Unless you’ve been off living in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan, you’ll remember that last month the L.A. City Council voted to boycott Arizona in protest of their crackdown on illegal immigration. The members of the council were so outraged at the behavior of Arizona’s elected officials that they enacted a ban on doing business with any company based in Arizona and suspended all city-related travel to the state.
Council Member Paul Koretz said that the passage of the Arizona laws was comparable to “the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany” and that he believed that Arizona “needs to be stung in every possible way until they stop this behavior”.
Richard Alarcon was brought to tears and exclaimed that, “We’re fighting to preserve American democracy”.
Jose Huizar felt that, “We have to act strongly and quickly to put out this disease. This boycott will send that strong message. We must deal swiftly and strongly with this ill conceived law before it spreads anywhere else”.
Tony Cardenas declared, “We are standing here for what is right. We got elected to do what is right”. And then went on to say that Arizona was “acting un-American”.
Ed Reyes claimed that if he went to Arizona and met a police officer that was having a bad day, that he could be deported (totally untrue) and that it was “crucial for our great city to take a stand and …manage our assets in a way that upholds the principles of this great country”.
Janice Hahn implored the Council to “stand up today and say yes to what we all believe America should look like and behave like”. She then went on to paraphrase Edmund Burke: “there are few times in our lives when we have the opportunity to stand up and be counted… and we know bad things happen when good people do not stand up and say something.
Eric Garcetti and the rest of the City Hall crew also declared that they, too, wanted to “take a stand”.
So they adopted a resolution that directed:
…all City Departments, to the extent practicable, and in instances where there is no significant additional cost to the City nor conflict with the law, to refrain from entering into any new or amended contracts to purchase goods or services from any company that is headquartered in Arizona.
Pretty powerful stuff. Certainly nothing could make the City Council waiver from this self described principled stance.
Well… not so fast. Apparently the City Council, in enacting their little boycott, didn’t realize that the vendor for one of the LAPD’s pet projects is based in Arizona. American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the company that runs Los Angeles’ Automated Photo Red Light Enforcement Program is headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona and their contract expires on June 30, 2010. Of course, the Board of Police Commissioners wants to continue this program which issues over 40,000 citations per year and extracts around $20 million annually from Los Angeles drivers, 80% of whom were caught simply making a rolling right turn, not running through the intersection. But under the Council’s Arizona boycott, renewing the contract would be a big no no.
So what’s a cash strapped city to do? Why, enact an exemption for the Police Department to be able to extend the contract, of course. It’s that simple. And the proposal to do just that has recently passed the Council’s Safety Committee. Voting “yes” were Council Members Smith, Cardenas, and Perry; Reyes and Zine were absent. Only a passing mention was made of the fact that ATS is an Arizona based company, and that particular issue really didn’t seem to concern any of the three committee members. In fact, the balance of the discussion was over concerns of how the city could “improve the citation issuance rate”.
The proposal now goes before the entire Council this Tuesday, June 22nd. I guess we’ll see if any members of the full council, who were so eager to “take a stand” against a state they believe is “acting un-American” and “needs to be stung in every possible way”, will have any reservations about making this exception and continuing to do business with Arizona based ATS.
For the record, I don’t support this silly boycott, so it’s hard for me to argue that the city shouldn’t renew the contract for that reason. But I do believe that when city council members make such a grand show of their collective outrage against another jurisdiction, it’s ridiculously hypocritical for them to then turn around, less than a month later, and simply make an exemption just because it’s convenient for them to do so. Of course, hypocrisy runs deep in the LA City Council so we shouldn’t be surprised if this passes with a unanimous vote.
So much for “upholding the principles of this great country”.
If you want to let the City Council know your opinion on this. You can look up their contact info here.
Loading ...
|
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
|
June 18th, 2010
Posted by
freedomminute |
Local Government |
no comments
Columnist Doug McIntyre of the Los Angeles Daily News reports on the controversy surrounding Paul Koretz’s use of the Nazi Germany analogy to describe Arizona. In his page one story appearing today, McIntyre further criticizes Koretz not only for his hypocrisy in playing the Nazi card after condemning Pomona Councilwoman Cristina Carrizosa for using the term “Gestapo” in a similar situation, but also for Koretz’s response to McIntyre’s inquiry on the matter. In an email to McIntyre, Koretz wrote:
“I understand that a supporter of the Arizona anti-immigrant laws has complained that my comments in connection with a Pomona incident were somehow inconsistent with my comments in City Council opposing the Arizona anti-immigrant laws. I think the two situations are different. Still, many people took my comments the wrong way and not as intended. Even some of my friends have disagreed with me. In 20-20 hindsight, I wouldn’t have said what I said.”
McIntyre accurately points out that it’s not enough for Koretz to say the “situations are different”, he needs to clearly articulate why he believes that to be so. Without such clarification, Koretz offers only a deflection instead of the forthright and honest explanation we all deserve.
For the record, I too believe the situations to be different – Paul Koretz’s Nazi analogy was far worse than Ms. Carrizosa’s. While I’m not defending the practice, it’s fairly common for lay people to use the word “Gestapo” to describe heavy handed police actions and it’s quite possible that that is all Ms. Carrizosa meant when she used the word. It’s also possible that she lacked the historical perspective to appreciate the weight that the term “Gestapo” carries, especially to the Jewish community. Certainly, Paul Koretz’s 2008 city council meeting lecture on the subject clarified the matter for her.
Koretz, on the other hand, has no such excuse. There’s no question that he fully understands how analogizing lesser offenses to what happened in Nazi Germany cheapens the deaths of millions of innocent people. First, some of his own relatives were murdered by the Nazi regime. Second, his criticism of Ms. Carrizosa’s “Gestapo” reference as “a blood-curling analogy” that was “painful” and “insensitive” clearly reveals how he believes such analogies are to be viewed. Assuming, of course, that back in 2008, he wasn’t just demagoguing on the issue for personal or political gain.
Even more importantly, though, is that Koretz stated that Arizona’s passage of their anti-illegal immigration law made him “think we were absolutely at the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany”. There is no mistaking what this phrasing is meant to convey. “What went on” when Hitler came to power in the early 1930’s is that the German government embarked on a series of policies that inexorably lead to the systematic slaughter of a people who’s only crime was that they existed. I’m not sure how anybody else tallies things, but in my book suggesting that we view the actions of Arizona in a similar light is a much greater transgression than anything Cristina Carrizosa did.
Finally, I want to point out another way Paul Koretz has tried to divert the criticism he so rightly deserves. In case you missed it, it’s in the first sentence of his email where he calls me “a supporter of the Arizona anti-immigrant laws”. First, Paul Koretz has no idea whether I support SB 1070. He’s never asked me and I’ve never volunteered the information. But he’s characterizing me this way in an effort to suggest that 1) if I’m criticizing him I must be in favor of the law, 2) that’s the real reason I’m “complaining” and 3) my concerns about how he’s acted should be discounted because I support the law and I’m “anti-immigrant”. Why else would he use the phrase “anti-immigrant laws” rather than the correct term “anti-illegal immigration laws” or the actual name of the law, SB 1070? This is a classic political tactic. Disparage those who disagree with you in an attempt to discredit their opinions. Don’t fall for it. The truth is that I’m not in any way “anti-immigrant”. In fact, in my perfect libertarian utopia, as long as you don’t infringe on anyone else’s natural rights, you would be free to live anywhere you want (and can afford to) and do any job anyone is willing to hire you for. But that’s a discussion for another blog post.
What’s important here is that once again Paul Koretz has failed to definitively retract his original statement or explain why it’s unnecessary for him to do so. Saying, “I wouldn’t have said what I said”, isn’t sufficient. If he really feels that way, he should make a public retraction. Nor is it sufficient to claim that his comments were taken the wrong way without following up with an explanation of exactly what he meant and how his words should be taken. He’s had ample opportunity to do so, and he hasn’t. Finally, when faced with his hypocritical behavior, the only thing he has offered is “it’s different”. Again, this just doesn’t cut it. As Doug McIntyre has asked, “How are these situations different”? Until we get a definitive answer from Paul Koretz, we’re going to keep asking.
Loading ...
|
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
|
May 30th, 2010
Posted by
freedomminute |
Local Government |
one comment
Last week, the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott the State of Arizona in protest of their recently passed immigration law, SB 1070, which targets illegal immigrants. Regardless of what one might think of the law, I was particularly troubled by the public statements of Council Members Janice Hahn and Paul Koretz in which they equated Arizona with Nazi Germany. Perhaps I’m a bit sensitive on this subject since some members of my family were victims of the Nazi regime and died in the concentration camps.
My objection to the use of this type of hyperbole is that when public officials (and private citizens) begin equating everything they might object to with the atrocities of the Holocaust, it minimizes the slaughter of 12 million people. Paul Koretz, who also lost family members in the Holocaust, should be particularly conscious of the dangers of this type of grandstanding. However, during last week’s council meeting, this is what he said in regard to Arizona’s new laws (including two measures relating to public education):
“If this was being proposed at the Federal level, I would think we were absolutely at the beginning of what went on in Nazi Germany. It’s not much different. Fortunately it’s a State, but this State needs to be stung in every possible way until they stop this behavior. We can’t let this advance any further, this is absolutely dangerous.”
So last night, Paul Koretz attended the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association meeting to speak to his constituents. Not surprisingly, he was taken to task about these comments. Here’s what he had to say in his defense. (My comments are in parenthesis.)
First of all, anything that they’ve heard that I said is probably from right wing talk radio and not what I actually said. (However a clip of his actual comments were played numerous times on the radio show in question.) So allow me to say what I actually said.
What I said was that I’m concerned not only with Arizona’s immigration law but some other things in addition that Arizona has done and gives me great pause that it’s more than just the desire to deal with illegal aliens … Beyond the immigration issue, Arizona has recently voted to ban all ethnic studies courses (that elicited cheers from the audience. It’s also not quite true.) so Jewish Studies, Latino Studies, the programs that we have in California and every other state would be banned.
(This is absolutely not true. Quoting from the website of the Arizona State Legislature, the law:
States that the Legislature finds and declares that public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people. Prohibits a school district or charter school from including in its program of instruction any courses or classes that:
- Promote the overthrow of the United States government.
- Promote resentment toward a race or class of people.
- Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group.
- Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals.
States that this act cannot be construed to restrict or prohibit:
- Courses or classes for Native American pupils that are required to comply with federal law.
- The grouping of pupils according to academic performance, including capability in the English language, that may result in a disparate impact by ethnicity.
- Courses or classes that include the history of any ethnic group and that are open to all students, unless the course or class violates this act.
That’s not the same as banning all ethnic studies courses.)
They also voted, which I think is pretty amazing and somewhat bizarre, to ban people who teach and have an accent from teaching English.
(Again, incorrect. First, the law pertains to teachers that teach English to those students for whom English is their second language. Meaning, teachers who are teaching the English language to non-English speaking students. It requires that they not be “heavily” accented or speak ungrammatical English. A requirement that one would think would be a prerequisite for those who are teaching English to non-native speakers.)
Again, not done anywhere else in the country.
(Not true, the actual law is based on a requirement in the No Child Left Behind Act which states that for a school to receive federal funds, students learning English must be instructed by teachers fluent in the language. Defining fluency is left to each state.)
This is not just a policy statement. They are actually sending out monitors to every classroom in the State of Arizona to listen to whether they have an accent or not. If they have an accent, they will either have to remove that accent with training or they will not be able to teach English as a second language.
(At least he finally got it right that this only has to do with teachers who are teaching English as a second language, but he still left the audience with the mistaken belief that Arizona now has “accent police” rounding up any teachers that have an accent.)
Again I think this a pretty bizarre thing and it makes me wonder about where they’re headed. Now let me go back to what I said, then everyone else can listen to what I said, as opposed to what John and Ken (local radio hosts here in Southern California on KFI radio) said I said. What I said was that I lost relatives in the Holocaust, I lost my Aunt because she didn’t believe that some of these kind of things were going on, and she never believed them. And what I said was “how does this compare to what was going on in 1933 and earlier; the very subtle beginnings of what was going on in Nazi Germany. If you look at what was going on then, there are some similarities to what is going on in Arizona”.
(Re-read the exact quote in my introduction above, which I directly transcribed from the video of the City Council meeting, and see if you think this characterization of his original remarks is accurate. I don’t.)
And I thought that the folks in Arizona needed to be called on it, rather than just continuing to do more and more things in this direction, more and more scapegoating. We all have problems with illegal immigration issues. California has… just as much as Arizona, maybe more so. Texas … maybe more so. How come these states are not doing this? In fact, you have California complaining about what Arizona is doing.
(Well, no, the state is not complaining. Only the representatives in certain cities are complaining along with certain immigrant rights groups. In fact, the LA Times has a poll asking readers if they agree with the City Council’s actions. 96% of respondents believe the Council’s boycott is wrong.)
Because we don’t think this is the appropriate way to deal with this issue. I don’t disagree that illegal immigration is a problem. I don’t think we can take the world’s population into the United States and take care of them. But I don’t think this is the answer. I think this is a very dangerous approach. And that was what I tried to say, that this is a very dangerous approach in my view and I think not calling Arizona on it, that would be the cowardly thing to do. And taking the abuse that we get from talk radio I think is the right thing to do.
Ok, so this is what he had to say in the public comment part of the meeting. Afterward, I spoke with him to express my displeasure at his Nazi Germany analogy. I began by asking him if he had read the actual law. He claims he did. I then asked what specific part of the law he felt was akin to what the Nazis did. Here’s the exchange:
Koretz: As I recall, and I did read it and I can’t tell you if I retained it all as I recall they changed the original concept to make it harder, but the original concept…
Me: We’re not talking about…
Koretz: And I was more concerned with the fact that that was proposed along with the other things that I mentioned…
Me: But when you made your comment, they had already amended the law.
Koretz: Well everybody else was commenting on the current status of the law. My concern was the fact that these things were being proposed…
Me: But they changed it.
Koretz: They changed it once everybody in the country went nuts.
Me: But you commented after they changed it. That’s my question. So why were you commenting on something that had already been changed?
Koretz: The fact that they changed it because they got a lot of flack did not take away my concern that they were engaging in all these scapegoating measures that I consider, as a package, indication of a very dangerous set of occurrences. Now everybody else was commenting on the current law, my comment was on all these things as a package and what it says to me about what is going on there. Everybody else’s comments were a little different than mine.
Me: I want to tell you personally how I took it being someone who had family who died in the camps and I think that equating that with Nazi Germany, I don’t think there’s a place in public discourse for public comment of that kind of nature because I think it cheapens what happened there.
Koretz: People took that wrong too. They thought I was saying that Arizona is ready to roll out the ovens. That’s not what I said.
Me: But once you play the Nazi Germany card, all civil discourse goes out the window – when you start calling people Nazis.
Koretz: Well it’s what it said to me. This feels like what I read about in the early 1930’s. So without people calling them on it, if these things happen one after another I can see it escalating into something serious. I don’t think it will because we’re all calling them on it now.
Me: But you called them Nazis.
Koretz: No, I didn’t say that. I said what they are doing is reminiscent of what happened in the early 1930’s.
Me: In Nazi Germany.
Koretz: It wasn’t really Nazi Germany yet… It was just the first step.
Me: I’m just letting you know, as your constituent, how I took your remarks.
Koretz: And many people have and I’m not going to repeat them (referring to his remarks), having learned what I’ve learned from this experience. And you’re certainly not the only one, or even the hundredth person that has observed that to me. So I learned something. But that was my gut, from the heart, response, and I probably wouldn’t say it again. I mean even my friends at the Simon Wiesenthal Center… even they took a shot at me – and maybe appropriately so.
Well at least he finally admitted that he shouldn’t have used the Nazi analogy – sort of. Although considering his tortured explanation of his comments, I suspect that he might be more concerned about the political backlash that any real regret about saying what he said. I was really hoping for some sort of apology, but apparently politicians really don’t like to directly admit that they were wrong.
Some final thoughts –
Clearly, Mr. Koretz feels the Arizona legislature and governor are wrong in their approach to the serious problems facing their state due to the influx of illegal immigrants. He is certainly entitled to his opinion. What he is not entitled to do is use the murder of millions of innocent people in order to score political points. I, too, am a bit concerned with how this law will be implemented and the possible expansion of police powers. But I would never equate Arizona’s actions with those of the Nazis. Nor should anyone else. Nor should anyone equate the policies of President Obama and/or President Bush (either in words or pictures) with the actions of the Nazi Germany. Anyone who does so should also be ashamed of themselves. The Nazis committed genocide. Let’s not confuse that with anything that doesn’t rise to a similar level of depravity.
I firmly believe that if you are a representative on the City Council of a major city, you have an obligation to get your facts right. It’s likely that Mr. Koretz really believes the distortions that he’s heard about the laws being passed in Arizona. But that’s no excuse. It took me all of ten minutes to get the exact information about the laws and read them. If had read them, he might not have found them so “amazing and bizarre”. Certainly a council member with staff personnel at his disposal should be able to do at least this much. Furthermore, if you’re going to vote to boycott another state because they passed a law you think is “dangerous”, you should be able to clearly and succinctly articulate to your constituents exactly what parts of the law you feel are objectionable. When directly questioned on this, Mr. Koretz was unable to do so.
Finally, in all fairness, I do want to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Koretz courteously listened to what I had to say although it was clearly an uncomfortable few minutes. I never got the impression that he was trying to blow me off or cut our conversation short. I do want to commend him for that.
Edit –
After this post appeared, I was interviewed on the John & Ken Show. Listen to the audio here.
|
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
|
May 20th, 2010
Posted by
freedomminute |
Local Government |
9 comments
For those of you in LA who may not be aware, there is an election coming up on Tuesday, March 3rd. In Council District 5 (See Map) which encompasses a large swath of the city from Palms to portions of Sherman Oaks and Encino, there are six candidates vying for the seat of outgoing Councilman Jack Weiss. I recently attended a candidates’ forum and listened closely to all the prospects. As expected, most of the responses to the questions put to the candidates were filled with the usual promises to cut waste, improve schools and traffic and be the best representative for the people. What struck me however, was one candidate that stood out from the rest.
Adeena Bleich (website) was clearly the youngest of the group running for City Council, but this fact alone isn’t the only reason I think she’d be the most likely to challenge the “old boys network” that has for too long entrenched itself in Los Angeles politics. Adeena was unafraid to voice her public opposition to Measure B (See Related Post). This stance is risky for anyone running for public office in Los Angeles as it directly opposes the powerful union that represents DWP workers as well as the majority of the current City Council. In fact, that union has vowed to “bury” any candidate that dares to oppose their self-serving grab for power. Perhaps that’s why virtually every other candidate said they opposed the “process” of how Measure B got on the ballot while supporting the ballot measure itself. Talk about having it both ways! Adeena was clear about her stance – she opposed the “process” and the measure, regardless of the political consequences. Also, Adeena supports a rollback of the recent exorbitant increase in parking fees (up to $4.00 an hour in some places) and service hours (including nights and Sundays) foisted upon the citizens of Los Angels by the current City Council. Adeena correctly understands that increasing parking fees in this manner will only drive customers away from our local businesses, further depressing an already faltering economy. (If you haven’t seen those parking fee increases yet, you will soon.)
In addition, I got a chance to speak with Adeena after the forum. She struck me as genuinely concerned for the people she sought to represent rather than someone who was out to build a political career. I believe she will be receptive her constituents concerns to a much greater extent than our current council representative and I believe she won’t “go along to get along” as is typical of City Council members in general. If she is elected, Adeena Bleich would likely bring a breath of fresh air to Los Angeles city politics, something which is desperately needed. I therefore urge you to vote for Adeena Bleich if you live in Council District 5 (See Map) and/or urge anyone who lives in our district to do so as well.
|
If you enjoyed this article, please share it with others by clicking on one or more of the icons below. If you wish to be notified each time I put up a new post, you can subscribe through one of the links to the right. (If you don’t know what RSS is, just choose the email option.) Finally, leave some feedback or join the discussion by commenting below. I’d love to know what you think.
|
February 28th, 2009
Posted by
freedomminute |
Election, Local Government |
2 comments
by David Boaz or 
by David Bergland, both excellent books on libertarian thought.
