Israel Focus - J Street U: Dropping the Pro in Pro-Israel ... This IS What it Has Come To

---

There's brave and then there's brave. There's "meeting them where they're at" and then there's "meeting them where they're at." There's also a commitment to honest and open dialogue, and then there's a commitment to honest and open dialogue.

In a recent report by the Jerusalem Post, (J Street's campus branch drops pro-Israel slogan) J Street U has apparently dropped the Pro-Israel from its slogan. According to a more accurate telling of the the policy (J Street: Report of Slogan Change False, but Campus Groups Needn't Be Pro-Israel) it is clear that there never really was an official slogan, nor is there any official name change. In a stunningly honest and reasoned response, J-Street explains that they are simply allowing campus groups to tailor their materials, slogans, and rhetoric as they see fit. In much the same way you don't have to "officially" believe in G-d to be Jewish, J-Street is saying you don't have to avow being "Pro-Israel" to be in support of a two state solution.

Now while this may seem contradictory to some, to those who are true students of Jewish theology or for those who really understand the campus landscape - this is not a contradiction at all. A main precept of Judaism is that two seemingly opposing thoughts can be held in the mind at the same time. (G-d is everything, yet G-d is not one thing - We are made in the image of G-d, yet we are nowhere near close to being G-d). How on earth could one be for Israel and yet not avow, unequivocally that you are Pro-Israel? Well there in lies the rub.

First, one must understand what kind of damage the Pro-Israel movement has done to the phrase Pro-Israel. To be "Pro-Israel" today means (unofficially of course) that you are essentially an unquestioning supporter of Israel and her policies. While people like myself go around the country trying to convince those on the left that you can and should critique Israel while you support her right to exist and fight extremism on her borders, the reality on the ground in America just does not reflect that same right. In the same way President Bush made it almost criminal to question America and her Government (Executive Branch/Military mainly) after 9/11, the mainstream Jewish Organizational world has made it almost impossible to voice criticism of Israel while still being in the "Big Tent" of Pro-Israel organizations.

Just look at criticism of the recent J-Street Conference in Washington, DC. If you have any record of criticizing or not jumping right on the bandwagon of Israel support in congress or elsewhere, you are labeled "clearly not an Israel supporter."

Now don't get me wrong. In my line of work I am more than willing to call people out for being weak or absent in their support for valid defenses of the Israeli government. I am also well versed in those who lean so far to the left that they defend the indefensible in the extremist Muslim/Arab communities. That being said, that is not the majority of the Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace movement. Had mainstream Jewish and self avowed "Pro-Israel" organizations been able to make this distinction years ago, you wouldn't have the current problem or people feeling dirty and often sick by saying the words - Pro-Israel. I personally think it is a beautiful phrase. To me, to be Pro-Israel is to be Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestinian. But the inability of any major organizations to hammer that point home has left it well - just about being Pro-Israel and invariably about being almost unwaveringly Pro-Israel.

How can I say this? Well I happen to know that in congregations and boardrooms all over this country, people urging moderation are losing out to those who want to simply berate Muslim and Arab groups, claim Anti-Semitism, and excuse every action of the Israeli Government for the sake of Ideology for some and Solidarity for others. Again, some Muslim and Arab groups DO need to be called out. Anti-Semitism is an integral and viscous part of a GREAT DEAL of anti-Israel sentiment. And AIPAC deserves credit for its cultivation of support for Israel at the highest levels of government. But that can't be the only thing being Pro-Israel is about. And for many years, folks on the left and many disaffected young adults and college students are getting just that message. And they are fed-up with it.

From focus group conversations I have run, it became clear that the most common phrase I could get these disaffected folks to say was "I want to support Israel ... but...." And the but, I knew, was their visceral feeling that they did not identify with those who did say they were Pro-Israel. Interestingly, based on a knowledge of their background, I knew most of them WERE Pro-Israel. They just couldn't bring themselves to say it. In the same way that Zionism has today been robbed of its beautiful origins, Pro-Israel is not longer something someone who has questions can say. I would ask, "What would it take for you to say --- I am Pro-Israel .. but.." After all, isn't that a more accurate reflection of who they were. And it was. And they saw that. And they really wanted to be "Pro-Israel," but it just had been tainted too much.

Of course the true sad part is that - as opposed to Zionism which has been tainted largely by the anti-Israel world, the phrase "Pro-Israel" has been tainted by the Jewish and "Pro-Israel" organization world. J-Street confronts these problems honestly, because to do otherwise would continue the status-quo and of course - that is exactly what can't be allowed to continue - in the US or in the Middle East.

Many will have a big problem with allowing Campus Groups to play with the phrase as they see fit. But again, those who understand the nature of education and the state of College campuses right now will see that this really is a brave way to open up the dialogue around Israel and bring people under the tent who have been outside for way too long.

Israel Focus - Goldstone at Brandeis ... The Question of Context

---

According to the Boston Globe, "Brandeis to host Gaza violence forum," South African Judge Richard Goldstone, author of a fiercely controversial report issued by the equally controversial UN Human Rights Council, will speak at Brandeis next month as part of a forum addressing the report and the issue of violence surrounding the Gaza incursion last winter.

The article reflects the commonly held belief about the report - that it is controversial because it places heavier blame on Israel for human rights violations during the war.

But as with similar discussions surrounding the report - and the war in general - the press story only tells a fraction of the story. First and foremost, the article says nothing of the recent backtracking from Goldstone, as he tries to distance himself from the report. What people don't often hear is the frequency with which "respectable" men like Goldstone are duped and co-opted by the incredibly biased bodies of the United Nations. There are many with a very sincere desire for peace and "the truth" whose respectability - and often their being Jewish - feeds into the cause of those who seek to demonize Israel. And in good form, once the individual duped realizes this, they distance themselves from demonization. But of course by then, the damage has been done and Israel has already been condemned in the global community - once again - for crimes it has not committed.

And the sad part of all of this is that, because these UN Reports lack credibility, it is almost impossible for any honest analysis of real abuses to take place. It is true that Israel conducts their own investigations of such military actions. It is also true that they are thorough and often do reveal problems. But an independent review is not a bad idea. It just can't come from a body that has a documented and pervasive bias for Israel - bordering on pervasive hatred and anti-Semitism. A student of the UN and International law will take that last statement as a systemic fact rather than a reactionary opinion. It is simply undeniable that many of the countries who make up the general assembly and the committees of the UN are still in a very understandable but immature stage of awareness when it comes to Israel and Jews in general. If you accept that bigotry against Jews exists in this country, and is even more prevalent in places with less exposure to Jews, you have to acknowledge that this is the truth about most of the world.

If you needed more proof of this bias - just ask why the context for the Brandeis forum is "Violence" and the context for the UN report was "War Crimes". The Brandeis forum is attempting to be unbiased and exporatory. The UN Report wanted to feed the flames of a global presumption.

But of central importance here is not the bias of the UN but that the content of the report has not been properly reported. Goldstone, in his comments to the press, would have you believe that the report simply calls out Israel for things like inappropriate bombings of factories essential to daily life. Well maybe that is an abuse, and we could talk about that, but that does not accurately reflect the report. The same is true of outlets like the Globe - they merely report the popular opinion and do no real investigative journalism. And how common is it that the Globe comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict without trying to get the facts or even dig beneath the surface at all?

Even a cursory reading of the report reveals a no-holds-barred compilation of accusations surrounding the entire breadth of complaints against Israel. What is tackled is the everyday actions of Israeli police, the very "occupation" of the West Bank itself, and the actions in Gaza. What is tackled on the Palestinian side is the bombing of southern Israel - but nothing else. There is no discussion of the complex issue of Hamas - an organization aimed at eradicating Israel. There is no discussion of Hamas acting in opposition to the Palestinian Authority their supposed partners in governing.

What is also not mentioned is the intractable nature of fighting an enemy who stages attacks from civilian locations. How balanced could a report be when it does not specifically challenge accusations already leveled. Israel was condemned during the war for firing on a UN school. What has been documented since is the reality that the school had been taken over by Hamas militants precisely because it might avoid Israeli attacks. As Israel often does, they opted for the effective rather than the politically correct and targeted the school - with no students in it when they attacked. But that, of course, was not what was reported.

It almost goes without saying that no mention is made of the efforts Israel makes to avoid the loss of innocent life. But I think the focus on that takes away from the larger problem of a UN report that takes broad swipes at Israel having nothing to do with Gaza. That is why the Palestinian Authority eventually accepted the report. They realized the benefit of having documented language of arguments in their larger conflict with Israel far outweighed the slaps on the wrist they would have to take in regard to Gaza.

It will be interesting to see how much of these larger issues will be discussed at the forum. Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN will respond to Goldstone, and it would be a shame if all he talked about was the way in which Israel sent in humanitarian aid, and texted people to let them know their building would be shelled. A real discussion would include asking Goldstone why the report diverges so much from its alleged focus on Gaze and asking Dore to explain some of the questionable sites Israel chose to target (not the sites that had satellite imagery and documentation of militants launching missiles into Israel.) An honest discussion can be had about Gaza. Just not with a UN Human Rights Council report as its focus.

Health Care Reform - The Need to Speak Out TODAY!

---

Keven Cullen writes in his Globe article "Pre-existing conditional," of a common health care story in America. It is the story of people facing hard economic times who have to confront exorbitant health care costs. I have no issue with the article or its point. In fact I applaud it. My only problem is WHY stories like these haven't been appearing throughout the United States, in multiple media formats, all day, every day.

The question posed is a simple one. What is it that our legislators are so scared of when it comes to health care reform? What is it that they don't get about the severity of the problem?

What has paralyzed movement on this issue for decade is actually a combination of factors. The themes is a common one. The people who are the most vulnerable in our society just can't seem to get the rest of the country to acknowledge their problems.

After numerous conversations with upper middle class friends and colleagues who have had relative but consistent job security they say that they literally do not see those problems. They do not have to worry about things like pre-existing conditions, out of network Doctors, and escalating costs. Our current system works out just fine for them. Again - the common themes in modern America. If it isn't broken FOR ME - then I guess it isn't broken. That's why, in the Cullen column, the featured family gets the sense that congress thinks the system isn't broken. As always, if something does not impact the upper classes who contribute to campaigns, run for elected office, and belong to all the boards and leadership organizations, then - it just can't be a major concern for our government.

It is the "there but for the grace of god argument" so few really get. If you have no experience with the fringes of our society or have never been on the fringes of our society, you just don't get it. Right now, that is still the biggest difference between fiscal conservatives and liberals - in my opinion. If this were the only problem, however, health care reform may just have a chance.

Unfortunately, this reality combines with a number of other factors that contribute to a number of constituencies acting against their own self interest. Interestingly, the very problems that exist in the current health care system are being used to demonize possible solutions. Sit around the table with any group adversely impacted by problems in the system will speak of:
1) Losing health care when they lose their job
2) Being denied health care for pre-existing conditions
3) Not being able to go to the Doctor of your choice because he or she is "out of network."
4) Not having access to the best care

These are commonly known problems, yet people seem to forget that when they are brought up as problems with a future government plan.

Another longstanding problem is that people who are just one bad stroke of luck away from the fringes of society don't always see themselves that way. It is not because of a lack of foresight but is often, frankly, much more about politics, culture and race. Noted politicos have often commented that almost 75% of Americans consider themselves in either in the "middle or upper middle class" or see themselves realistically getting there. And because of that, policies that seem to benefit "the poor" and ask more of those with means, are often looked down upon by this very group of at risk individuals. Conservative politics prey on this reality and that is how a party that has little to do with the "common man" garners so much support from them. Ad to this trend the underlying racism and/or classism it represents, and you have a recipe for disaster. I would tend to call it the "Post Populist" moment.

Historically, the populist movement has always included some of these contradictions. But it seems these contradictions have reached their zenith in the 21st Century with the election of the country's first Black President. The town meetings we have been privy to have revealed an ignorance of and hostility to "big government" of an almost unprecedented nature, which can only be explained by a heightened sense of us versus them. The us of course, is the white American ideal of prosperous, middle class folks. The them is the immigrant, the undocumented (illegal) immigrant, the minority, the criminal, and the poor who are leeching off of hard working Americans. Of course no mention is ever made of the benefits all those same "folks" get and expect from the big, bad government. That can be seen no more clearly than in the inexplicable exhortations to the government to get their hands of people's medicare. This was both the exemplar of the problem and hopefully, the very eccentricity that can send us back in a better direction. Just as it was hard to hear (for some) Obama described as a Muslim, a "friend" of Muslims, and a "terrorist"/friend of terrorists - it has been hard to hear all these false and erroneous claims. And it is still difficult to hear the cultural and racial comments re-released for used in the health care debate. That is how we know culture, race, and class still matter. We are not in a post-racial world yet. To think otherwise is naive. But we may very well be in the post-populist age I spoke of where what it means to be against big-business is so blurred and turned on its head.

The idea that the best care in this country is available to all is a myth. And to hear conservative use the supposed "mediocre" care in other countries as a scare tactic is the height of hypocrisy. To think that what people get in other countries, as part of their social compact, paid for by their taxes, is any less than what the vast majority of people get in this country is - frankly - a crime.

It is therefore up to us - for causes including but not limited to health care - to right the ship of populism and progressivism. If you have a job, and have never had a brush with being un-insured, please take the word of all who will tell you - it is a huge problem with life destroying consequences. Yes, cost calculations don't mean much when they are just a random number next to a small co-payment or a "zero due" balance. But they are critical when you have to pay them yourself. And yes, the idea of a "public option" may have been so colored as to sound like a bad government program - but it needs to be thought of as no different then medicare or medicaid - the very program so many depend on.

And for all those people who want to know where the money would come from, I propose two items for your consideration. First, as I suggested in an earlier post, is it really about the money? Is there really anything that could be more worthy of our tax dollars? Do you also ask that same thing about war? Do you even get to? No you don't - you just pay for it and go back to your life. Why can't a public option for the uninsured be the same? Second, I propose a radical postulate. I propose a look a the US Postal Service. In its inception, the government saw some value in a populace that could communicate efficiently with each other. They saw it as an essential tool for business and a continuation of a long legacy of the sharing of knowledge and the advancement of human understanding. Is the health of children and our most vulnerable any less important or noble? And yes sometimes it IS about the children. But if you are still unconvinced, well then, why not close the postal service and use those funds for a public option for health care. I mean really, in the year 2009 is there really anything the post office does that FedEx, UPS, and the Internet can't already do for us?

For your consideration ....

Policy Focus - Reflections on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

---

The recent flare up over the military policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has been both revealing and encouraging - on many levels. Two recent articles on the topic have taken somewhat unique angles on the issue.

James Carrol, in his October 5th column, "Behind the folly of don't ask don't tell", didn't just rehash the usual moral objections and ritualized hypocrisy of the policy. He actually tried to clear up some History. And of course, anyone who tries to do that - and succeeds - will always get my attention.

Carroll reminds us that it was actually the Military brass that brought this issue at the advent of the Clinton administration. Just as they have done recently, they clearly stated that gays do serve in the Military and that the country should get their act together, get over it, and let them serve openly. They said this in the '90's and they are saying it now. Carroll correctly points out that it was the conservative congress (yes even the democrats) that wanted to hold the line on this issue. They pushed it on the country, framed it as something the military did not want and could not function with, and leveraged the issue to paint Clinton as out of touch with the testosterone infused military we all want to believe in. You know, the one that Colonel Jessup tried to sell us (You don't want the truth! You can't handle the truth!)

Well as it turns out, especially in the age of dwindling recruits, the military does want us to know the truth and thinks we can handle the truth. And the truth is that having gays serve openly will be liberating. Carroll reminds us, as many do, that when the military was desegregated, the military followed orders. What he didn't remind us of however, was that even though the military desegregated it remained - on many levels - a place where racist, sexist, homophobic, and religious slurs could be used to make fun of, ridicule, berate, and demean any minority group you could possibly identify.

Now as much as I don't like the fact that this is the way the military often motivates (breaks down to build up) troops, and is something I would like to see changed, you can see how, in the context of the this issue, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" just didn't make sense. People knew they were serving side by side with lesbians and homosexuals. And just like in the rest of society, they often had to guess about sexual orientation (because not everyone is "out") and they often voiced their suspicions openly, loudly and with general acceptance, regardless of any real knowledge about the target. What the military was simply saying - in the '90s and this month - was that we know some of us are gay and we are actually ok with it - or to be more precise - some of us like them and some of us hate them, but how is that any different than the blacks, jews, mexicans, puerto- ricans, etc.

Again, I hope people are reading this knowing how much I hate that what we pay lip service to stopping in our school hallways and sports fields is actually a way of life in the military. That battle will take a little longer to fight, but until then, some very intelligent and rational people are saying, lets just have everyone serve - what we do to them after that is another story - the real don't ask don't tell. Plus, once people are out, just think how much fun and "OK" it will be to be made fun of and demeaned as a "Real"homosexual" as opposed to someone we just all think is a little feminine and we like making fun of.

The tongue in cheek approach is so prevalent here because of how ironic I think it is that people are fighting so hard to be open about their sexuality knowing exactly how much heat they will get for it - again - just like every other minority group. But how wonderfully American is that? Equal opportunity to be demeaned and ridiculed for who you are - as long as you get treated equally along those lines. I think this is essentially the on going punch line of "Rescue Me" and Dennis Leary's stand up comedy - and Howard Stern for that matter. But it is also much of America - people not really loving each other - for rediculously superficial reasons - yet being close in many other ways because of the common mission, job, or bond they have found through being "in the trenches" with one another. This is the powerfully transformative nature of American life and it is about time more people are realizing the benefit of that instead of seeing the segregationist instincts that are so common on the reactionary right.

And speaking of the reactionary right - and the transformative power of America - another article on this issue also got me thinking. In Ellen Goodman's October 9th piece "The Texas two step on gay-divorce" she thoroughly enjoys relating how, in the midst of the tide of states acknowledging gay marriage, Texas finds itself in the awkward position of SUPPORTING GAY MARRIAGE. Yes, that is correct. In Texas, they are battling a state court decision that would allow gay DIVORCES in other states to be recognized in Texas. How AWESOME is that! If you are married in a state where Gay marriage is legal, and want to dissolve that union in Texas, they will make you stay together. Granted, I am playing fast in loose with the legal arguments about consistency and precedent (you can't really acknowledge gay divorce if you are not acknowledging gay marriage in the first place), but you would think for just this kind of thing - the dissolution of something they find morally reprehensible - they would make an exception. I love it.

But to be honest, this article got me thinking about something else. What struck me more was that contrary to even five years ago, there is actually a tide moving more states toward acknowledging gay marriage. And why is that happening? Not necessarily because of strong grassroots efforts in the states that are now in play. I believe the tide is turning because of two things. One - the issue has NOT actually been placed squarely in front of the faces of people who are vehemently against it. Two - as my comments above suggest - and as Barney Frank often says - gay people got married and the world didn't end. This is really what I call the transformative power of America. This country can be changed kicking and screaming, or it can be changed as it was in its beginnings - a small group of brave leaders making bold changes and letting the rest of the country see that they can live with the change. They may not "love" everything about the change, but they can live safely, securely, and morally, even as others live a different lifestyle.

This is why more and more, on a very systemic level, I am becoming a huge fan of the "states rights" cop out - I mean argument. Seriously, I do think it is somewhat of a cop-out that what I find morally clear cannot simply be enacted by the federal government on everyone else. But implicit in that statement is the "everyone else." It may not be a perfect system - to let 50 somewhat arbitrary gatherings of people decide their own laws so that the country can gradually decide its own fate rather than all at once. But given our current culture and division of Red and Blue states, it may actually make more sense than many would believe. As I said, it is not perfect. And it does seem wrong in some ways when people thing moral absolutes are in place. But that sword cuts both ways and as a political junky, the imperfect but slow that still validates the rights of the other opinion, may actually be a brilliant system for change as opposed to a flawed system for maintaining the status quo.

Now let me be clear, I am not saying the hard work of activists generating support for the cause of LGBT rights are not important - because they are of vital importance. But the balancing of that work with the ability of America to reflect on gradual change has always been an amazing and potent combination. This is whey I am a "passionate moderate." There are people that say the change is too slow, some who say the change is too fast. But when I see articles like the one above, as much as I feel for those in other states who have not gotten their "change," I still see an America changing in a way that is long lasting, consistent, and respectful to those who deserve our patience - the other side. Change is difficult, but as Smokey Robinson said beutifully, "Change is gonna come!"

Health Care and Immigration - Take Back the Debate!

---

HEAL THE SICK!

It is - if you will - a pseudo commandment. It is - at the least - a moral and religious imperative. And I do not believe there are qualifiers or asterisks that limit that healing to "people like you" - "people you like" - or - "people who are documented citizens".

Lost in the bickering over health care reform is the nature of our debate over Health Care provided to illegal immigrants. It is a debate that, at its roots, should be so ugly and disturbing to all of us that we immediately wrestle it from the arena of public discourse.

Back during the Dukakis-Bush I campaign, there was this moment that political pundits know well. Dukakis had been getting knocked all over the ring by the Lee Attwater crafted strategy to label Dukakis a card carrying liberal. Eventually, Dukakis had a revelation. He stopped trying to appease the folks that weren't going to vote for him anyway and embraced his true liberalism. He began to proclaim, "YES! I am a Liberal! And Liberal is not a dirty word. Liberal ideals are the ideals of America and don't let the right wing convince you otherwise!" And because George H.W. Bush was no Reagan, and was not as able to tell the American people otherwise, Dukakis gained ground - all be it too late. This is also essentially the theme of the entire West Wing series for fans who are junkies of the politics in the show.

SO - let me take a page from both Dukakis and the West Wing on this pesky little issue of undocumented immigrants and the issue of Health Care. Here is my clear and unequivocal proclamation and I pray to G-d that anyone who reads this joins me all over Facebook, Twitter, and wherever else ideas congregate....


I BELIEVE IN GIVING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ALL THE HEALTH CARE THEY CAN GET - NO MATTER WHAT THE COST!


There I said it. This is my "I AM A LIBERAL" moment. The thing is, you don't have to be a Liberal to say it. You just have to be HUMAN.

My god man (and woman)! When did we get so pompous, so greedy, so inhuman, so uncaring, that we - as the wealthiest nation on earth - cannot see the morality in allowing any human being who is EXISTING anywhere in our great 50 states (and Puerto Rico) ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE WHETHER THEY CAN AFFORD IT OR NOT. I mean really. Wouldn't each and every one of us think it the accomplishment of a lifetime - both tangible and spiritual - if we could each say we had something to do with improving the health of those with the least means in our society?

Seriously, we are not talking about Oprah and free cars here. We are talking about sick babies seeing doctors even if they can't afford it. We are talking about the mothers and fathers of babies living longer, healthier lives because they not only had access to an EMERGENCY ROOM free of charge - but actual access to the very health care (check ups, tests, subsidized medicine) that would both keep them out of the emergency room AND help create a healthier America.

Now notice I did not justify all of this with the idea of saving money. Academics have almost universally concurred that this is a fallacy. And if that weren't enough, the Massachusetts system has proven the theory. But here's the rub. The Massachusetts system and its cost is not the example that should condemn health care for all who need it. It is the example that should set the rule. YES it costs more than we thought. But it costs more because MORE people than we thought actually sought out health care! For all the failures of government mandates, government red-tape, and government inefficiency - this actually got something NOBLE, GOOD, and DECENT done for THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE!

This is what I was referring to in my opening. Polls consistently show that people don't mind paying taxes if they know it is going for the betterment of society. Conservatives and the wealthy are just very good at obscuring the benefit that people get (and demand) from their government. They just propose abstractions - like NO TAX DOLLARS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS - forgetting the whole time the their abstractions (War, Health Care) have very real consequences for very real people.

I don't know about you, but I couldn't care one bit that a baby, teenager, middle age man or elderly person was a documented citizen in order for him or her to get proper health care. I think many of you think the same way, but in this political climate, are afraid to say so. There are too many dogmatic, unthinking conservatives out there - even in our social circles - who really think they rationally know why this is a BAD thing. This is about HEALING THE SICK! Have people forgotten that?

I will probably not have the same luck making a similar argument about education and other benefits for undocumented immigrants - although I believe in those too. But here is my point - and is my larger point about Health Care in general. Healing the sick - which is what we are really talking about - is like NOTHING ELSE IN OUR SOCIETY. It is not jobs; it is not tax cuts for this class or that; it is not school vouchers; it is not redistribution of wealth; it is not Democrat or Republican; it is not Conservative or Liberal. It is HEALING THE SICK and taking care of the least amongst us. It is moral, good, and righteous, and I want its demonization and politicization to stop.

You can certainly also see that the polarization of the issue in general and the fact that Barak Obama is pushing this, a man who is "too exotic" for many in this country, is bringing out the very worst in us - AGAIN - and causing us to miss this larger obligation to each other. This polarization and overt appeal to underlying racism and anti-immigrant sentiment is despicable - but gets certain powerbrokers the exposure and polling numbers they seek. (Yes you Mr. Wilson) And so, the Lee Attwatter strategy of appealing to our lowest common denominators (the Willy Horton approach) rears its ugly head once again. I for one, think it is time this stops. NOW!

(See this article by Derrek Jackson in the Globe to read more about this Polarization)

So I say this again, look at Massachusetts as the model. We had faith (or apathy) and a did not go crazy when someone said "you will have to have health insurance - or get some kind of state sponsored plan." We did not go crazy because, well, it seemed like a good thing to do. It still is. And in the same way that thousands came out of the woodwork to take our money - not to gamble it away or drink it away - but to GET HEALTH CARE, wouldn't it be incredible if - even if it cost us a few more dollars - we could eventually say that WE were responsible for that same outpouring nationally? Wouldn't it just be amazing if, when all is said and done, we helped MILLIONS gain access to health care? Now that would be a valuable use of my tax dollars. In fact, I think it would be the best use EVER!


Please join me and spread the word wherever you can!


I BELIEVE IN GIVING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ALL THE HEALTH CARE THEY CAN GET - NO MATTER WHAT THE COST! ..... NO LIE!

---

Policy Focus - Demonizing the Health Care Debate

---

Scott Lehigh from the Boston Globe takes a stab at assessing how the debate over health care has been demonized.

His essential argument is that this movement is just another part of the fringe conservative effort to find relevance. By enlisting the passions of wackos who have no clue what they are talking about - but somehow know that Obama is a Muslim or not a natural born citizen - he feels the conservatives are just blowing steam.

Well I'm sorry Scott, but your analysis couldn't be more wrong. (See Story) If you were writing about the pathetic "Tea Party" reenactments from a few months ago, you would be dead on. That most certainly was a scattered and ineffective attempt on the part of conservatives to rally the troops. And by listening to their own analysis, you would have thought it a resounding success. But it had no traction, made little sense, went nowhere, and has since died its rightful death.

What conservatives have in this debate however is much deeper and may very well quash this latest attempt to reform health care. The irony of course is that the reform will actually help all these idiots who are screaming against it. But that is the ongoing legacy of all this - the way in which conservatives and the wealthy elite have convinced people that their interests and those of the lower middle class are the same. Nothing could be further from the truth - and until Democrats better argue this point - they will continue to come up short with this group.

Yes, many of those doing the loudest shouting are extremists. But you fail to recognize that we have been here before. This argument is about more than just health care. It is about the conservative fable that any government program aimed at HELPING people is not only socialism, but FASCISM. The conservatives, as exemplified best by people like Glenn Beck, have twisted the meaning of fascism and have convinced many in America that government bodies (made up of well meaning civil servants) are somehow less desirable folks to set policy then what currently exists - the fascist rule of the power elite (Insurance Company lobbyists, executives, Wall Street Executives). It is insane that they can even still make this argument after Enron, the .com collapse, and this latest epic collapse of the housing market. Seriously, who do you trust more - all those business people who were so caught up in the greed of the market that they blatantly violated the public trust - or a President trying to make good on decades of evidence showing what just may help us all.

You also fail to realize that this debate has re-ignited (or made it ok to foster) the latent racism that has always been out there about Obama. Now I know my conservative friends will say this just isn't true. But come on. We fear what we don't know and we fear who is not like us. Who is more unlike and unfamiliar to many of those on the fringe, than an educated black man who just won the white house.

People, people, people. If only Scott Lehigh were correct. If only there weren't hundreds of thousands of people secretly (and often not so secretly) harboring the same views as the people he is calling out.

People - get a clue. The Glenn Becks of this world are not working in your best interest. They are fomenting hate. They believe in a radical individualism that would today be rallying against Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and thousands of other programs that help millions of Americans every day.

Join me and please spread the word. Health Care reform is not evil and the government is not always evil by default. And conservatives - you know this because of how much you love it when Republican administrations want to violate your civil rights for your own good.

If we don't start to turn the tide, these wackos will be the conservative heroes who helped to derail yet another attempt to reform health care.

---

Israel Focus - In Support of Nadav Tamir

---

There is so much to be frustrated about in this latest episode involving Israeli Policy and the conflicting attitudes of the American Jewish community.

Looking at the press coverage and the reactions of conservatives in both this country and in Israel, one would think Consul General Nadav Tamir sold military secrets to Iran.

So before I even mention how much I admire, respect, and commend Nadav Tamir, it must be made clear that his words of advice and counsel to the Foreign Ministry were nothing more than sound, rational analysis.

As one commentator has already mentioned, the fact that so many are out of sorts by what he wrote is a clear indication of how disconnected some conservatives are from reality and rationality of any kind. Let's also be clear about a couple of other things. The current Foreign Minister - and Likud government - did not get to power on anything close to a majority in Israel. That being the case, towing this party's line with some on-the-record reservations is not necessarily the worst career move. They will be out of power very soon, trust me. And when they are, diplomats like Nadav Tamir can still be able to hold their heads high. Next, the critics of Tamir in Boston listed by the Globe - namely the Russian Immigrant community, Tom Mountain, and Mark Solomon are so far to the right, you might as well give credibility to that wacko in New Hampshire who still doesn't recognize the US Government. Tom Mountain and Mark Solomon mean well, but they are not representative of any major portion of the American Jewish community. They are the fringe - without question. In fact they are part of the very problem that Nadav describes - people who never think Israel does anything wrong and thinks anyone who says so - like Tamir and President Obama - are traitors in some way.

For background on the story, please see these two globe articles. One from Monday and one from Tuesday.

(I am including at the end of this blog what is apparently the full text of Nadav Tamir's memo.)

But what we are really in the middle of here, I believe, can be explained by politics and by an ongoing misunderstanding in Israel of how average Americans react to what the Israeli government does and says.

It seems clear that this memo was leaked precisely because someone wants any critique of Israeli policy stifled. It also seems clear that this could open the door for the removal of a centrist Consul General as opposed to the right wing bozos running the show right now.

As Tamir indicated, and as I will echo, the problem has never really been what Israel DOES or HAS THE RIGHT TO DO. The problem has always been HOW they go about doing things and HOW they go about communicating them. American Jewish community leaders who have looked to information coming out of Israel to reflect something called TACT, and DIPLOMACY have routinely been disappointed. Just last year I sat in on a meeting with the Israeli Ambassador to the UN and an interfaith group in Boston and couldn't believe some of the things he said. Its not that he was wrong about anything, but it was just the words he decided to use and the rhetoric he thought would go over well. This is an old story and it is part of the reason there is often a disconnect between what Israel thinks they are saying to the world and what the world hears. That is largely what Tamir was talking about.

Now to be fair, one needs to understand that this is the way of things. The culture of language in the Middle East is less "burdened" with the nuances and niceties of Western language. Their world is harsher and more direct and so is the way they speak about it. If Israel doesn't feel they neeed to explain why a "complete settlement freeze" is actually a straw man in the current situation where Hamas and Fatah are at war, well they won't. That is exactly why Israel needs diplomats like Nadav Tamir. He is an unequivocal supprter of Israel - but knows how to speak to other communities and diverse constituencies about what that means. If any of you have ever heard him speak you would know that. And if you truly understood the complexities of Israel's situation and the challenges of how that situation is distorted around the globe, you would completely understand his memo.

In summary, Nadav Tamir is an astute diplomat who knows the difference between public opinion and the opinion of conservative Jewry in the US. The American public is a diverse group and it is the goal of many in the Jewish community to try and INCREASE their support of Israel. To do this requires strategy, subtlety, and a knowledge of what they need to hear. None of those has ever been high on the list of what Israel has used in the past to communicate with America. And this is not just my opinion. This has been studied by marketing experts, high profile diplomats, and many community leaders. Even people who support Israel completely believe they are horrible at communicating to the American public.

Specifically, if you look at the memo, Tamir compares the public perception in the US of the Gaza ware versus this latest flare up over settlements. He is absolutely right to say that this situation is causing Israel to lose more support. During Gaza - you had the missiles falling into Sderot and AVERAGE Americans could relate to that and support the retaliation. In this situation, like many others, you have misinformation about settlements the prevailing context and Israel is doing nothing to dispel the misinformation. They are seemingly standing their ground on an issue that, to many Americans, brings sympathy to the Palestinians. Tamir was not reinforcing the misperceptions in America, but simply acknowledging it, and saying how difficult they are to overcome.

Then of course you have his VERY accurate assessment of the way in which MANY in America want to accentuate the APPARENT differences between the Obama administration and the current Israeli government simply because of their politics. If you do not believe this is the case, you are the naive ones not Obama. Look the real story is that if you look at a recent CohenSide blog - you will see the way in which Ehud Barak did exactly what Tamir was talking about. He gave an official response that was a way to frame a POSSIBLE settlement freeze with conditions. And instead of THAT being the consistent message of the government, you have ultra conservatives like Lieberman putting out adamant black and white statements. THAT is what Tamir, as a responsible underling, would like to see end.

As I wrote above, diplomacy requires a strategy. Diplomacy with the US requires strategy and tact. Not only has Israel never been great at that in the past (and they will admit this) the current leadership takes this to a new level.

Once again, based on the reaction, you would think Nadav publicly disagreed with the policy on settlements. He did not. But he does see that issue not being handled well - diplomatically - and he also sees that it is beginning to gain traction in the US with AVERAGE Americans who only see Israel as the bad guy in so many of these situations.

All those who don't see that are sadly insulated in their own conservatism and will never understand what it is going to take to improve public opinion of Israel in the United States. As someone who studies that very issue and has seen its deterioration first hand, to question Nadav Tamir's correct analysis of this growing disconnect is both disturbing and unfortunate.

Reports indicate that Tamir will leave Israel with only a slap on the wrist before he comes back to Boston. But stranger things have happened in situations like this - and it would be a terrible shame if in fact he is asked to resign. People like Nadav Tamir are central to any possible future of peace and security for Israel.

___________________________________________
Pondering American-Israeli relations

In Brief:

During a visit to Israel, I became more aware that we have a damaging misunderstanding regarding the intentions and policies of the American administration. I must note that even if I am wrong in my assessment of the American administration, the way in which we manage our relations nowadays is causing strategic damage to two very important aspects that make up our special relationship and they are the level of intimacy in coordinating policies, and the support of US public opinion towards Israel.

Details:

Many who read this telegram have a more extensive perspective than I do regarding the history of these relations. However, at least during the 16 years in which I have been following the relations, the Israeli attitude was characterized and rightly so by emphasizing the partnership of values and interests among both countries. This attitude favored downplaying tactical differences, and dealing with them in private, in order to create an atmosphere of strategic partnership in the administrations and public opinion.

This attitude has resulted in a high level of trust and a willingness of the [US] administration to coordinate various policies with an effort to overcome differences behind closed doors. The Israeli attitude always favored saying Yes to the Americans, rather than a strict No. It was clear to the [Israeli] decision makers that we were dealing with the most important superpower on earth, as well as our closest ally, which meant making sacrifices in favor of strategic relations on various tactical issues. For example, one might mention Prime Minister Sharon's positive answer to the Road Map despite a long list of reservations, in order to preserve the level of intimacy and coordination. One must note that the two countries have always had differences of opinion regarding the settlements, for example, or the issue of Hamas participating in the Palestinian elections, but the level of coordination between administrations and US public perception of the special relationship were maintained.

The damage to US public opinion is already evident from recently held opinion polls, and is expected to worsen. In my estimation, the media coverage, which presents an image of conflict between the Israeli government and the Obama Administration, damages Israeli support in the public eye more than the criticism due to violence and harming civilians during Cast Lead or during the conflict with Hizbullah in 2006.

Throughout the years, opinion polls have shown that the two most significant factors in US public support are the perception of a partnership in values and interests, and the perception that Israel seeks to end the conflict with its neighbors (hence the consistent public support of our right to self defense). These two parameters have suffered greatly recently. In many American circles, there is a feeling these days, that while the Obama administration tries to resolve global conflicts, it must deal with the refusal to cooperate by governments in Iran, North Korea, and Israel. Aaron Miller's words, spoken after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, clearly show this feeling. He said it was a meeting between Obama yes we can and Netanyahu no you won't.

The sense of conflict between the Israeli government and the Obama administration places the American Jewish community, which we care so much about, in a problematic position, in which they are forced to choose between the two. You must remember that most of the American Jewish community supported Obama (78 percent), and this conflict distances many of them from the State of Israel.

There are, of course, players in American and Israeli politics who oppose Obama ideologically and are willing to sacrifice the special relationship between the countries to further their own political agenda, but we cannot let these players damage the bipartisan attitude that rightly characterized the conduct of Israeli governments toward the US. In this context, we should look at a positive example, like the success of PM Tony Blair, who was an ideological partner of Clinton, and managed to maintain the strategic alliance between the US and the UK despite the change of governments in the US, due to an understanding that this alliance is more important than minor differences between a Labour-led UK and the Conservative Bush administration.

The distance that emerged between us and the American administration has clear consequences regarding Israeli deterrence in our region, and our global status. The astonishing fact that only 8 percent of Israelis see the Obama administration as friendly, while in the rest of the world he enjoys unprecedented popularity, is very disconcerting. This is no doubt a failure by the Obama administration to communicate with the Israeli public, but we at the Foreign Ministry have an interest in changing this situation, which jeopardizes our ability to present ourselves as the US's only true friend in the Middle East.

Some claim it was the Obama administration that preferred to distance itself from us in order to better its relations with the Muslim world. In my estimation, the administration indeed emphasized these differences before the Cairo address in order to get more attention in the Muslim world. However, since then, they have been making an effort to downplay our disagreements, and we have become the source of public displays of disagreement. Even if those who claim that the Obama administration is trying to distance itself from Israel are right, it is unclear to me why we are doing everything in our power to assist it.

As for our suspicions towards the Obama administrations intentions and willingness to supposedly sacrifice Israeli interests in order to appeal to the Muslim world I do not see any indication of this. In my estimation, the Obama administration realizes that the most significant challenge to American interests stems from the Middle East. Their analysis of the Middle East situation matches the one we have heard from our intelligence community in recent years, namely that during the Bush administration, the US lost its influence and levers in the region for various reasons. The intention of the engagement policy is to renew those levers in order to reverse the decline of US influence in the Middle East in the face of a rise in radical influence, led by Iran and Al-Qaeda.

I do not detect any naivte in the attitudes of the Obama administration. On the contrary, I believe they are much more realistic than their Neoconservative predecessors. An example of this is Obama's refusal to fully support the post-election protesters in Iran and speak out against human rights violations, knowing that these statements will only help the [Iranian] regime, and his preference to focus on a response that will preserve American options regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

The Obama administration is determined to take leadership and create influence levers in order to deal with the two most significant strategic challenges to the State of Israel -- the threat posed by Iran and its minions, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact that they are unresolved poses a threat to our way of life as a Jewish and Democratic state.

There is no country on earth that has more to benefit from the American move than us, and I am surprised that we would rather emphasize negative tactical issues over the positive strategic move, and that we focus on the trees instead of the forest (evident in the Israeli responses to various utterances in the Cairo address). Despite the fact that it is hard to isolate the influence of various factors in foreign policy, I think that the engagement policy deserves at least partial credit for the sorry state of the Iranian Mullah regime, and the fact that the Lebanese elections were at least a departure from recent negative trends.

Recommendation:

In order to restore the intimacy and coordination between us and the American administration, and in order to restore our status in public opinion, I suggest that we dramatically change our conduct regarding the Obama administration. Even those of us who suspect the administration's intent (as stated, I am not one of those people) must be reminded that we do not have strategic substitutes for the US, at least not in the foreseeable future.

I suggest that we declare publically that we share the Obama administrations world view and that we are interested in helping promote the policies of empowering moderate forces in the Middle East via an honest attempt at engagement, which will restore American hegemony in the Middle East, and deny radical forces the popularity they enjoyed during the Bush administration.

I suggest that we talk of our ambition for peace and our support of the two state solution more convincingly, and not like we are bowing to American pressure, but like those who understand that this is first and foremost an Israeli interest. I recommend we deal with disagreements regarding construction in the [disputed] territories away from the eyes of the media. History proves that when we present a political initiative, we do not have to deal with other problematic or uncoordinated initiatives.

This does not mean surrendering to every American dictate. As you remember, Prime Minister Sharon refused to promise that we would not respond to missile attacks from Iraq, which meant that the Americans favored destroying rocket launchers placed in Western Iraq in the early days of the American invasion. We shouldn't promise that we won't attack Iran if we feel that all other options have run out because it is indeed a strategic matter, but we must save these discussions for intimate meetings, not the media.

We can continue influencing American policies on Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians far better if we restore our status as partners in the administration's moves, and not a country with which to communicate through State Department briefings, as is done with Venezuela and North Korea.

Sincerely,

Nadav Tamir.

---

Policy Focus - Charter Schools and The Educational Divide

---

Please read this excellent Op-Ed from the Boston Globe written by David Segal.

It reflects much of what I have been saying for quite some time about the REAL issue at the core of the charter school debate. This is one of my favorite issues because it is a great example of how NO ONE wants to see the truths of each side. They just want to keep demonizing each other - preferring to keep the voters confused rather than informed.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/08/03/the_new_educational_divide

In his article, Segal focuses on the group to which I most want attention paid - those that are left behind. And as such, the charter school issue for me is a microcosm of our larger political debates. As a general proposition, charter schools are excellent schools. The dirty little secret, however, is that charter schools are the ugly step child to ... wait for it ... TRACKING! There I said it. Tracking is the proposition that students with superior skill sets should get to learn with other similar students, at a more challenging pace, and with a more challenging curriculum, rather than be dragged down by less skilled students. Everyone has his or her study that shows how much better it is to mix everyone together - but if that is the case - how can those same people in good conscience support charter schools. It is by extension - the same principle.

Now as a former teacher, I do NOT believe "tracking" is a dirty word NOR do I believe that "charter school" is a dirty word. In fact, I think there should be as many advanced programs as possible in the public school systems. I think selectively, students who excel in more standard programs should be encouraged to enter more challenging programs. But I also think that we always forget that unlike many other countries, we try to educate EVERYONE. A rational school system would have an excellent alternative program for emotionally troubled children. It would also have a supplementary school for mentally disadvantaged children. It would also have various programs for different learning styles (pilot models). Charter schools are nothing more than an escape from reality. It is a cop out. It is saying we no longer know what to do with ALL of these kids so you know what - the kids that want to learn and the parents who are not asleep at the wheel (as way too many are) - they will get to REALLY go to school. (Oh and by the way, since we could never pay teachers enough money to work the hours they really should in order to provide quality education, we'll just skirt around the law like they do in China and make them work whatever hours we want for whatever pay we deem fit - regardless of the Union Contract. Trust me - they'll just be happy to work in a place where people care.)

It is true, as Segal frames the case, that charter schools are mostly populated by students whose parents or advocates had to pro-actively get them into the school. Why can no one see that OF COURSE that would be a better environment for learning. Its cleaner, and the teachers, parents and STUDENTS care more - and WANT to be there.

So why would anyone be against that? Well of course the people who want to go to the better schools wouldn't be. Conservatives - who are mainly the wealthy and alert folks who want to get their public school kids into better schools (but not pay for private) would be for it. But for them to also say this is FOR the poor, ALL the poor, is the height of hypocrisy. Yes people who are poor benefit. But the vast majority of the kids with little support at home, those who are behind at so many levels, these are the MAJORITY of kids out there and THESE are the kids that will all be left to go to the REGULAR school.

Segal wonders if anyone ever asks what will happen to the REGULAR schools if you increase the number of Charter schools? Well what's left essentielly becomes a de-facto alternative school. A school filled with kids whose parents were asleep at the wheel or who are discipline or emotional basket-cases. Keep in mind, the more charter schools you make, the more like REGULAR school your Charter school becomes. This is not about the teachers, the parents or the paint on the school. If every school is a "Charter School" you then begin to have the same problems. You no longer have the cream of the crop - but more of the "problem" kids than you had before.

What so many of us fail to ask is what makes a charter school superior in the first place? I will list them - but only to then see how our "regular schools " need to be.

Selectivity, Focus and Accountability - much like a private school, charter schools have a certain focus, selective student body, engaged parent and level of parent-teacher-student accountability that many public schools do not.

Teacher Time - as stated previously, teachers would gladly spend more time on their job if they got paid for it. Many do as it is, but please do not sit on your couch and demand something of teachers that you would not do yourself. When the auto industry wants to cut pay and demands more hours without less pay - the automakers can't just create a "special" plant where the union agreements don't apply. Why people do not get that analogy is mind boggling.

SO - the answers are the ones that have been there all the time. Schools need teachers to spend more time teaching (extended learning time). But you need to pay them. If you are not willing to do that then shut-up, game over, stop complaining about schools and stop yelling about charter schools. Its criminal.

Schools need focus, they need character education, they need accountability, and they need TRACKING. There need to be pilot programs with different avenues of learning (not necessarily different schools). There need to be special education programs with less (yes less) inclusion. (inclusion - the dirty word of education that really means "whew - less money spent and the regular classroom teacher can deal with it all") There need to be alternative programs for students with discipline problems so that their negativity and time drain does not limit the other students.

Once all these things have REALLY been attempted, and they didn't work, then I guess the only solution is to leave all the problem kids and kids with drug addicted parents to hang out for 185 days at the "regular" school while everyone else goes to a school that no one pays attention to. I know that sounds harsh - but this really is the logical extension of the charter school craze.

---

National Politics/Race Relations Focus - The Gates Arrest, Police Work, and the Politics of Race

---

CRASH!

That's my take on last weeks arrest in Cambridge of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.

This was a Crash of epic proportions. But unlike the Titanic, when we knew the factors and markers (Iceberg, Large Ship Steaming Too Fast) this Crash was not what most people expected.

What was expected was the all to quick jumping on the bandwagon that took place. Most people immediately got sucked into the comfortable Left-Right paradigm. Liberals immediately claimed of "Racial Profiling" and conservatives jumped right to "Stop Playing the Race Card - That Doesn't Happen Anymore."

As usual, both extremes were very, very wrong. And as usual, the truth lied somewhere in the middle. In the movie CRASH. There is a heart wrenching scene where a fairly wealthy African American is stopped by a clearly racist caricature of a cop. The cop, played by Matt Dillon, has clear hostility toward blacks and we know this because we hear stories about how his dad lost a job to a black person due to affirmative action. Most times, we are not lucky enough to get into some one's head, but that's the beauty of movies - they give it right too us. Sad part about the Gates saga is that after about a day - we DID have the answers right in front of us. In the movie, the police officer clearly abuses his power, pulls over the well dressed black man because he is black and proceeds to insult and physically/sexually harass his wife. Its horrible, it black and white, and we get it. But that is NOT what happened here. Not even close.

What began to emerge after reading the police reports and watching the interviews with officer Crowley, was a story that had a touch of racial bias - MAYBE - and a ton of overreacting to police presence, attitude, and procedure. Lets start with the bias first. To be fair, who knows if the elderly woman who pointed out to her neighbor that the break-in was occurring would have done so had the occupant (Gates) been white? Who knows if she would have known him better had he been white. What we do know by listening to the tapes and matching them with the reports is that Professor Gates seemed to be upset at the very presence of the Police and not really by anything they did or said. It would appear that because they did not leave when he said it was his house, that he truly believed being black was the reason. That's the baggage. It is baggage that I don't have and its the baggage that I can only imagine.

But here's what I do know - when I was younger I used to resent being stopped by the Police. Of course I always thought I was right and was always innocent of any traffic violation the police may have thought they saw or invented. I grew up with many kids who were schoolyard bullies-turned-guys with a badge and a gun and really resented that. But after I got more experience with the Law and what police have the right and ability to do - to ANYONE - things changed. From that moment on, if I am stopped, BOTH my hands go to the 10 o'clock position on the steering wheel, in plain sight, and I don't move a muscle until the police tell me too. And I have never really had anything bad done to me, I just don't like the absolute power police have and I'll be damned if I'll "give them a reason."

Now I brought up the scene from the movie "Crash" because most likely, the character in the scene who was stopped knows full well what the police have the power to do and probably did do all the time in his community. Professor Gates is knowledgeable enough to know all of that as well. So why would he act more like an impetuous 18 year old then a mature, responsible Harvard Professor who, without any real provocation, could put up with a little police machismo and procedure and not blame it all on race so quickly. The answer to that can only be one thing - baggage - and the probability that Gates is a pompous Harvard professor who feels he is DUE a disproportionate amount of respect. (that's what an 18 year old would think anyway) He even specifically used the "do you know who I am" phrase. How many poor minority kids in the projects all over the country get to use that one (and mean it)? And how many actually say things like "this is because I'm black - give me your badge number" (and expect to either get BETTER treatment after that or expect NOT to eat some pavement.)

This is the real world where real police do real things. I know that and I am amused that Professor Gates did not. You DON'T MOUTH OFF TO POLICE - period. Black or white. Especially if you want to end things amicably. But to be fair, if I heard ONE thing, in Gates' accounts or on the tapes that made me think for a second the police did something overtly racist to deserve this, believe me I would be acknowledging it. But I didn't and I don't think its there.

But here's what's interesting. I will bet anyone any amount of money that had Gates been wearing a three piece suit and was clean shaven, things would have gone a little differently. And here is why. No one ever wants to talk about the class issue. In this case - and in many, many others - it trumps race. I was clearly not at the house, but based on the tapes and interviews, I am willing to bet the dialogue went something like this.

CP - (Loud knocks or bangs) Cambridge Police, identify yourself (no guns drawn I believe).
HLG - What - what are you doing here? This is my house (said like Eddie Murphy in Raw) now get out of here.
CP - We have a a report of a break-in, please come out on the porch and identify yourself.
HLG - I am Henry Lewis Gates Jr. a Harvard Professor and this is my house, please get out of here. (Please is not said in a nice way).
CP - For the last time sir, I am asking you to cooperate and follow me out of the house.
HLG - Why, because I'm black? If I were white, you wouldn't be asking me to leave my house. I'm not leaving and you can't make me - and you don't have a warrant.

Now I am going to stop there and give some analysis. But right after this point is where I believe things went really bad. Gates, not being a lawyer, didn't realize that because of the reported break in, the Police could come in. I believe they did and then all hell broke loose with Gates yelling.

As reported by officer Crowley, his only intention was to see who this guy was. But his worry was that 1) This guy may not be telling the truth (that's never happened before right) 2) If the report was correct, there may be other's in the house and GATES may be in danger. That is why he was asking him to come out on the porch and I BELIEVE HIM. IT MAKES SENSE. NOTHING THAT GATES SAYS DOES.

Now I want to depart from the story line to talk about three things related to police procedure.

1) In ALL cases if the police just said why they were doing something, even the short version, things would ALWAYS go better. But they never feel they need to. And because of that they often HEIGHTEN tensions instead of diffuse them. In this case, it was not clear to Gates why he should go out on the porch of his own house. In Gates' mind, history shows that coming out of the house is the beginning of the end for an accused black person - resulting in arrest or violence. And while that CAN be true , even in 2009 (my conservative friends would say that's crap) it probably wasn't going to be true outside a 3 million dollar home in Cambridge just outside of Harvard. So in that case - JUST DO WHAT THE POLICE ASK. How complicated is that? I wish they were always more polite and explained things more, but until that changes and until you put your life on the line every day like they do to understand why they do what they do - just do what they ask. I know that. Why does Professor Gates not? And please don't think that just because he is a College Professor he is an expert on in-the-trenches encounters like this.

2) From the sounds of the tapes, it does also not seem like the proper doubt about the situation being a robbery got communicated to the police on the scenes. The woman calling in was SO equivocal about whether this was a break-in or the owners returning from vacation. She actually said that last part. And why? Because she saw suitcases and wondered out loud to the police on the phone whether that might mean they were in fact the owners returning home. She even admitted that she was only calling because her elderly neighbor saw this happen. This was in man ways a second hand account. As for the bags, the officer on the phone responded with "what do you mean they had bags, what does that even mean, why is that important." Well it may have changed the opening line to "Cambridge Police, we got a call about a break-in, are you the owner sir?" Now why that did not happen is partly because of a problem I have with police procedure that can easily contribute and make worse even a small HINT of racial/class bias. I truly believe the above line is often the more conciliatory one delivered in places like WAYLAND and SUDBURY and especially if the person was clean-shaven, wearing an expensive watch and a three piece suit. But this is Cambridge, a fairly urban setting, and this guy looked like anyone, and he was "maybe Hispanic" according to the call.

Now I know that last part will ruffle some feathers. Some will say "Its just for identification". But I say that's crap. Any student of anti-Bias education knows that the more we label and the more we diminish the totality of identity, the more we spread bias. And who knows how someone processes that information. You plant the idea of Hispanic and you can't help but have preconceived notions enter you brain. Its human nature. That wouldn't stop if we used other terms, but it would at least let the person fill in the blanks. No need for us to help them out. These days what does that even mean for purposes of identification. Is he light skin or dark skinned. Is he tan or as black as night (the color). There are so many mixed marriages these days someone on the cream side could be about 5 different nationalities or of a million ethnic backgrounds. Let just agree to use distinguishing marks, clothes, and color pigmentation in shades - instead of what the office on the phone asked fro abruptly. "Is he white, Hispanic or black man" As if any of us really know. And clearly, she did not.

In talking to a friend, he said that using race in this case was no problem at all, it was that "easiest, most efficient way to communicate identity in that situation." I have already dispelled that myth above, but my point here is that YES, NOT using race is not as easy. We are programmed to do it from years of common practice. We don't even ask why when clearly another way would actually help us be MORE careful about what people look like and whether they were the perpetrator or not. Isn't a pink striped Izod and a receding hairline with, light brown skin a lot better then "I think he's Hispanic." The very question is both out of date and becoming more and more USELESS.

3) But here's the last part. Please listen to the 911 call . You'll get my point about what REALLY contributed to this situation.(http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO120131/) It was not race. It was the over-reaction of Gates spurred on by an attitude that police carry into EVERY situation. The Globe had an interesting story about this the other day. They took the one sided view that "suspicion" save lives. Not once did they ask police to be a little better in at least trying to identify situations where they do not need as much bravado. But that's the way police do things. In this same way, police look at every person - not like they are suspicious, but like they are scum. I'm sorry but that's what it feels like with EVERY interaction - and that needs to stop. If it is a strategy to put people on the defensive, then fine, but be more careful about how you use it. There are more good people out there then scumbags, and just because you see more scumbags on a daily basis does not mean you get to unload that baggage on everyone else. Yes, yes, just like my "who is really a terrorist" argument goes, one could ask how police can possibly separate the wheat from the chaffe, the good from the scum. Well I don't know exactly, but we won't know until they try. And why is this important? Did you LISTEN to the 911 call? I have been that person - made to feel like an idiot and a 2 yr old as I am talked to like I am bothering the person on the other end. The woman was clearly trying to do her civic duty and this guy was grilling her. And because of that grilling and supposition of superiority, or some other testosterone driven reason, he LEFT OUT THE CRITICAL FACT ABOUT THE SUITCASES. He didn't think it was important because the goal is NOT to exonerate but to suspect. The woman was trying to explain "barged in" - something you and I really can picture in our minds. Did the officer even somewhat politely ask her to explain further in this way - "Mam when you say barged in, was the door already open, was the lock broken or was the door broken down" Instead he scoffed and said, "barged - what does that mean, what is .. barged in.." in the most - you are just so horrible at relating to me what I want to know in the way I want to hear it" manner of speaking. I think my mom use to call my dad on that same 'tone'. You all know what I'm talking about.

And the best part was at the end of the call with the laughing exhale by the woman who made the call. Its the same sound I have made after calling the police. It is the sound of "You - A-hole! I'm trying to HELP YOU! No wonder people don't like the police and I'm wondering if I I'll ever call to report a crime again if I'm going to be treated this way."

To be fair, Police provide a necessary service and we should all kiss the ground they walk on. But too many walk around with that very phrase practically tattooed to their faces and flowing in their voice. I can't explain it, I only know it when I see it. Take a look at the guy standing to the right of Crowley in that video of the Police responding in solidarity to Obama's comment. This may be tantamount to racial bias itself, but that's the face. The face of "I don't have to justify my actions to you." Its the face of Jack Nicholson's Nathan Jessup - the face of "you should just thank your lucky stars I'm on that wall, eat your breakfast and say thank you." I really think that was the face that Professor Gates saw, and I really think that was the tone he heard. And frankly, if I were as prominent as him and sensed for one second I would be talked to differently if I were white, I may have reacted similarly. And that's what I want to end with. I think Gates over-reacted. But every bone in my body wonders how much of the tone I am describing here and the way police don't ever feel the need to explain themselves plays a role in all of these kinds of encounters. And that's what I think Obama was responding to. It's like in baseball when we say the umpire should have walked away. At some point, even though Gates was belligerent, someone should have walked away. And since the guys with the guns and the cuffs have the power, I'm putting that ball in their court. Gates gets the "Dude, not everyone is a racist" ball put in his court. It will be interesting to see if this blue ribbon panel they've put together agrees with me. I doubt it, but you never know.

---