quote to use... LOL

What say you?

Is Secure Communities a good idea?

Should States be able to resist or opt out of Federal anti-illegal immigration programs?

Were the States of Illinois, New York and Massachusetts correct to protest that too many non-violent illegal immigrants were being identified and proccessed for deportation?

What's your solution to this issue?