Carl asked what I thought an Iranian who had been insulted would do in response. I don’t have much farsi left but the words “qorbani shoma” came out of my mouth. I knew how to use it but not what it meant. Carl explained that it means “I sacrifice myself for you.” In other words a typical Persian response would be to shame the other with an excess of courtesy. Not the only response, certainly, but a common one. 

I commented that there was another Persian expression I did know the meaning of and resisted using, “Chashm.” My wife related that the Persians said that when the Mogul rulers conquered their country they responded to any statements or behavior they disliked by putting out people’s eyes. “Chashm” literally means “On my eyes,” short for if I don’t do what you ask you may put my eyes out. I hate that expression and the cruelty it recalls. It doesn’t necessarily mean they will do what they promised. It’s a form of hyperbole now but they’ll do what they please. 

We shared a third memory, of bargaining for the things we wanted. Over tea and over several days, gradually testing each others’ limits. Unless either of us mistakenly identified whether we were acting American-style or Persian-style. 

These memories prove little about what Iran will do now. But they bespeak a subtle and sophisticated culture. Persians certainly make mistakes, like we all do. Their leaders often say preposterous things, but I think they’re crazy like a fox, not stupid. They know the face of danger. They certainly seek their own ends. They may have been involved in bombings around the world, bombings that have been somewhat difficult to prove. But make war? Not if they can avoid it. They are not only a subtle and sophisticated people; they also have quite a lot of experience with and in the west, including this country. 

The 1979 seizure of the American Embassy took on a life of its own and had unintended consequences but it was done against the background of history that few Americans knew but Persians did. They acted to prevent a counterrevolution being launched from the Embassy like the coup that Americans organized from the Embassy in 1953 when the Eisenhower Administration ousted their Prime Minister. So they certainly can and did make mistakes, and miscalculate, but I’d be very surprised if they want to start a war.

Their image is not high in the rest of the Middle East right now. The best thing we can do is to stay calm, speak the language of greater courtesy, and try to figure out what bargains are possible.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, January 24, 2012.

Movements for economic justice have repeatedly had their backs broken over the race issue. In the 19th century, the surging Populist Movement tried to ignore race and bring poor whites and blacks together. But it was destroyed in the South over race. We limped into the 20th century without major reforms although the Progressive Movement that brought Woodrow Wilson to the White House enacted pieces of the Populist creed and the Roosevelt Administration enacted more.

But the Roosevelt Administration also steered clear of race in ways that would have an enormous impact on America. It cut blacks out of the major improvements for labor – Social Security, hours and wages legislation and unemployment insurance – by excluding from coverage the types of work that most blacks did, namely farm and domestic labor. Those programs helped to start white workers on the path toward saving. As many scholars have shown, it marked the beginnings of the shift of wealth to labor, white labor.

The GI Bill at the end of World War II began to give some blacks the leg up they needed, but the federal government’s role in blocking blacks from moving to the suburbs as whites were doing isolated a large part of the black community from jobs. And the redlining of black city neighborhoods meant there would be systematic disinvestment where they lived and a much more serious racial problem for the rest of us to deal with on top of pre-existing racism.

The civil rights movement of the 40s, 50s and 60s had its back broken, in turn, by battles between blacks and whites and arguments about what “we” are doing for “them.” In the wake of that battle, for which succeeding Republican Administrations used affirmative action as their wedge issue to break the black-white coalition that had passed civil rights laws, the alliance for economic justice began to fail. Reagan announced that a new class of economists much more favorable to the wealthy, the so-called monetarists were now in fashion. George H. W. Bush famously called that “voodoo economics” and he was right, as the current depression is making clear to many more people. And with the monetarists, all the things that our government had been doing to improve the economy and mitigate the damage of recession to working people were now passé and they deflected the attention of the working classes and so-called blue-collar Americans from economic justice to a variety of social issues.

Not everyone of course sees social issues as a euphemism for black-white conflict. But enough do. The Tea Party is strongest in the states of the old Confederacy and many of the advocates are plain enough in their claims and their backgrounds. Whether you have seen social issues as a neutral way to target any benefits for blacks or not, it has functioned as a major distraction from the growing economic disparity in this country.

That was Martin Luther King’s great insight – that we are all in this together. That ultimately we had to fight for economic justice for everybody. It has always been the case that the great majority of the poor are white. Though you’d never know it from the bombast. And it has always been the case that ignoring the poor threatens the rest of us by lowering the wage floor and pulling all our salaries down. And so it is also the Occupy Movement’s great insight – we are almost all in the 99%, and we are all affected by social and economic justice for all. Vive the 99%.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Midday Magazine, January 17, 2012.

New York and Boston are expensive because homes are expensive, expensive to buy, and expensive to rent. Given the cost of New York and Boston real estate, businesses have to charge more to cover the costs. There’s a never ending battle between businesses and the owners of the realty – the better your business, the more your landlord thinks he or she should get. It isn’t solved by buying the property – that just turns it into the cost of carrying the mortgage or what economists call the opportunity cost of not selling at a good price.

Realty is expensive because places like New York, Boston and San Francisco are happening places, alive in the many ways that make them attractive. There’s plenty to do, and specialists in everything you’d ever want from doctors to watchmakers. There’s high brow, low brow and all sorts of middle brows. There are opportunities to work and play with like-minded people and organizations, and jobs with big time opportunities. There are business opportunities because so many of the people that businesses want to deal with are already there – customers, employees, suppliers, consultants, shippers, traders – all there.

Lively places draw people, people jack up the price of space, and high priced space drives up the cost of everything else. That includes government workers. Years ago when I left St. Louis for a public service job in New York City, my boss and I had to figure out how much more expensive that would be. It didn’t matter that the job was in the public sector. I still had to be able to take care of my family and myself. And that cost money, a good deal more than I earned a thousand miles to the west.

Of course if government employees have to be paid more, and if all the services that government has to buy in New York and Boston cost more, that also means higher taxes.

In other words, although we keep fussing about it, high New York taxes are partly an index of success. If we provided the same services that, say, Mississippi provided, save only cost of living adjustments, we would be much more expensive than they. But of course if we only provided the same services as Mississippi, New York would hardly be the destination that it is now for so many Americans from all over the country. And they wouldn’t make the large contributions to our economy that they do.

In other words, we could lower our taxes and our services, but we’d all be poorer. The really important issue isn’t whether we pay more in taxes than some other state, most of which are much less successful than New York or Massachusetts, for example. The real issue is the wisdom of the investments we make here, and the wisdom of the investments we don’t make. Are we selling ourselves short? Or are we building a state that will be attractive to people and business for years to come? There’s a lot more than taxes in that calculation. Think about it.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, December 13, 2011.

As a result other countries have been reconsidering their participation in the Euro and even in the European Union itself. Should we care? George Washington famously told the country that we should avoid entangling alliances and promptly ignored our Treaty with France, which was by then embroiled in a bloody revolution which led to a reign of terror, Napoleon as emperor and restoration of the monarchy. So shouldn’t we obey Washington’s advice and stop worrying about Europe?

Actually the reason that Washington wanted us to avoid entangling ourselves in Europe was closely allied to support for the new Constitution and the creation of the U.S. as we know it. Europe had been involved in a long series of very costly wars. Our Founders wanted to create a country so that our states would not become combatants and would not be tempted to look for the support of European allies. Indeed England and Spain continued to control major territories on our borders, while France had only recently been ousted. The individual states would have had to reach accommodations with those powerful neighbors and those alliances could have threatened other states. As Lincoln would later put it, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

At the time, England and France were the major European contenders. In the 19th century, Germany and France became the major antagonists. The Crimean, Franco-Prussian and two World Wars created enormous havoc on the continent, especially across the Franco-German line.

Against that background, the gradual establishment of European institutions, beginning in 1950, was designed to bring France, Germany and the rest of Europe under the same umbrella, to unite their futures, while subsuming their armies under NATO. The Union was a major act of statesmanship and geopolitical vision. Indeed the vision was very much the vision that created our nation – united we stand; divided we fall.

Germany had constitutional doubts about its loss of independence but its Constitutional Court decided that the joint institutions were sufficiently democratic to permit German participation. France had its reservations and President de Gaulle temporarily pulled back on some aspects of the European détente. But the pan-European project survived and got stronger.

Europe has become strong enough that it reaches its own policy decisions – sometimes in conflict with American desires. But European strength is also important to America. A Europe able to defend itself eases the burden on us. Much more important, a united Europe lessens the likelihood that we will ever again be drawn into continental upheavals.

So should we care about Europe? Yes we should care. Its unity and strength are tremendously important for us. We must wish it well and cooperate intelligently toward a strong, united Europe.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, December 6, 2012.

• Unemployment compensation. No extensions.
• Spending on infrastructure. Not a penny.
• Regulation of corporate shenanigans. No.
• Regulation of bankers’ shenanigans. No; nothing to clean up the financial system.

Instead the Republicans want to spend your hard earned money, if you’re lucky enough to have a job, on tax breaks for people who don’t need it. Toomey, echoing the Republican PR phrasebook, called taxes on the portion of income that exceeds a million dollars “job killing taxes.” Watch out – I think he’s trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. Taxes would kill jobs if the taxpayers would actually spend the money in ways that would employ people. In fact they are quite well aware that isn’t true, can’t be true.

I had the opportunity to ask a member of former President Bush’s top leadership, how do the newspapers say it, a high Administration source. I asked him if they had data indicating what the Bush tax cuts were actually being used for? It was a private, off the record conversation and I appreciated his candor. He lowered his voice and told me “McMansions.” Wealthy beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts built themselves bigger houses. Thanks. They contributed to the housing boom – and bust. They did not contribute to the economy. My source added something which should be obvious – there has been plenty of money available to invest.  Those who have the money have never needed more so they could invest. They have it. They’re not using it. The money is not being productively used in this country and the reason has nothing whatever to do with taxes – they need a market. And when the economy is tanking, there isn’t much of a market – until we hit bottom. Tax cuts for those at the top – a rip-off.

Actually the value of taxes depends on what you do with them. Tax the middle class to support the lavish living of those who pay a smaller proportion of their income and the economy will stay in the tank. But put idle funds to work, building the infrastructure, supporting the major R&D that our government has been very good at, preparing America for the major challenges that lie ahead, and the whole country wins.

So thank you to the Occupy movement. They’re asking the right questions and pointing in the right direction. We need to use the ballot box to push out of office the Republicans who insist on leaving the economy in the doldrums while they line the pockets of their friends, Republicans who think it is more important that the country do poorly while Obama is in office than that we take care of the needs of our people. Shame on them. Let’s occupy their public space and build a movement that pushes them out of the news into the dustbin of history.

—    This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, Nov. 29, 2011.

In this dispute about the handling of the Occupy Albany movement, I have nothing but praise for David Soares, District Attorney for Albany County. Soares has refused to prosecute people for participating in Occupy Albany and making plain their objection to government policies and massive inequality. Clearly Soares has better things to do.

Soares understands that it is fundamentally un-American to prosecute people for peaceful demonstrations. It’s only supposed to be other countries where the police or the armies are called out to arrest demonstrators or worse. Here the First Amendment tells public officials that they are supposed to accept demonstrations as part of political life. The Founders of this country spent lots of time on the streets demonstrating or supporting those who did. But even in America there are those who would rather keep demonstrators off the streets and out of sight. There are some who would rather settle political issues with weapons. Shame on them.

One of the leaders of Occupy Albany, Colin Donnaruma, a graduate of Albany Law and a member of the Board of the New York Civil Liberties Union, wrote me too late for last week’s commentary and his thoughts deserve to be heard:

24 people from Occupy Albany were arrested [the night of the 12^th] in Lafayette Park for holding a peaceful meditation circle that went past a supposed 11:00pm curfew…. [The next] night another 13 people were arrested for peacefully protesting in the park after curfew.

The background of this is that Lafayette park is state land, governed by state officials and policed by state police – unlike the lower portion (Academy Park) which is city land, controlled by city officials, where protestors have been allowed to camp for the last three weeks. The state curfew in question has never previously been enforced and is not codified in writing anywhere. It seems quite clear that it is being enforced against protestors by state officials because of the political view point that is being expressed by the protestors which has been critical of state officials.

This is a serious civil liberties abuse!

There can certainly be legitimate issues regarding public safety and sanitation. But public officials have a duty to facilitate, not block, peaceful public demonstrations. The governor and the Mayor of New York City could have provided toilets if they were worried about sanitation. It would have been a lot cheaper to set up a few port-a-potties than deploy police or state troupers to arrest and hold peaceful demonstrators.

Politicians get tough with demonstrators to be symbolic, to show they’re tough on young people, tough on liberals, and build up their credentials with the set of people who think no one has a right to disagree with them, people who think it’s OK for Tea Party goers to demonstrate, or show up with loaded weapons at public events, but don’t think it’s OK for anyone else to appear in public with a placard. Some people have a double standard about demonstrators, and no understanding of the Constitution that some of them claim to uphold in their politics.

Soares, by contrast, understands both the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment. Many cheers for David Soares.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, Nov. 14, 2011.

Ten percent of us are out of work, losing homes, facing real personal tragedy. But tea party goers scream “fiscal discipline,” fire more people, fire state workers, make business more competitive, fire more corporate employees. The remedy for unemployment is to fire people. What a great remedy. These are hard times so let’s make it worse! 

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a breadth of fresh air. They’re pointing to the insanity and to the institutions harboring the real culprits. They refuse to be taken in by the claims that business and finance will be responsible now. Those on Wall Street who understood what was going to happen were systematically ignored. Financial institutions have not been responsible, and have done everything possible to avoid rules that would restrict profits made by fleecing the rest of us. Financial incentives have become short term; if there’s a deluge later, well, they’ve got theirs. 

So doing what the American press requires, the Occupiers are out on the streets with signs, placards, tents. How dangerous those tents are. They might keep people warm. They must be dangerous because Governor Andrew’s so scared he sent in the State Police to arrest these dangerous people. Never mind the First Amendment or the right to speak peacefully in public. He’s scared those banners and tents will expose his pandering to the wrong wing, the apologists for the greed of the financial titans and the scourge of honest workers trying to keep house and hearth together. The Occupiers expose his complicity in the class war of wealth against the mass of decent Americans. 

There is an effort to organize the local occupiers so they can drive the primary battles in upcoming congressional elections to restore sanity to American politics. Hallelujah. 

You don’t create jobs by making them disappear. You don’t strengthen the economy by refusing to invest in the infrastructure that keeps the economy moving. You don’t strengthen the economy by turning it into a riverboat where the cardsharks can fleece everyone else without adding any value to the economy. 

Many cheers, and many votes, for the Occupiers, for those with the courage to endure arrest for their convictions, and to stand up for the right of free speech – a right which is never popular with officials who have every interest at stake except the people’s.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, November 15, 2011.

But when can the government use that power and what rules constrain it? In this case, the government got a warrant but ignored it – let it expire before they attached their GPS to Jones’ car, then kept it there and tracked him three times longer than the warrant would have allowed. So the question becomes what the feds can do without a warrant, on their own, without so much as having to explain themselves or document their behavior.

Government, an official or police officer could target someone for any reason, good or bad, political or personal, in the expectation of finding something wrong or that can be used to injure, or some other advantage. Dan Solove who has done groundbreaking work on privacy refers to these as the kinds of things described by George Orwell in 1984, a risk of being watched, made vulnerable, if you don’t conform to what someone, politician, high or petty bureaucrat, wants you to do, because they have freedom to roam in your private life for reasons of their own. That Orwellian problem is what limitations on attaching the GPS are designed to prevent.

In 1914 the Supreme Court decided that evidence seized by federal officers in violation of the Constitution cannot be admitted in federal courts.[1]  The federal government has been living under that rule for almost a century. Here the government had no excuse for failing to get a proper warrant and abide by its terms.

There’s another problem. The information will be misused. The following are not hypotheticals: information will be used for extortion, commercial advantage, public ridicule, even voyeurism. It will become part of a database shared with private businesses, then matched or mismatched with other databases to reveal still more that can be used for commercial gain or competitive advantage, or used to deprive us of things we might want on the basis of information so widespread that it cannot be eradicated, and perhaps not even suspected. Dan Solove calls that the Kafkaesque problem – once the information is collected and becomes part of giant databases, it is almost impossible to correct or delete. That Kafkaesque problem is about controls over how the information is used, a problem we’ve focused much less attention on than whether the government can get the information in the first place. But if we’re willing to let the government get the information, and a lot of Americans are, then we need to focus on the second problem – what will become of it, especially what will become of the information that is not part of a criminal prosecution.

Curiously, for those in the audience who support government regulation of business, the lack of restraints in this area will seem ominous, but for those in the audience who despise government regulation of business, the lack of restraints in this area will seem just fine. Maybe we all have something to learn.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, Nov. 8, 2011.

Perry v. New Hampshire will be argued tomorrow at 10. The question is whether the trial judge was required to pass on the reliability of eye witness identification before letting the testimony go to the jury.

For most people, seeing is believing. “I saw him” means “He did it.” The more confidently the witness testifies, the less likely we will even pause to question the identification. Where the witness doesn’t know the accused, the likelihood of witness error is high, but so is jurors’ confidence in the testimony. Over two-thirds of the people we now know were completely innocent, but who were convicted, and sentenced to die or languish in jail, were put there by mistaken eye-witness testimony. These are cases were DNA or other incontrovertible evidence made it absolutely clear that the witness could not have been right. Jurors felt good – we got them red-handed; but too many of those witnesses were wrong. There are few areas in the law where the emotional power of evidence is so deeply contrary to its actual reliability.

A psychologist friend told me he’d been called for jury duty. The prosecutor asked him if he accepted the truthfulness of eye-witness testimony. My friend said no, and quoted the research that shows we are not very good at identifying strangers. That didn’t help. Dismissed. My friend was not allowed to sit on the jury and sully the jury’s belief that eye witness testimony is the gold standard.

Some years ago I asked Robert Buckhout, then a psychologist at Brooklyn College, to talk with the attorneys in the New York City legal services program, of which I was a manager, about witness testimony. Prof. Buckhout had conducted an experiment on Channel 13, a New York City TV station. They staged a crime on television, then staged a lineup and asked viewers to call in to identify the perpetrator.  There were six people in the lineup. One in six viewers identified the right person. In other words, witnesses were no better than chance, or throwing darts. Buckhout’s conclusion has been repeated in many studies.

So I hope the Court will decide that accuracy in criminal justice requires caution in the admission of eye-witness identification of strangers. We need eye-witness testimony. But we need to do a better job of sifting those situations in which it is likely to be accurate, from those in which the witness’ memory has been clouded by the suggestion of others, or other well-known sources of error. Eye-witness testimony remains one of the main reasons that innocent people serve time or are executed for crimes they did not commit.

— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, November 1, 2011.