News Roundup – Mon. 1/25
Baruch Herzfeld
Now it has an official name: the Great Williamsburg Bike Wars. (Although without a Wikipedia entry its status as a real war is somewhat suspect.) And tonight at 7:30 pm the debate is on at Pete’s Candy Store on Lorimer Street: Hasidim vs. Hipsters. Representing the hipsters: Heather Loop (of Topless Bike Ride fame). Representing the Hasidim: Isaac Abraham. Representing the Traif Bike Gesheft: Baruch Herzfeld. Baruch, you’re one of us! Remember your people and don’t sell out!
Unpious.com doesn’t have staff available to attend the debate, but we would appreciate any first-hand accounts. A blow-by-blow would be awesome. Send updates to unpious.editor@gmail.com.
Brotherly love is always a beautiful thing, but especially when it’s between feuding brothers over the leadership succession of their sect. The brothers Mendel and Srultche Hager were seen attending a Bar Mitzvah together, schmoozing amicably as if all was well in the Vizhnitz court. And while the images may be deceptive – we all know there’s no real love lost between the two – they deserve credit for a display of unity that Satmar or Bobov just can’t muster. Is it Moshiach’s tzeiten, or does Vizhnitz just have a knack for providing sensational images?
Two weeks ago I posted Pat Robertson’s take on the calamity in Haiti and wondered if we could ever top that. Well, we have! Our very own Avi Shafran blames a comic strip artist. I kid you not. Shafran thinks Eli Valley’s strip in last week’s Forward, which mocks Orthodox outreach efforts, violates the Chofetz Chaims exhortations against evil speech. And in a literary flourish only Shafran can manage, he closes his article saying, “Hatred and the misuse of the holy power of speech are not small evils. We would understand that they shake the very earth under our feet.” Literally.
Jerusalem cemeteries always seem horribly confounding. My own frustrations were generally on Har Hamenuchos, with the terraced hills of row after row of gravestones seeming virtually identical, it’s always been something of an adventure finding a particularly sought-after gravestone. But it’s the more venerable cemetery, the far less organized and much beleaguered Mount of Olives, that will now be somewhat more navigable. A new project will list all known gravestones, upwards of 200,000 in all, in an online searchable database, to make visiting easier. Indeed, using Yad Avshalom as a guidepost towards any particular spot on that unwieldy mount of ancient tombs had proven faulty many a time. Hopefully, the database will make it easier for the Messiah too, when he comes to raise those old bones from the dead.
New York State Assemblymember Dov Hikind is king and kingmaker of Borough Park politics: so the conventional wisdom has been for decades. But his era of peerless rule is now in question. The Hasidic community recently chose conservative Democrat John Heyer for city council in a district that covers a small portion of Borough Park, and spurned Hikind’s choice of pro-choice and pro-gay marriage candidate Brad Lander.
Now Hikind had no choice but to back longtime civil servant Joe Lazar in the special election to succeed Simcha Felder for the 44th District City Council seat – instead of his first choice, Civil Court Judge Noach Dear – to placate the Hasidic community, who were considering putting up a candidate of their own. But all is not well in Hikind headquarters. David Greenfield, who got his political start working as Hikind’s chief of staff, is putting up a serious challenge for the city council seat, which essentially turns this election into a referendum on Dov Hikind’s political influence. Kings don’t last forever, Dov. And while, personally, I have no beef with the esteemed assemblyman, it does seem like an intense political fight worth watching.
Printable Version
You have no beef with the assemblyman, really? Your’e OK with his ideas of racial profiling? (and to paraphrase Joe Biden on Guilianin, All Dov Hikind always says is a noun, a verb, and the holocaust.)
Like this comment?
2
LOL, Yonadab, re the paraphrase.
To be honest, I don’t know much about Hikind’s politics. But do tell of his racial profiling ideas, and let the public weigh in.
Like this comment?
1
Thank you Blackman, your posts are very good.
Like this comment?
1
יראה הקהל וישפט
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/29/dov-hikind-ny-assemblyman_n_406376.html
Like this comment?
1
Yonadab — What exactly do you take issue with? Racial profiling might be unpleasant, and I don’t know the exact data on this, but suppose for a moment that it’s more effective in saving lives. Just for argument’s sake. What, in that case, would be a reasonable objection for using it? Political correctness?
Like this comment?
1
Assuming that your scenario is correct, the problem isn’t political correctness.
The problem would be civil liberties. I am no constitutional lawyer, but as I see it, civil liberties rests on the idea that governmental decisions are informed by personal ‘actions’ not ‘assumptions.’ Allowing governments the liberty to act on assumptions not enforced by the individual’s actions would be giving government the right to pursue its goals at a price of individual freedom.
While this may seem far fetched, it is worth it so as not to lose the wholesomeness of our ideals of civil liberty.
This isn’t political correctness, it’s constitutional consistency.
Sometimes it might come at the price of increased effectiveness effectiveness of security. But as they always say, “Everyone is for free speech when they like what the other says.” It’s a law because it’s unpleasant sometimes.
Like this comment?
1
Yonadab — Well, as you said, it’s question of constitutional law, which neither you (by your admission) nor I are experts on. But that doesn’t make Hikind’s position innately offensive.
As for its constitutionality, I’d find it hard to believe that it would be unconstitutional to exempt certain people considered low risk, such as 2-month-old babies or old ladies in wheel-chairs (assuming there’s reasonable data that indicates such persons to be genuinely low risk). And if so, it then becomes a matter of where to draw the line. Again, could also be a constitutional problem, but my hunch is it has more to do with a political zeitgeist than a genuine legal question.
Like this comment?
2
Couldn’t agree with HR more.
I don’t think Hikind is a bigot for trying to reintroduce a racial profiling bill.
I don’t see it as a constitutional conundrum either. By racial profiling we are not infringing on anyone’s rights. It might be unpleasant, but I would assume the government reserved the right to dish out unpleasantries in order to safeguard the greater good of its citizens. The prime purpose of government is to assure the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. If racial profiling is an effective tool in the war on terror, all the power to it!
And dear Yondab, “B’mechilas k’voidchu hurumu”, are you kidding me? The government cant operate on assumptions? Its humanely impossible to make decisions without incorporating input acquired through assumption, nevertheless run a country in that fashion. You are right that we can’t convict and punish an individual or a group based on assumption, but we definitely can act and enforce laws that are not discriminatory in nature based on assumption. Let me ask you this; is it constitutionally plausible to have a greater police presence in a crime riddled neighborhood? Of course yes, and I’m sure that is precisely how the police force is distributed in the cities of this great country. It’s quite obvious that certain areas in NYC have a greater police presence than other districts. Wouldn’t you say that the decision to place more cops in a crime riddled area is based on the assumption that a place that was crime riddled yesterday, and two days ago, will also be crime riddled today? It’s obvious that the government operates in that fashion, and I don’t see a problem with it as long as personal rights are not infringed upon.
You are right though that power corrupts, and extra precaution has to be taken when considering the protection of civil liberties. But these are troubling times, and it’s not of utmost importance that we guard ideological wholesomeness at the price of saving lives.
Like this comment?
1
I hope somebody reports about the bike-lane debate!
Like this comment?
1
R&C — Thanks for seconding my points. I would only note that placing extra police in crime-ridden areas may not be infringing on human rights, whereas subjecting people to extra questioning might be.
However, police DO subject people to questioning all the time based on assumptions — and very vague ones, at that. Police can be given a profile or description of a suspect, and can and do detain people based on that description. An exact definition of “profiling” if ever there was one. And it’s done all the time.
Like this comment?
1
e — Baruch posted on FB that it was packed to capacity with standing room only. We’ll probably see a report int he papers within the next few hours. Stay tuned, and we’ll try to note it in our next roundup.
Like this comment?
1
If not for racial profiling, there would be a helluva lot more dead Jews in the world.
Like this comment?
1
I believe, while racial profiling is part of the solution (as we see in Israel) the debate shouldn’t be centered on its constitutionality, rather the debate should focus if profiling should be tolerated in a democracy.
The right to remain silent against self incriminating is still a valid one, even if there might be a possibility of saving lives. Reason being, it is the price we pay for freedom, it is the price we pay for democracy. If the authorities didn’t read you the Miranda rights you have a good chance to walk scott free even if you committed the crime. Again the price we pay for democracy.
With the above said.
I support racial profiling, NOT solely because it will save lives (which it most certainly will), so long it does not infringe on anyones freedom. For example, placing Japanese people during WWII in camps was a racial profiling that I would disagree even if it would save lives. However, taking a closer at the luggages of a sweaty, dark skinned Muhammad sounding name – no problem at all…
Like this comment?
1
HR, I only used the “excess police presence” to show that government uses assumption to set policy and procedure. Coming to think of it, I don’t think it’s a poor comparison to racial profiling. People in underprivileged neighborhoods constantly complain of excess police presence. It’s definitely not amicable to feel like you’re living in a police state. Nevertheless, it has to be done in order to protect the wellbeing of the inhabitants of these neighborhoods. Racial profiling is not a desirable method either, it’s annoying and invasive to some degree, but if it’s done to prevent greater harm it has precedence over the minor discomfort it might create in the process. Excess police presence and racial profiling both have the property of creating discomfort. One might be coarser than the other, but it’s a necessary evil to prevent greater evil.
Like this comment?
1
Not sure if youre pointing out a negative or a positive.
Like this comment?
1
The constitution is seen as the guarantor and protector of democracy. To ponder the constitutionality of an issue is to appraise whether it fits in to the democratic scheme of things.
I dont understand your second point, please enlighten us.
The incarceration of an entire ethnic group during World War Two is a bad comparison to racial profiling. The Japanese were imprisoned during WW2 not as a means to an end. They weren’t held up to obtain information or anything of that sort, rather they were kept hostage to “prevent” them from spying for the enemy country. Hundreds of thousands were imprisoned just on the premise that some individuals might be spying for the enemy. The rights of people were assaulted; they were imprisoned unlawfully, despite not committing any crimes. Racial profiling doesn’t rob people of their rights to freedom. True, it’s minimally invasive, ironically, to prevent harm to the people that are being profiled.
Like this comment?
1
Hey SY — I happen to know a Mohammed who’s capital fellow. Although he happens to wear a plotchige biber hit and long payess. On second thought, that’s maybe not so capital.
Like this comment?
1