This Week:

Quote of the Week

I Understand, I Understand!

Food Shelves “Maxed Out”

“A Little-Noticed Proposal”
More “Whites” Guilty, More People of Color Presumed Guilty
Leaders Field the Tough Questions...Sort Of

 

Greetings,

There are so many items this week, who needs an editor’s note?

Nobody.

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

This week’s “Quote” is actually the entire text of an article I saw in the London newspaper The Independent. I’ve never had an entire article as my “Quote” of the Week, so all of you reading this week are a part of history. Congratulations. This article appeared on Sunday, November 16:

“Home Secretary David Blunkett has refused to grant diplomatic immunity to armed American special agents and snipers traveling to Britain as part of President Bush's entourage this week.

“In the case of the accidental shooting of a protester, the Americans in Bush's protection squad will face
justice in a British court as would any other visitor, the Home Office has confirmed.

“The issue of immunity is one of a series of extraordinary US demands turned down by Ministers and Downing Street during preparations for the Bush visit.

“These included the closure of the Tube [subway] network, the use of US air force planes and helicopters, and the shipping in of battlefield weaponry to use against rioters.

“In return, the British authorities agreed to numerous concessions, including the creation of a 'sterile zone' around the President with a series of road closures in central London and a security cordon keeping the public away from his cavalcade.”

I Understand, I Understand!

The unofficial Nygaard Notes Slogan: “Reading the Newspapers So You Don’t Have To!”

The meaning of this slogan was brought home to me as I dutifully examined the Thanksgiving Day edition of our local newspaper the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!). On the front page of the “A” section was the heading “Happy Thanksgiving.” On the front page of the “B” section was the headline “Demand At Food Shelves Surges.” The largest single section of the paper on that day was a “section produced by the Star Tribune Sales and Marketing Division” (the word “advertising” was never used). That section was headed “the new LUXURY,” and the cover featured full-color photos of three automobiles: an Aston Martin, a Rolls Royce Phantom, and a Lamborghini Murcielago.

So, yes, even though I think people miss a lot of important things by not reading the newspapers on a daily basis, I do understand why so many readers tell me they simply cannot do it. And that, in part, is what I’m here for. So let’s get started.

Food Shelves “Maxed Out”

I mentioned above a Thanksgiving Day headline in the Star Tribune (“Demand At Food Shelves Surges.”) It really was an important article, so here are a few excerpts that convey the gist of it:

Mary Ajax, president of Community Action Council in suburban Dakota County, which runs several area food shelves, said, “We're seeing people who never dreamed they'd use a food shelf. They come in with tears in their eyes, incredibly humble and grateful.”

“Statewide, demand [for food from food shelves] is up 10 percent over last year.”

Suburbs, in particular, have been hard hit. Demand for food in suburban Dakota County, for example, was up 46 percent during the first six months of this year from 2002. The suburban city of Maple Grove saw a 55 percent increase during the same period. Demand is up 28 percent in suburban Anoka County and 33 percent in suburban Wright County, according to Janine Laird, executive director of Hunger Solutions, which coordinates Minnesota's network of 320 food shelves, who added that about a third of Minnesota counties report increases of more than 20 percent over last year.

The Star Trib reported Laird’s message that “Two counties that in the past experienced big increases in demand—Hennepin and Ramsey—are not at the top this year. Food shelf visits were up 4 percent in Hennepin County and 10 percent in Ramsey. One reason may be that central city food shelves [i.e. Hennepin and Ramsey, home to the states two largest cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul] already are maxed out. In addition, suburbs that hadn't gotten the complete brunt of economic downturns are finally feeling the full effect.”

“This is our third straight year of [10 percent] increases: it's unprecedented,” said Laird. “It's knocking them dead.”

“A Little-Noticed Proposal”

A hugely-important article on the ever-expanding spying powers of the government appeared in the November 20th NY Times, under the headline “Lawmakers Approve Expansion Of F.B.I.'s Antiterrorism Powers.” Few people noticed it, I fear, since it appeared only once in the Times, in an eight-paragraph story on the bottom of page 17, and almost nowhere else in the country.

What happened, as the Times reported, was that “Congressional negotiators approved a measure on Wednesday [Nov 19] to expand the F.B.I.'s counterterrorism powers...” The final version was approved “in a private session late Wednesday, officials said.”

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the bill “would allow government agents, such as the FBI, to access your personal travel records, stock trades or personal purchases without any suspicion that you were involved in a crime. It would also allow the government to hide this investigation from you indefinitely—and do all of this without any court oversight.”

The focus of the Times article was the secrecy of the whole process. As they reported:

“The approval came despite 11th-hour concerns raised by five Democrats and a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who questioned why their panel—which has responsibility for overseeing the F.B.I.—was shut out of any discussion on the little-noticed proposal.

“In a letter this week to the Senate intelligence committee, the senators urged the panel, which does much of its work in secret, not to move ahead with such a significant expansion of the F.B.I.'s powers without further review. They said public hearings, public debate and legislative protocol were essential in legislation involving the privacy rights of Americans.”

The Times’ concern about secrecy is not an insignificant one, to be sure, but if this was indeed a “little-noticed proposal,” then the Times has a lot to answer for. After all, people “notice” things if they are prominently reported in the newspapers of the land. If the Times had been doing its job in reporting on the status of this bill—HR 2417—then perhaps it would have been a “much-noticed proposal,” and the outcome might have been different. That’s what a Free Press is all about, methinks.

To learn more, go to the website of the American Civil Liberties Union at http://www.aclu.org/. Click on “National Security” and then “Stop the Expanded Use of Secret Searches.”

More “Whites” Guilty, More People of Color Presumed Guilty

A recent statewide study in Minnesota revealed that blacks, Latinos and American Indians are more likely than whites to be stopped and searched by police. No surprise there. And now, as the Star Tribune reported on November 25th, the Minneapolis Police Department will undergo a year-long review to explain the reasons for this racial disparity. Hopefully this study will result in some real action; time will tell. What I want to report here is an excerpt from the Star Trib’s story about the upcoming review (mixed in with a few things from a September 25 report from the same paper). These facts may surprise some readers.

“More than 60 law enforcement agencies participated in [a] state-funded study that examined nearly 200,000 traffic stops in 2002. The study's authors...concluded that the numbers revealed a ‘strong likelihood’ of racial bias in police policies and practices that probably extends statewide.

“No matter how large the population of any given city, the disparities were remarkably consistent. Whites were stopped at a higher rate than their share of the local driving-age population in only eight of the 60 areas with enough stops to determine statistical significance. Blacks were over-stopped in every jurisdiction but one, Latinos in all but five. Blacks were subjected to searches at a higher rate than whites in all but two of the 37 jurisdictions where both races were searched. Data on Indians were more varied, but they were three times more likely than whites to be searched.

“In the few suburban police departments that participated, officers stopped blacks four times more than average and searched them twice as often.”

“In Minneapolis alone, equal police treatment of the races would have resulted in blacks being stopped 12,804 fewer times and searched 1,053 fewer times, the study's authors said.”

And here is the fact that probably will surprise many readers (if it surprises you, it’s worth considering why it does):

“Overall, 23.5 percent of discretionary police searches of white suspects yielded illegal drugs, weapons or stolen property, compared with 19.7 percent for Indians, 11 percent for blacks and 9 percent for Latinos.

Leaders Field the Tough Questions...Sort Of

The “President” of the United States went to England last week, and much hilarity ensued. For example, here’s an excerpt from the transcript of a news conference held in London on November 20. Note, first of all, the amazing question that the British reporter asked—and repeated after Mr. Bush tried to evade it; such a question asked of the Chief Executive is almost unthinkable in this country. Secondly, note the standard, official response to popular protest: that the freedom to protest is what’s great about our country. Finally, note Mr. Bush’s attempt to equate “peace and freedom and liberty” with his policies.

Question: Mr. President, if I could ask you, with thousands marching on the streets today here in London, a free nation, what is your conclusion as to why apparently so many free citizens fear you and even hate you?

MR. BUSH: I'd say freedom is beautiful. It's a fantastic thing to come to a country where people are able to express their views.

Question: Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?

(LAUGHTER)

MR. BUSH: I don't know that they do... Freedom is a wonderful thing, and I respect that. I fully understand people don't agree with war. But I hope they agree with peace and freedom and liberty...”

The report of “laughter” at the question appeared in the full transcript of the news conference, but that single, revealing word was edited out of the excerpt that appeared in the NY Times.

Here’s a question from the same reporter to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a few days after a major bomb attack was carried out in Turkey: “What do you say to people who today conclude that British people have died and been maimed as a result of you appearing here today shoulder to shoulder with a controversial American president?”

The British Prime Minister’s response was a truly remarkable attempt to actively deny the importance of considering the context in which British lives are being lost. Motioning toward Mr. Bush, he said:

“What has caused the terrorist attack today in Turkey? It's not the president of the United States. It's not the alliance between America and Britain. What is responsible for that terrorist attack is terrorism -- are the terrorists.”

And there you have it, straight from the Prime Minister: The cause of terrorism is terrorism.