Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Business Studies Rank 78% of States in Bottom Quarter

The Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) launched another attack on Wisconsin's business climate, nicely exposed by Xoff. I decided to see if other states had similar outfits bashing, smashing, and lashing out in an effort to smear their state government, in a sinister, malevolent effort to shift taxes to ordinary citizens.

First stop, New York.  Sure enough, the Public Policy Institute of New York State, Inc. (PPI), proudly trashes the Empire State.  It claims to be a non-partisan, tax exempt organization, designed to make the public believe they are a neutral, unbiased party.  Their chairman is the retired CEO of Texaco, and the first trustee listed is the retired CEO of Corning.

Their studies generally originate from right-wing think tanks.  Occasionally they use academic studies, but only if they embarrass the home team in Albany. 

All of their studies rank New York State at the bottom of the various categories they use to evaluate state governments. 

With their studies in hand, I then grabbed a couple that our own WMC touts on tax burdens and tort reform (One ranks Texas #1; the other ranks Texas 43rd) to check the consistency of the findings. 

My methodology is flawless. I used only studies offered by right wing foundations, or the shill front groups trying to disgrace the home state. I took seven studies and looked at the bottom 12 or 13 states in each ranking. The studies covered taxes, so called 'tort reform', overall taxes, business taxes, and the overall cost of doing business.

The finding is very simple.

78% of the states are ranked in the bottom quarter in one or more of the studies.

In other words, we got enough research here to rap any state you want.  Just for the hell of it, I took a look at one study they used to slam NY, The State Competitiveness Index., which was prepared by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston. 

The Beacon Hill Institute's 2005 State Competitiveness Index measures nine factors including government fiscal policy, legal/regulatory system, infrastructure, labor force, technology, and finance/prices. Higher score indicates conditions likely to produce higher incomes and better standards of living.

Wisconsin ranks a lofty 16th; New York is 40th.  This is one study WMC will never plug in Wisconsin.

Seven Studies That Rank 78% of the States Well Below Average:

1.A.

1. U.S. Tort Liability Reform Study

2. Institute for Legal Reform (U.S. Chamber of Commerce)

3. Tax Foundation: Business TaxClimate

4. Tax Foundation: State and Local Tax Burden

5. Tax Foundation: State Expenditures per Capita

6. PPI of New York State: Business Taxes as Percent  of Gross State Product

7. PPI of New York State: Miliken Institute Cost of Doing Business Index

Author's Notes:  Rankings go from '1' being the best to '50' being the lowest.  Some findings were reversed to keep the numeric standard consistent. I did not cherry pick the studies. It is only a coincidence that Wisconsin appears in the bottom quarter in only one instance. If I put my mind to it, I could find more studies that trash Wisconsin. The states that appear in the bottom quarter in at least one of the studies are in red. 

I am  sure that with enough time, I could find enough studies to rank every state in the bottom quarter.

Madison Halloween 2006: Death to Freedom

Doug Moe, The Capital Times:

A Halloween fee to get on State Street?

IT APPEARS the city of Madison is close to settling on a State Street/Halloween strategy that will gate the street and charge admission to Halloween revelers.

On Thursday, George Twigg, spokesman for Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, said the plan is "not soup yet" but added it has been seriously discussed as an option, with an eye toward reducing the hundreds of thousands of dollars the city pays for police, fire and sanitation each year to keep the Halloween party more or less under control

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, the right to assemble on a the public sidewalk or street, free of intimidation and tariff is still cherished and defended by most Americans.

Article I, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution:

The  right of the people peaceably to assemble,  to consult  for the common good, and to petition the government, or  any department thereof, shall never be abridged.

Attacks on the right to assemble.

Over the years, exceptions were carved out, some reasonable, some not.  Portions of public parks can be roped off and admission charged.  Toll roads are proof that fees can be charged for using the public right of way. Plazas facing public buildings are cordoned.

But no matter how vicious the assault from Selma politicians, the Birmingham sheriff,  New York City police raids, or Federal troops, or police rioting in Chicago, the right to gather is still largely intact despite the worst efforts of reactionary judges and justices appointed by George W. Bush.

Madison's Legacy

Now comes a city where its leaders strive to make it the most progressive in the United States. Madison, Wisconsin, from the days of the Abolitionists to the War Resisters, and SANE, the Civil Rights and the Anti War Movement, and even famed for its Mifflin Street Block Party, plans to crush the right to assemble.

Those who read my posts know that I find the annual Halloween festivities inane and sophomoric. I do not stand by idly criticizing, but offering solutions and alternatives to lower the cost of an event that sucks $500,000 from local government- funds that can be better used for child care and community health.

Madison's New Legacy

In one sense, it no longer matters what the outcome. The effort to charge to walk down State Street, the most important street in Wisconsin, speaks volumes.

Progressive Madison is leading the effort to compromise the right to assemble, and may do more damage than Bush and all of his tainted jurists. All from self righteous chest beaters who decry the Patriot Act. As conservatives would put it: This comes from a bunch of latte sipping, quiche eating, bicycle peddling, tree hugging, Birkenstock clad, soup-slurping fascists.

From Dane101

The Mayor's Communications Director George Twigg replied, "the mayor has been saying for awhile now that he'd like to see a way to offset some of the $500k-plus cost for the event, and gating/ticketing the event is something we're taking a very serious look at. But at this point, it's not soup quite yet."

Past Posts on Halloween:

Halloween, Madison Style October 30, 2005:The city of Madison is starting to get control of events but so long as it focuses on the Halloween weekend without looking at some larger problems that require year around attention, the troubles will continue...Come on Madison, does this mean we should get these kids back in the bars where they belong?

Halloween II November 1, 2005

Do read Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd.  It is not the final authority, but very insightful.

Do remember that while year-long, pre-Halloween planning went into controlling mobs and crowds, no planning was devoted to reminding people they are individuals. That becomes critical at the end of the evening, when it is necessary to separate the crazies from the rest of the crowd.

Don't compare Madison's Halloween to Mardi Gras in NOLA.  The latter is mostly people getting drunk looking for a good time and a little kiss face, the former includes some morons getting drunk looking to get their asses busted. Containment of the two events requires different strategies.

Halloween III November 7, 2005 Instead of spending a year figuring out how to contain the event with a military approach, why don't we try something novel like welcoming the celebrants?

Welcome them and make it clear that we all want to have fun. 

Continue two major programs during the year.  Have an ongoing crackdown on the private beer parties where the booze is sold for rent money.  Secondly, maintain a constant propaganda stream pandering to the best instincts of the revelers.  Remind them that the over the top rowdy behavior not only leads to death (One death this year, one critical head injury) and property damage but it costs a half million dollars to control, money that could be better spent on health care for the indigent.

The question then: why should welcoming the pranksters change their behavior? Quiet simple.  Most people behave as they are expected to behave.  Most of the people are coming for an adventure, not necessarily for a head cracking bash.  Set reasonable positive expectations for the 99% and not only will they not participate in the dangerous chicanery, but they will turn on the crazies who spoil the fun for them.

Halloween IV November 13, 2005..Only 50 more weekends until the next Madtown Halloween.

Halloween V November 16, 2005:Like a creep that can't be killed, Madison's trashing of the US and the State Constitution keeps reappearing with no apology or shame.

The mayor's spokesman (That means the mayor and no one else.) is now floating the idea of charging admission to State Street for next Halloween...Yes, it may take the ACLU to slay this Halloween Nightmare on State Street.

Halloween VI January 23, 2006 We are down to 40 weekends until the festivities break out. Nothing has changed.  The consumption of alcohol at the private apartment parties has not abated.  It is the drinking of large quantities of alcohol, mostly  underage transgressions, that is the fundamental source of the problem. Until this year-round practice is abated, the flash point will occur every year.

Get the kids back in the bars where they belong. Either that, or force the underage violators to imbibe in speakeasies so quiet that the police can't find them.

Environmentalists Trash Madison Rights-Of-Way With Signage

[Update 10:18 AM: Lisa kicks some serious butt on this subject today.]

It started out innocently enough. Roofers, painters, and contractors were allowed to place yard signs in the front lawns while they worked on the home. Signs advertising garage sales were placed in the right of way at intersections. Then realtors were allowed to place temporary signs in the medians of our busiest boulevards so long as they were removed within hours of the open house.

Soon the newspapers were providing signs cautioning motorists to slow down.

Then came the lenders, the dating services, and the earn-at-home jobs plastered on light poles, utility poles, and of course, placed in the median strips illegally.

It is a desperate effort to destroy the beauty of Madison and make it look like any industrial street in Houston.

Now come environmentally friendly organizations like the Wisconsin Bicycle Federation with one of the most massive sign pollution efforts in Dane County history. The safety campaign is meritorious; its method questionable.

I am real curious as to how the city is going to ignore every gas station, oil change shop, dry cleaner, and liquor shop that decides that they have the right to use the public right-of-way to advertise their services.  If we are to succumb to advertising on public property in a city which leads the nation in removing billboards, then let everyone know they can do it with impunity and not worry about ordinance violations. Lisa Subeck has details about what the city regulations say.*

If you want a taste of the future, go witness one of the worst violators, and imagine what it would be like if your neighbor's property looked like the Midvale Heights Apartment building at 501 S. Midvale Boulevard (The signs in the terrace and the banners and 'flags' on the private property are all illegal.). Phooey.  Out of sight, out of mind?  I think not.  In addition to this visual pollution, last night there were over 25 illegal signs in the right-of-way along Midvale Boulevard.

Next will come the Reverend Ralph Ovadal with signs in the medians damning Catholics and 'choice' in the same breath.

*Having heard that Madison has particularly strict laws about signage, I was surprised to see such a garish display and decided to take a look at the ordinances regulating such advertising. I was able to find out that our city refers to such signs as "portable street graphics" and that regulations do exist, but I could not determine whether the area in question complies with these regulations or not.

Specter True To Form; Commits Treason

As was predicted last December: and March:

I am not worried about Specter.  He signaled last December that he would collapse on this one. He is a lost cause and will only do the right thing if they find the smoking gun in Bush's hand.

Senator Arlen Specter (Rep-PA) has solved the illegal Bush spying by selling out his country. When Nazis, Communists, and and other subversives failed to destroy our Constitution, Specter has managed under the guise of protecting Americans, to legalize our national nightmare; to encourage the federal government to enter our homes in the dead of night without knocking, and to search our homes without benefit of a court authorized warrant.  As noted in a Los Angeles Times editorial:

True, Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has said the program is incompatible with FISA and has called for a court to determine its constitutionality. But legislation to bring the NSA spies in from the legal cold has stalled, and Specter has complicated matters by simultaneously pressing his own bill and signing on to a (superior) measure proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Most disappointing of all, the Senate squandered an opportunity to link the confirmation of CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, a former head of the NSA, to a fuller accounting by the administration of why it bypassed FISA and a promise to comply with the law in the future.

The Constitution is clear: to search there must be a warrant, and there must be probable cause to obtain it. Specter is prepared to lead the Congress to adopting legislation that would authorize the President to obtain warrants without probable cause.   Hopefully, there will be an opportunity to resurrect the Feinstein drafted legislation which protects what few precious liberties are left in this country.

As further noted in the LA Times editorial:

Fortunately, stirrings elsewhere on Capitol Hill offer a glimmer of hope for legislation to rein in the NSA. This week, 23 House Republicans joined 183 Democrats in supporting an amendment to a Defense appropriations bill that would have prohibited expenditures for electronic surveillance in the United States except pursuant to criminal wiretapping statutes and FISA. The amendment was cosponsored in part by Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who have introduced a separate measure, the NSA Oversight Act, which would make it clear that FISA remains the sole authority for the surveillance of Americans on American soil.

Defending Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter has a point.   The loss of a loved one does not make the survivor an expert or a professional on any subject. We see it all the time.  The family of a victim becomes a spokesperson on drunk driving, a fatal disease, a war, or terrorism. Of course the Right has been doing this for years.  It goes back further than Vietnam. But the vitriolic attacks on the left started with the manipulation of the widows and children of Vietnam soldiers who died in combat- we were told that to oppose the war was to insult their memory.

President Bush introducing widows, children and grieving parents in his State of the Union Address goes unnoticed by Coulter.  President Bush draping his arms around everyone from exhausted firefighters and homeless Katrina children is ignored in Coulter's polemics.  And the use by Neocons of speakers at public functions to defend the war in the name of their departed loved ones never gets a mention.

Of course every so often there is an eloquent loved one who can speak from both the heart and the head about the loss of their loved one and put that loss in a larger context.  In case you missed it, here is portion of the CNN interview with Michael Berg, the father of Nicholas Berg, who was murdered in Iraq by al Qaeda.

As you read it, note that there is none of the venom, hatred, or enmity of Ann Coulter. As we read Berg's interview we realize Coulter has more in common with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein than with a loyal American.

MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that. (Watch Berg compare Zarqawi to President Bush -- 1:44)

I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

BERG: Well, you shouldn't be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.

BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead?

BERG: Of course. When Nick was killed, I felt that I had nothing left to lose. I'm a pacifist, so I wasn't going out murdering people. But I am -- was not a risk-taking person, and yet now I've done things that have endangered me tremendously.

I've been shot at. I've been showed horrible pictures. I've been called all kinds of names and threatened by all kinds of people, and yet I feel that I have nothing left to lose, so I do those things.

Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back?

That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work?

BERG: Yes, well, I don't believe that scenario, because every time news of new atrocities committed by Americans in Iraq becomes public, more and more of the everyday Iraqi people who tried to hold out, who tried to be peaceful people lose it and join -- what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance, against the occupation of one sovereign nation.

BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy.

BERG: Well, you know, I'm not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he's no worse than George Bush. Saddam Hussein didn't pull the trigger, didn't commit the rapes. Neither did George Bush. But both men are responsible for them under their reigns of terror. (Watch

I don't buy that. Iraq did not have al Qaeda in it. Al Qaeda supposedly killed my son.

Under Saddam Hussein, no al Qaeda. Under George Bush, al Qaeda.

Under Saddam Hussein, relative stability. Under George Bush, instability.

Under Saddam Hussein, about 30,000 deaths a year. Under George Bush, about 60,000 deaths a year. I don't get it. Why is it better to have George Bush the king of Iraq rather than Saddam Hussein?

Coulter can be defended intellectually for questioning survivors' political expertise or credentials based solely on the loss of their loved ones.

There is no defense for her inhumanity, her absence of fair play or her total lack of human decency.

Carrie Lynch Looking Out for Us: Separating "Astroturf" Groups From Real Grassroots Organizations

Carrie Lynch at What's Left did some checking and reveals that 60 Plus Association is not your grandma's AARP. In fact, it is not an organization of people, but rather an "astroturf" group pretending to be "grass roots."  Made to sound like some collection of seniors, this is a front for the pharmaceutical industry:

Pulling the wool sweater over grandma's eyes

...The group is called the "60 Plus Association". It sounded a little fishy since I had never heard of this group so I thought I'd see what this group is about...

...The group is funded by big pharmaceutical companies ... 60 Plus probably really stands for the number of corporate big wigs that will get fat bonus checks...
(Wisconsin Congressman Mark) Green and the 60 Plus Association likes to pretend that they have actual seniors as members of their group, like the well-known AARP...

Nice going, Carrie. Nothing more need be said about Mark Green, except all this made me wonder about who was giving Mark Green all of these awards.  Almost everyone of them is a front organization for some group with an agenda that supports tax cuts for the wealthy, opposes consumer protection legislation, and supports legislation that crushes working people.

Straight from his website:

Spirit of Enterprise Award - U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 2nd Session of the 106th Congress;
Manufacturing Legislative Excellence Award - National Association of Manufacturers, 106th Congress; 
Golden Bulldog Award - Watchdogs of the Treasury, Inc's, 106th Congress;
Friend of the Family Award - Christian Coalition's, 2000; 
Award for Manufacturing Excellence - National Association of Manufacturers, 2000;
Tax Fighter Award - National Tax Limitation Committee, 2000; 
Golden Bulldog Award - Watchdogs of the Treasury, Inc, 2000; 
Friend of the Farm Bureau - American Farm Bureau Federation, 2000; 
Guardian of Small Business Award - National Federation of Independent Businesses, 2000; 
The Thomas Jefferson Award - Food Distributors International, 2000;
Senior Legislative Achievement Award - Seniors Coalition, 1999-2000;
Hero of the Taxpayer Award - Americans for Tax Reform, 2000; 
Small Business Survival Committee Award - Small Business Survival Committee, 2000; 
Year of the Senior Award - The 60 Plus Association, 2000
Friend of the Shareholder Award - American Shareholders Association, 2000
Hero of the Taxpayer - Americans for Tax Reform, 1999
Small Business Advocate - Small Business Survival Committee 1999
Super Friend of Seniors - The 60 Plus Association, 1999

Mark Green is the astroturf candidate for Governor.

AT&T and Privacy: "We Own Your Phone, Video, and Internet Records."

AT&T is at it again. The Washington Post connects the dots.

Consumer advocates said yesterday that a new privacy policy from AT&T Inc. marks the first time a major telecom company has asserted that customer calling and Internet records are corporate property and raises concerns about how the company tracks consumer behavior and shares data with government and law enforcement agencies.

The new privacy policy is scheduled for release today on the company's Web site. AT&T said it does not share the data with third-party marketing firms, but it cites circumstances under which it shares customer information with the government and law enforcement. For its broadband Internet customers, the company also makes clear that it will collect information about which Web pages its customers view, how much time is spent on each page and what links are clicked on.
   
"While your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T," the new policy states. "As such, AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."

The policy comes as AT&T and other telephone companies are under scrutiny for their reported cooperation with the government in spying on consumers. Yesterday, in a hearing before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, lawmakers pressed AT&T chairman and chief executive Edward E. Whitacre Jr. about his firm's involvement in sharing records with federal agencies seeking to track down terrorists. Whitacre repeatedly stonewalled during the heated meeting, citing "classified" information and saying his company followed the law, according to Bloomberg News.

So, if we are AT&T customers, our phone records, the clickstream we generate at the computer, and the shows we watch on AT&T's new "U-verse" video service are all AT&T's property, and the federal government has access to all of it.  As we now know, all it needs to do is ask AT&T nicely.

"They are redefining the customer information as their property," said Charles H. Kennedy, a privacy and data protection lawyer at Morrison & Foerster LLP in the District. "If the company is going to say, 'Well, it's not your record; it's our record. You don't own it; we own it,' this may later be used to say it's not protected by the Privacy Act."

Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee markup of the telecom giveaway that further enables this stuff continues Tuesday. AT&T would get economic and content control of everything that runs through its wires if Senator Stevens, the Committee Chair, has his way.

When this gets to the Senate floor, we know that Russ Feingold will vote for net neutrality. His statement at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on June 14 nails it:

"...the current landscape ... amounts to an emerging duopoly..."

"...without protections, Internet users could have fewer choices as only those      content providers who could afford to pay the corporate toll-keepers would be able to offer a competitive level of service. We need to make sure that the Internet retains its crucial role as an open forum for the free exchange and dissemination of information.

But what about Herb Kohl?  Hard to tell. The Dailypage's Kristian Knutsen tried to nail down Herb, but only found some typical "waiting to see which way the winds are blowing" equivocation. Kohl's spokesperson:  "the issue of competition is something he is very interested in, but on net neutrality, we have not taken a position on it yet."

On the House side, Dane 101.Com's Jesse Russell has been usefully deconstructing the votes and industry contributions received by Mark Green and by Ron Kind. As always, it's "follow the money."

The Capital Times' John Nichols has been all over these issues for quite a while. In an unsigned editorial, he wrote:

There's little question that a united Democratic caucus could combine with principled Republicans in the Senate to defend net neutrality. But if so-called "new Democrats" in the Senate side with the telephone and cable lobbies, the information superhighway will become a toll road.

Have Wisconsin State Journal readers ever seen the term "net neutrality" or coverage of the telecom giveaway bills?  Not yet.

- Barry Orton

Todd Drive: A Fix and A Lesson

Three things need to be said about the proposed Landmark Development on Todd Drive:

• Assuming the developer can financially wait another six months, the project is not dead.
• In my forty plus years in Madison, this is the grossest blunder. Ever.
• There is enough blame to go around at every level of government and that includes both political parties.

The problem started when the Wisconsin legislature led by rabid fanatics who hate government created a barrier in the seventy year Wisconsin public-private redevelopment law large enough for a whale, when a minnow net would have fixed the matter.

So called 'takings' legilsation was on the right-wing agenda for twenty years. When the United States Supreme Court ruled on a public condemnation of private non-blighted property for a private development, they pounced.

Not content to limit government condemnation powers to non-blighted private property for private purposes, they tampered with blighted property used for public redevelopment projects.

First, this project can be revisited.  The properties in question that require condemnation are all blighted.  If a professional makes that finding they can be condemned and made part of the project.  There is no reason to throw in the towel.  City of Madison, go back to the drafting board, if the developer still trusts you.

Secondly, the crisis created by the new legislation was horribly mishandled.  Rather than describe the errors, lets look at what should have been done.

• As soon as the legislation was introduced, Madison, Milwaukee and every other municipality should have activated the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities and The Wisconsin League of Municipalities along with the Counties Association.  This was done, but too slowly, and it did not include additional allies that would make the effort successful.
• Every Democrat in the legislature should have been informed that a fix to the blight portion of the bill was non-negotiable.
• The city of Madison, building on the ongoing relationship of its Lobbyist-Legislative Analyst, should maintain a head count of every legislator. Oh.  My bad.  Recent city administrations find it better to have a mayoral press spokesman than a Lobbyist-Legislative Analyst.
• The developer, who has key Republican ties, should have been consulted and informed that he and his development team needed to work the Legislature.
• Press conferences and significant public discussion was needed, so as to expand the arena of conflict, so that this bill was viewed in daylight.
• Governor Doyle needed to be enlisted and/or pressured to take the position that, if at a minimum, the blight language was not fixed, he would veto the bill.  Doyle syas he was comfortable with the legislation.  If that is the case, he is either blame wrong because such a position is inconsistent with his political philosophy or he did not understand the bill.  I think it was the latter.

For those cynics who think this is a failed strategy, it is exactly what worked to kill TABOR, which had far more support among the right wing Republican fringe than the condemnation legislation.

Side note: Once in a while I get calls from the Assembly or Senate Democratic Committee asking for donations.  I always refuse, telling them, "I only give to Democrats."  Confused, they explain that they are calling on behalf of Democrats. Then I point to votes in the legislature like this, and remind them, "I only contribute to Democrats."

Midge Miller Gets It Correct on Iraq

Madison's Midge Miller, former Assemblywoman and longtime political and peace activist, had a letter in Thursday's Capital Times that's worth reproducing:

However you felt about the Vietnam War, it was a traumatic time for all of us, and most of us want to put it as far behind us as possible. However, there are some important lessons to be learned from Vietnam. Some we have learned, and some we have not.

Whatever else we can say about the military, industrial and security complex, they have certainly acted on the lessons they learned from the Vietnam War.

In this current Iraq war, they are making every effort to keep the American public unaware of the consequences of battle. We saw the shells go off in early days of "shock and awe," but we haven't seen the dead and dying soldiers when they land back home. The military has embedded journalists to soften the reports. There are few visible caskets, no draft, no sacrifices. The Bush administration is cutting taxes even as war costs go up. This war is going on the credit card for our children and grandchildren to pay.

Our current administration, however, failed to learn one of the most important lessons of all. Even a war-weary country of peasants like Vietnam can wear down a mighty nuclear superpower because of the natural desire of all people to be free of foreign domination. Why should we think that Iraq or Iran would be any different?

The love of freedom is our country's history and heritage. We still talk about it, but we have failed to understand that other people in other countries feel the same way. They are willing to fight an occupying force in the same way we would putting us on the wrong side of a war for national liberation.

The peace movement learned that dedicated peaceful citizen action could actually change a country's policy, even on something as basic as war.

They went on to use those skills to renew the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environmental movement and many other social justice movements.

But they failed to realize that they needed to continue their efforts to bring the military industries, secrecy agencies and the Pentagon into a more reasonable balance for a peaceful country. They allowed them to continue to squander our country's resources and diminish our government's ability to meet the needs of our people and our ability to help others.

We failed to maintain a government that would never let its foreign policy use our children as cannon fodder in their pursuit of profits and power.

When will we ever learn?

- Barry Orton

Gangs Part III - Know What They Did in NYC

BUSTING THE MYTHS

There are urban myths and there are urban myths. One of the most hyped and misunderstood is that in the 1990's New York City experienced a significant, exceptional drop in crime as a result of special programming in the BIg Apple.  The following chart looks at the violent crime rate per 100,000 for the United States, its three largest cities and San Francisco.

If we look at the relative rate of decline, the three largest cities follow the same pattern. By 2006 the relative gaps between NYC, Chicago and LA remains unchanged. NYC did a little better than Chicago and about the same as LA.

Now that we busted that myth, lets bust another.  There is an ongoing controversy as to what factor or factors contributed to the decline in crime. The principle reason for the decline in all of these cities was demographics. (Andrew Karmen)

The demographics come right out of Criminology 101, which teaches that crime waves occur when cities reach a critical mass of people at high risk to commit crimes, usually poor, young, black and Hispanic men. In New York, the number of poor minority young men fell significantly during the '90s, especially the 20-to-24-year-olds, whose numbers fell 19 percent.

WHAT WORKS, WE THINK

That is not to say that there are other manageable variables that can lead to a reduction in violent crime.  Some of the analysis is driven by ideology and some is contradictory. Attributed to effective crime stopping are:

• availability of educational opportunities. (Andrew Karmen, again)
• the broken windows approach attributed by NYC Police Chief William Bratton who vehemently disagrees with one of his own (Jack Maple, the designer of ComStat)
• the more strategic placement of officers through the use of computers (ComStat) (developed by Jack Maple who thinks his bosses 'broken windows' is nonsense) 
• A combination of broken windows, more police, ComStat, changing demographics
• Or some of the above and more:

    In the end, Karmen concludes that four major factors had a significant impact on the homicide rates in New York in the '90s: higher education, immigration, demographics, and, for lack of a better term, death.

        Aside from the demographics, Karmen also credits the city's long-term social investment in low-cost college education for city residents. Noting the inverse relationship between college education and criminal behavior, Karmen writes that exposure to higher education "not only lowers the odds of committing murder but even reduces the chances of getting killed." Residents of New York, including low-income black and Hispanic folks, were more likely to have attended college and to have completed a degree than their counterparts in most other American cities.

ANOTHER VIEWPOINT

Here's a totally opposing view, from where else but the City by the Bay:

Shattering "Broken Windows": An Analysis of San Francisco's Alternative Crime Policies

San Francisco's violent crime decreases exceeded most of the nations in the 1990's. For the better part of the decade, San Francisco had greater declines in all Part I offenses and reported violent crime than most of the comparison cities. Between 1992 and 1998, San Francisco's violent crime decreases were unmatched by the ten national comparison cities (see Table 4). San Francisco's declines coincided with declining misdemeanor and felony arrest rates. New York City, on the other hand, increased its felony and misdemeanor arrest rates and yet only equaled San Francisco's violent crime rate declines.

My guess is that everyone is a little bit right, but that the most important factor is the demographics, or more accurately, changing demographics. That said, I tend to believe that 'broken windows' worked, but only when combined with law enforcement improvements as well as the human resource strategies discussed in parts I and II of this series.

From the law enforcement side, computerization and the ability to move community law enforcement officers around is critical.  In addition the increase in officers per shift makes a difference, but only if they are trained in community policing.

Here is probably the best analysis of New York City situation:

In reality, the New York strategy was a return to 'community policing'. Pressed to deliver fast response times to emergency calls, the police in New York - as in almost every developed country in the world - had been taken off the 'beat' and put into cars. But this had isolated them from the general public, and made it harder to interact positively with the local people in their neighbourhood. The Bratton approach was to rebuild the interaction and trust with the community by solid partnership, problem-solving, and crime prevention.

Re-engineering the NYPD. A second strand of the approach was to decentralize the structure of the police force itself. Responsibility and accountability were pushed down to the 76 precinct commanders - all of them experienced local officers. They were instructed to pay attention to quality-of-life signs as well as serious crime, and to aim for crime reduction, not just improved detection rates. Precinct commanders were given new levels of freedom over how to deploy their officers and develop their own strategies for solving the complex but unique problems facing each precinct.

Better information. A third strand was to improve the collection, processing, and use of crime statistics. Computer statistics showing crime rates and performance were reviewed at twice-weekly meetings involving precinct commanders and top departmental officials. Problems were converted into plans for action: and the figures would soon show if those plans were working or if fresh approaches were needed.

Funny thing.  I recently made the point that: There is not one city in the United States where the tide of violence and street crime was turned back by brute force and more police. None. Nada. Zippo.  Zero. Zilch.

Then along came one of these lawyers who has lots of opinions and no facts:

"Brute force" is his own hyperbole, but I can think of one city where stuff like that did stem the tide of violence and street crime. Maybe Paul has heard of it. It's called New York. posted by Rick Esenberg at 9:06 AM

Rick, additional police and more importantly properly deployed officers can make a difference but they must be part of a coherent strategy.  No matter which side you are on in the NYC debate, no one argued that the kind of occupying force suggested by Sheriff Clarke would work.  That is not what they did in NYC.