By Sylvia Gurinsky
It takes a gutsy president to stick his neck out and risk lots of political support.
President Barack Obama is gutsy.
Almost everyone will debate whether it was wise and proper of him to support the right of the decision to build Park 51/Cordoba House - otherwise known across the country as the "Ground Zero Mosque" - relatively close to the site of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City.
Constitutionally, unless a court says otherwise, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who runs the organization seeking to build the structure, has the right to build that structure. And it must be pointed out that Obama swore "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" when he took the oath of office last year.
Of course, the fact that Rauf is constitutionally able to build on the land doesn't mean he would be right to do so.
While it's true he's had his organization in the area for many years, two blocks is too close for emotional comfort. Rauf is not showing sensitivity either to those who lost their lives that horrible day or their family members. It would be like a Japanese company building a structure just a short way from the Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
New York Gov. David Patterson, who supports the project, is looking at a compromise of offering land to Rauf if he would agree to move the site away from this area. Rauf should consider it. He and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who also supports the project, are asking for plenty of security and other headaches if this goes forward at the current proposed site.
Right-wingers, of course, are apoplectic about Obama's comments, and angrily waving their pitchforks - and showing their stripes of racism against all Muslims in this country.
Sadly, 9/11 not only showed the intolerance of too many Muslims against the West and Israel, but also opened the floodgates of intolerance by too many Americans against those who worship differently, speak different languages and don't quite look like them.
Today, predictably and depressingly, they don't judge Obama too well. History will judge him better. He lived up to his constitutional obligation. And he showed courage in doing so.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Thursday, August 12, 2010
August 12: At Last, A Party To Join
By Sylvia Gurinsky
Want to go to a Milk Party? If so, you'll support Florida's children.
The Children's Movement of Florida launched this week with a series of milk-and-cookies parties. The tasty kickoff is meant to call attention to the serious needs of improved health care, education and social services for Florida's youngest residents.
The main "milkman" is David Lawrence, Jr., who has made children a priority since he retired as the publisher of The Miami Herald. Lawrence's work helped lead to the creation of The Children's Trust in Miami-Dade County, and the state ballot amendment funding pre-kindergarten programs.
The organization has a website, childrensmovementflorida.org, with some sobering statistics that prove the kids are not all right in the Sunshine State.
Florida ranks dead last in the country in the number of uninsured children in a report by The Commonwealth Fund. The state's Pre-K and mentoring programs don't get enough funding. Florida has almost 30 child abuse cases per every 1,000 children.
There will be more Milk Parties across the state, and certainly more efforts to communicate with those who make the policy and those who are running for the right to do so.
It's not an exaggeration to say this is probably the biggest effort in Florida's history to get children's priorities noticed. The "Milk Party" is certainly a party worth joining.
Want to go to a Milk Party? If so, you'll support Florida's children.
The Children's Movement of Florida launched this week with a series of milk-and-cookies parties. The tasty kickoff is meant to call attention to the serious needs of improved health care, education and social services for Florida's youngest residents.
The main "milkman" is David Lawrence, Jr., who has made children a priority since he retired as the publisher of The Miami Herald. Lawrence's work helped lead to the creation of The Children's Trust in Miami-Dade County, and the state ballot amendment funding pre-kindergarten programs.
The organization has a website, childrensmovementflorida.org, with some sobering statistics that prove the kids are not all right in the Sunshine State.
Florida ranks dead last in the country in the number of uninsured children in a report by The Commonwealth Fund. The state's Pre-K and mentoring programs don't get enough funding. Florida has almost 30 child abuse cases per every 1,000 children.
There will be more Milk Parties across the state, and certainly more efforts to communicate with those who make the policy and those who are running for the right to do so.
It's not an exaggeration to say this is probably the biggest effort in Florida's history to get children's priorities noticed. The "Milk Party" is certainly a party worth joining.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Aug. 10: State Gets An "F" For FCAT Investigation
By Sylvia Gurinsky
If the issue of whether the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test should be the primary measuring stick of schools in the state was put on the ballot, one gets the sense a majority of Floridians would say an overwhelming "No."
Ever since former Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature took what was meant to be a measuring stick and turned it into a threatening weapon for schools, there have been problems. The issue about this year's scoring is the latest.
Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith seems to be trying to say that all is well with the scoring - despite a common perception among members of the public and school district leaders across the state to the contrary, and despite enough weird changes in scores from last year to this year (including a large number of schools that went from "A" to "F") to suggest more investigation is needed.
The St. Petersburg Times has mentioned a link between one of the companies auditing the scores and the company that scores the test:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/school-districts-see-conflict-of-interest-in-fcat-audit-plans/1108829
And The Orlando Sentinel wonders whether Smith may be trying to rush things because of the federal Race To the Top program, which includes a lot of money:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2010/08/did-race-to-the-top-drive-education-commissioners-call-that-fcat-scores-are-fine.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SentinelSchoolZone+%28Sentinel+School+Zone%29
If children were accused of cheating on this test, there would be a full investigation. Now it's the state that's accused, and nothing less than a full, open and independent investigation will be acceptable.
If it's evident that all was not kosher, then NCS Pearson should go - and so should Smith.
If the issue of whether the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test should be the primary measuring stick of schools in the state was put on the ballot, one gets the sense a majority of Floridians would say an overwhelming "No."
Ever since former Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida Legislature took what was meant to be a measuring stick and turned it into a threatening weapon for schools, there have been problems. The issue about this year's scoring is the latest.
Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith seems to be trying to say that all is well with the scoring - despite a common perception among members of the public and school district leaders across the state to the contrary, and despite enough weird changes in scores from last year to this year (including a large number of schools that went from "A" to "F") to suggest more investigation is needed.
The St. Petersburg Times has mentioned a link between one of the companies auditing the scores and the company that scores the test:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/school-districts-see-conflict-of-interest-in-fcat-audit-plans/1108829
And The Orlando Sentinel wonders whether Smith may be trying to rush things because of the federal Race To the Top program, which includes a lot of money:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2010/08/did-race-to-the-top-drive-education-commissioners-call-that-fcat-scores-are-fine.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SentinelSchoolZone+%28Sentinel+School+Zone%29
If children were accused of cheating on this test, there would be a full investigation. Now it's the state that's accused, and nothing less than a full, open and independent investigation will be acceptable.
If it's evident that all was not kosher, then NCS Pearson should go - and so should Smith.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Aug. 9: Broward Commission Should Leave Ethics Reforms As Is
By Sylvia Gurinsky
Message to the Broward County Commission: Think about Joe Eggelletion and Diana Wasserman-Rubin. Think about former Broward School Board Member Beverly Gallagher.
All of them have faced, or in Wasserman-Rubin's case will face, the justice system head-on because they haven't played by the rules.
Perhaps there but for the grace of God go the rest of you. And some of you might yet go that way, since investigations of your activities are ongoing, too.
Think about that tomorrow before you vote to water down the tough ethics reforms that your constituents and the county's new ethics commission want. Think about that before you vote to exempt yourselves and your families from those reforms, or try to silence your critics.
Think about those people who will be speaking in front of you tomorrow, urging you to leave the ethics reforms alone and approve them without any changes. And then do what they ask.
Because you might have a lot more to think about if you don't. Like losing your seat. Or your freedom.
Message to the Broward County Commission: Think about Joe Eggelletion and Diana Wasserman-Rubin. Think about former Broward School Board Member Beverly Gallagher.
All of them have faced, or in Wasserman-Rubin's case will face, the justice system head-on because they haven't played by the rules.
Perhaps there but for the grace of God go the rest of you. And some of you might yet go that way, since investigations of your activities are ongoing, too.
Think about that tomorrow before you vote to water down the tough ethics reforms that your constituents and the county's new ethics commission want. Think about that before you vote to exempt yourselves and your families from those reforms, or try to silence your critics.
Think about those people who will be speaking in front of you tomorrow, urging you to leave the ethics reforms alone and approve them without any changes. And then do what they ask.
Because you might have a lot more to think about if you don't. Like losing your seat. Or your freedom.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Aug. 3: Don't Defend the Dividend
By Sylvia Gurinsky
You might have seen those television ads imploring viewers to "Defend My Dividend."
The campaign is better known as the battle to maintain the Bush Tax Cuts. You know, the cuts that, along with two wars, helped push this country into a budget and deficit disaster.
Those cuts greenlighted by President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress gave a tax break to those making $250,000 or more each year. President Barack Obama wants to remove that tax break from the fiscal 2011 budget. His budget does include breaks for small businesses - the ones who could really use them.
Of course, big corporations and many of the other people that helped bring you this extreme recession want to keep their breaks. Never mind that many of them have gone back to making profits while still keeping rank-and-file people unemployed or underemployed.
Given that, the "dividend" is indefensible. Congress should let the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" expire.
You might have seen those television ads imploring viewers to "Defend My Dividend."
The campaign is better known as the battle to maintain the Bush Tax Cuts. You know, the cuts that, along with two wars, helped push this country into a budget and deficit disaster.
Those cuts greenlighted by President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress gave a tax break to those making $250,000 or more each year. President Barack Obama wants to remove that tax break from the fiscal 2011 budget. His budget does include breaks for small businesses - the ones who could really use them.
Of course, big corporations and many of the other people that helped bring you this extreme recession want to keep their breaks. Never mind that many of them have gone back to making profits while still keeping rank-and-file people unemployed or underemployed.
Given that, the "dividend" is indefensible. Congress should let the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" expire.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Aug. 11: All Campaign Donors Should Be Public
By Sylvia Gurinsky
Voting is a private act. But supporting a political candidate through a monetary donation should not be.
During this election season, of course, campaigns will be flooded with donations from organizations that can currently keep their lists of donors private.
There are efforts to change that in Congress. But passage of anything meaningful is iffy.
Still, this election season shows the need for full transparency. Voters in just about any state can see ads hitting the air, attacking candidates in a shadowy way. The ads are usually sponsored by some group with a motherhood-and-apple-pie name and a somewhat hidden agenda - and a very hidden list of supporters.
Many of these organizations are classified, according to the Internal Revenue Service, as 501(c)(4). The IRS publication on such organizations states that:
"Although the Service has been making an effort to refine and clarify this area, IRC 501(c)(4) remains in some degree a catch-all for presumptively beneficial non-profit organizations that resist classification under the other exempting provisions of the Code. Unfortunately, this condition exists because "social welfare" is inherently an abstruse concept that continues to defy precise definition.
The general concept, however, can be expressed as follows:
Organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.
An organization that primarily benefits a private group of citizens cannot qualify for IRC 501(c)(4) exempt status."
That's a loophole big enough for a lot of these groups to ram through - groups that are more interested in their own good than the general welfare.
That's why, when the groups pay for political ads, their lists of donors must be made public. Congress should clear the way for that.
It's for the general welfare - and in the general interest - for voters to know exactly who foots the bills.
Voting is a private act. But supporting a political candidate through a monetary donation should not be.
During this election season, of course, campaigns will be flooded with donations from organizations that can currently keep their lists of donors private.
There are efforts to change that in Congress. But passage of anything meaningful is iffy.
Still, this election season shows the need for full transparency. Voters in just about any state can see ads hitting the air, attacking candidates in a shadowy way. The ads are usually sponsored by some group with a motherhood-and-apple-pie name and a somewhat hidden agenda - and a very hidden list of supporters.
Many of these organizations are classified, according to the Internal Revenue Service, as 501(c)(4). The IRS publication on such organizations states that:
"Although the Service has been making an effort to refine and clarify this area, IRC 501(c)(4) remains in some degree a catch-all for presumptively beneficial non-profit organizations that resist classification under the other exempting provisions of the Code. Unfortunately, this condition exists because "social welfare" is inherently an abstruse concept that continues to defy precise definition.
The general concept, however, can be expressed as follows:
Organizations that promote social welfare should primarily promote the common good and general welfare of the people of the community as a whole.
An organization that primarily benefits a private group of citizens cannot qualify for IRC 501(c)(4) exempt status."
That's a loophole big enough for a lot of these groups to ram through - groups that are more interested in their own good than the general welfare.
That's why, when the groups pay for political ads, their lists of donors must be made public. Congress should clear the way for that.
It's for the general welfare - and in the general interest - for voters to know exactly who foots the bills.
Aug. 2: No Equal Justice For Political Candidates
By Sylvia Gurinsky
The 11th District Court of Appeals in Atlanta, not one of the better appeals courts in the country, got it wrong again with its ruling that - for now - halts Florida's public financing law for political campaigns.
It's laughable that Rick Scott, who has spent his own millions on television ads in his race for governor of Florida, would claim that Republican primary opponent Bill McCollum's request for matching funds would deny Scott's right to free speech.
The damage from the ruling is far more serious than any effect on the McCollum campaign. McCollum happens to be Florida's attorney general and therefore gets some press with his public decisions.
But what if Scott's primary opponent was a schoolteacher who didn't have much access to public platforms - and certainly didn't have millions to pay for advertising?
The average person who wants to run for office is the one truly hurt by the appeals court ruling. It basically denies those who aren't rich the right to run for political office, because those people can't secure public financing.
The appeals court joins five United States Supreme Court justices, with their ludicrous decision loosening the reigns on campaign fincancing last January, in saying elections should go to those who can afford to win one.
The United States court system is suppose to follow the tenet of equal justice under the law. That hasn't been evident with these decisions.
The 11th District Court of Appeals in Atlanta, not one of the better appeals courts in the country, got it wrong again with its ruling that - for now - halts Florida's public financing law for political campaigns.
It's laughable that Rick Scott, who has spent his own millions on television ads in his race for governor of Florida, would claim that Republican primary opponent Bill McCollum's request for matching funds would deny Scott's right to free speech.
The damage from the ruling is far more serious than any effect on the McCollum campaign. McCollum happens to be Florida's attorney general and therefore gets some press with his public decisions.
But what if Scott's primary opponent was a schoolteacher who didn't have much access to public platforms - and certainly didn't have millions to pay for advertising?
The average person who wants to run for office is the one truly hurt by the appeals court ruling. It basically denies those who aren't rich the right to run for political office, because those people can't secure public financing.
The appeals court joins five United States Supreme Court justices, with their ludicrous decision loosening the reigns on campaign fincancing last January, in saying elections should go to those who can afford to win one.
The United States court system is suppose to follow the tenet of equal justice under the law. That hasn't been evident with these decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)