Narberth●USA

Hiatus

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:01:00 +0000

Because of other matters that need my attention, NarberthUSA is going to be suspended for a time. I will try to resume regular posting in about a month.

Update

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 02:35:00 +0000

In the face of severe criticism from journalists and bloggers with a lot more influence than I have, a few Republicans such as John Boehner, Mitt Romney, and Sarah Palin today joined political leaders, members of the clergy, and others in condemning the threatened Koran burning that is scheduled to occur on Saturday. Others, including John McCain and Newt Gingrich, have refused, despite serious concerns expressed by Gen. Petraeus and other high level military commanders, to go on the record as opposing the burning.

Not the Time for Silence

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:51:00 +0000

About ten days ago I wrote about Terry Jones, a hateful bigot in Florida, who insists on exercising his First Amendment rights by burning Korans on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Today, just four days before the scheduled book-burning, General David Petraeus, the widely respected commander of the war in Afghanistan, warned that images of the burning of a Koran "would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan – and around the world – to inflame public opinion and incite violence." In other words, Americans, both military and civilian, could be put in harm's way. But even that plea from General Petraeus doesn't seem to be enough to deter Terry Jones. What's just as interesting is the long list of Republicans and conservatives who so far, at least, apparently have failed to speak up to condemn Jones and his plan. As of tonight, the list of those who apparently have decided to remain silent on this issue includes former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Eric Cantor, Lindsey Graham, and many others who never seem to hesitate to express their opinions about other issues as loudly and frequently as they can.

(If anyone has evidence that I named anyone who should not be included my list, please let me know so that I can make an immediate correction.)

Mama Grizzly

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:24:00 +0000

I've tried very hard to avoid talking about Sarah Palin. My hope has been that if we just ignore her, maybe she'll go away. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she has the education or experience to be president. Before she was governor, she was the mayor of Wasilla, a town with about 5,500 people at the time of the 2000 census (Narberth had about 4,200 and Lower Merion had close to 60,000 according to that same census). She served less than one full term as governor of Alaska, a state that has about half the number of residents that Philadelphia has. She seems sometimes to have trouble distinguishing truth from fiction (remember the Bridge to Nowhere, Troopergate, the oil pipeline, and the firing of Wasilla's police chief?). If you ever listened to one of her speeches, you quickly realized that she complains a lot, but she never has specific suggestions to fix policies with which she finds fault. But maybe I've been deluding myself because it's becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the reality that Palin is running for president and that she has a base of supporters who seem willing to pretend that she's qualified for the job.

The October issue of Vanity Fair has an in-depth profile of Sarah Palin by Michal Joseph Gross. It is not flattering and, in fact, some might say it's a little scary. It's a long article, but it's well worth reading.

Why We Have the First Amendment

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 23:57:00 +0000

Thanks to the First Amendment, we have the freedom of speech, the right to practice (or not practice) religion, the right to assemble, and the right to petition our government. Those rights apply to us all, even morons and bigots. They even apply to a guy by the name of Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida. Jones is the head of a church called the Dove World Outreach Center. On September 11th, Jones and his group are holding what they call "International Burn a Koran Day." Nice, huh? Chris Matthews interviewed Jones tonight and asked him if he respected anyone enough that he would cancel the book-burning if that person asked him to. Jones responded that George W. Bush is one of the few leaders he respects, but he would not change his mind even at the request of the former president. I suspect that few people I know would have any respect for someone like Terry Jones, but everyone I know -- Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, believer or atheist -- would stand up for his right to say hateful, intolerant, and incendiary things and, in general, to make a fool of himself.

Time to Get Serious?

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Now that summer's almost over, I wonder if we can put some of the distractions of the past few months behind us. Does it really matter where Michelle Obama and her daughter went on vacation? Does anyone besides a handful of wackos really believe President Obama was not born in Hawaii? Is there anyone other than that lunatic representative from Texas, Louie Gohmert, who really thinks that terrorists are sending pregnant women to the United States so their children will be American citizens? Does anyone really care what Sarah Palin thinks? About anything?

We're still engaged in two wars, countries like Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and Somalia are becoming even more threatening to global stability, unemployment is unacceptably high, and the economy is sputtering along. Perhaps it's time to re-focus on issues that really matter. For example, at the same time they're complaining about the deficit, Republicans are pushing to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Those are the same tax cuts, in case you've forgotten, that helped make the Clinton surplus vanish in a puff of smoke.) As Paul Krugman points out in his column in the New York Times today, keeping those tax cuts would cost $680 billion over the next ten years. And almost all of it would benefit only the very, very rich, not small businesses and not the middle class where it might do some good. As Krugman put it, "it’s hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and aren’t likely to spend a windfall."

Maybe with a little encouragement from us, our elected officials and candidates for office will stop pandering and start looking for real solutions to real problems.

Three Decisions

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 00:40:00 +0000

This is a comment about three recent and completely unrelated decisions by government entities, two of which allow me to continue to be optimistic about our future, and one of which has me scratching my head and wondering what the decision-maker was thinking.

Earlier this week, the Landmarks Preservation Commission in New York City gave final approval for an office building containing an Islamic community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan. Mayor Bloomberg reminded us yesterday, in a speech that should make us all proud, that our nation was founded on the principle that government may not favor one religion over another or prohibit the free exercise of religion. In may happen in other countries, but we should never allow our government to attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship, based on their own particular religion, on their own private property. If they would allow themselves to be open-minded by listening to people like Mayor Bloomberg, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and others could learn a lot about the Constitution and especially the First Amendment that they claim to hold dear.

And in a decision just announced this afternoon, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California invalidated California's Proposition 8, a referendum passed by voters that banned same-sex marriages. It was an ugly, intolerant, hateful law, and Judge Vaughn Walker (who, incidentally, was nominated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush) should be applauded for his insight, wisdom, and fairness. Of course the battle is not over; an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals is a certainty, and the case is likely to end up in the U.S. Supreme Court. But bigotry and intolerance have suffered a blow, at least for today.

But then there was the decision made last night by the Chair of the Lower Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board. A news crew from Channel 6 attempted to record a public meeting that was addressing the plans by St. Joseph's University to make improvements to its athletic fields along Latches Lane, but the Chair, with the aid of the police, directed that the camera be removed. Unless the camera was somehow causing a disturbance, and I am not aware of any evidence of that, I believe the Chair's decision is legally suspect. Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act specifically states that recording devices may be used by people attending meetings of public agencies to record all the proceedings. It is important to note that the agency is permitted to establish rules and regulations regarding the conduct of the meeting including, presumably, the use of television cameras, but I seriously doubt that the cameras can be banned outright. It will be interesting to see if Channel 6 challenges the actions of the Zoning Hearing Board and its Chair.

As I stated at the beginning, these three decisions have absolutely nothing to do with each other, unless they can be said to serve as simple examples of how our government and our elected and appointed officials should never be afraid to do the right thing, in the open, in full public view, even if the result may not be universally popular.

Things Could Be Worse

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:41:00 +0000

Bell is a small working class city in California where all but one of the part-time members of the city council somehow managed to pay themselves about $96,000 each for serving on council and various council-related boards. Furthermore, the city manager was being paid $787,000 a year, his assistant was making $376,000 a year, and the police chief was making $457,000. This occurred in a city with a total budget of $15.9 million at a time when low level employees were being laid off. The three high-paid officials have now resigned, and the council members have cut their own salaries by 90%. I'm not sure how it was possible for this to happen without the knowledge of the taxpayers, but it certainly takes the concept of arrogance to a whole new level.

Winning in Afghanistan (Part Two)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:28:00 +0000

Since last November, when I asked the rhetorical question "what does winning in Afghanistan look like," hundreds of Americans have been killed or injured in action, billions of dollars have been spent, the Afghan government has grown even more corrupt, and Pakistan, our supposed ally, is colluding with the Taliban. Despite all that, neither President Obama nor anyone in his administration has described, at least to my satisfaction, how we'll know when we've won so we can bring our troops home. Just today, Washington Post writer Michael Gerson ends his column by stressing the importance of winning in Afghanistan, but he neglects to explain what that means to him. (I've sent him an e-mail and asked him; I'll post his reply if he sends one.) I believe we have a right to know what our short-term and long-term goals are in Afghanistan, and to say simply that we're there to keep America secure is quickly sounding a bit vague and empty.

The Family Court Problem

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:28:00 +0000

Last April, Inga Saffron, a writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, began to raise questions about the dual role being played by attorney Jeffrey Rotwitt in the project to build a new courthouse for Philadelphia's Family Court. Rotwitt, who was being paid a significant fee as the attorney for Chief Justice Ronald Castille and the court system, ended up also being the co-developer of the project. To many of us outsiders, that looked a lot like a conflict of interest, but it seems to have taken Chief Justice Castille a while to recognize it. There's a lot about this saga that doesn't smell right, but especially offensive was a ham-handed attempt by L. Stuart Ditzen, a former Inquirer reporter and now a spokesman for Castille, apparently to intimidate Saffron by reminding her, not too subtly, of a multi-million dollar verdict against the Inquirer in a 1973 libel case. You can read the latest installment of this story in this article in this morning's Inquirer. I hope the Inquirer and its reporters, Joseph Tanfani and Mark Fazlollah, continue to dig into this story about the Family Court deal because the truth needs to come out. Not only is there a lot of taxpayer money involved, but it is also important to find out if there is a segment of our legal community that believes it can play by different rules than the rest of us.

Are We Any Safer? (Part Three)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:24:00 +0000

Here is the third installment of the Washington Post's series "Top Secret America." This one describes how the Washington suburb of Fort Meade, Maryland has become the largest of several geographical centers for the United States intelligence community. The National Security Agency is a huge presence there, as are private companies such as Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics that support the NSA. If you're smart, good at mathematics, and have a high security clearance, it might be a promising place to look for work.

Are We Any Safer? (Part Two)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:35:00 +0000

You can find the second installment of the Washington Post's series "Top Secret America" at this link. Today's article describes the extent to which the United States now relies on private contractors to conduct the intelligence gathering and analysis once performed by government employees. This privatization was supposed to save the government money, but the opposite is true and, in fact, many of the employees working for the outside contractors are former government employees with top secret clearances who have been recruited from the military and agencies such as the CIA. And aside from the costs, the reliance on contractors raises obvious questions of conflicts of interest: does a private contractor owe its loyalty to the government or to its shareholders?

Are We Any Safer?

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:34:00 +0000

Are we safer now than we were before 9/11? According to this article in today's Washington Post, the answer is impossible to know because our security infrastructure has become so massive that no one can possibly coordinate it or fully comprehend it. Some examples: 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies work on matters relating to security, counter-terrorism, and intelligence; 854,000 people hold top-secret clearances; there will soon be 33 buildings, occupying space the equivalent of 22 U.S. Capitols, housing top-secret intelligence work; and 51 different federal and military organizations track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks. No one knows how much all this is costing, and no one knows if it is effective. It's a little disturbing to read.

It's Our Money

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 14:57:00 +0000

With all the news about wars and oil spills and heat waves, it's tempting to skip over news about Pennsylvania's new budget. But this article in today's Inquirer is one that merits a closer look. It seems that Governor Rendell has decided to honor his friend and neighbor, Arlen Specter, by spending $10 million, financed by state-issued construction bonds, to help build the Arlen Specter Library to house Specter's papers at Philadelphia University in East Falls. (The budget also includes $10 million to help build a library in Johnstown to hold the papers of the late congressman, John Murtha.)

In a year in which state aid to public libraries has been cut by 9%, it's hard to imagine (1) that the governor couldn't come up with a better way to spend your money and (2) that Specter and his deep-pocketed supporters can't raise their own money if they really believe his papers deserve their own library.

Krugman v. Brooks

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:34:00 +0000

Both David Brooks and Paul Krugman are smarter than I am, something that the New York Times must recognize since they both get paid to express their thoughts in that paper and so far, at least, no one from the Times (or anyone else) has offered to pay me for my opinion. In today's paper Mr. Brooks takes a few shots at economists like Krugman (though he doesn't mention him by name). He calls them Demand Siders, and complains that stimulus programs -- he uses the term "debt-fueled government spending" -- destroy consumer and investor confidence. On his blog today, Krugman addresses Brooks and dismissively rejects Brooks' suggestion that it might now be time to focus on reducing the deficit. As he put it, "I’ve looked hard at the arguments the Pain Caucus is making, the evidence that supposedly supports their case — and there’s no there there."

I barely made it through Economics 101 in college, and I have no idea who is right. But I find it a little unsettling that these two smart guys don't agree on what our next step toward economic recovery should be. I'd like to think that there is just one right answer -- not a Democrat answer or a Republican answer -- but sometimes I suspect that trying to control the economy is a little like trying to ski jump while blindfolded.

Michael Steele: The Democrats Best Friend?

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:15:00 +0000

Not for the first time, some statements by Michael Steele, chair of the Republican National Committee, have him in hot water. But if Liz Cheney, William Kristol, and other conservatives are calling for him to resign, maybe that's reason enough for him to stay. I cannot criticize Steele for calling the war in Afghanistan "a war of Obama's choosing," because I've suggested the same thing myself. (Although when I used the term "Obama's War," I was trying to make the point that it's now Obama's turn to decide what direction the war should take while Steele, I suspect, was trying to re-write history.) But Steele's other point, about the war being unwinnable, merits discussion. As recently as yesterday General Petreaus said that the United States is in the war to win, but as I and many others have asked before: what does winning look like? President Bush and his military commanders never satisfactorily answered that question, and neither has President Obama.

By the way, aside from the fact that she is the daughter of perhaps the worst vice president in United States history, can anyone explain how Liz Cheney has become a "leading Republican voice on national security issues" as the New York Times wrote today?

Verdict in Favor of the Defendant in the Redistricting Lawsuit

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:21:00 +0000

According to this article from the Inquirer's web site, Judge Baylson ruled this afternoon that the Lower Merion School District did not break the law when it imposed its redistricting plan.

More School District Legal Bills

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:31:00 +0000

Thanks to Richard Ilgenfritz, in a Main Line Times article you can find here, we learn that our favorite school district will spend close to $650,000 this fiscal year for legal services provided by its solicitor, Kenneth Roos, and his colleagues at Wisler Pearlstein. And, while that's a lot of money, it does not include the legal fees being paid to the Ballard Spahr and Morgan Lewis law firms. One thing that is especially disturbing about this is that one school director, Melissa Gilbert, wanted to table a motion to re-appoint Mr. Roos in order to consider other options, but no one else on the board would even second her motion. That's right, except for Dr. Gilbert, no one on the board even wanted to slow down and examine alternatives. Remember: it's your money.

McChrystal Update (No. 2)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:40:00 +0000

The New York Times and the Washington Post are both reporting that today President Obama relieved General McChrystal of his duties. General Petraeus will be his replacement as commander of operations in Afghanistan.

McChrystal Update

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:01:00 +0000

Various news reports are saying that President Obama and General McChrystal met for just twenty or thirty minutes this morning, and that McChrystal has left the White House. There is a high-level meeting of Obama's military advisors scheduled for later this morning, and if McChrystal is not there does that mean Obama either fired him or accepted his resignation?

From Rolling Stone Magazine

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:36:00 +0000

I've finished reading the Rolling Stone article that tomorrow could result in the firing of General McChrystal by President Obama. There is a lot of great material in that article, which you can find on the Rolling Stone's web site and in many other places, and I recommend it. In some ways the McChrystal indiscretions are only a small part of the story. Just as important are the insights the article gives us into the status of a war that sometimes looks as if it will never end. Here is just one thoughtful passage:

"Today, as McChrystal gears up for an offensive in southern Afghanistan, the prospects for any kind of success look bleak. In June, the death toll for U.S. troops passed 1,000, and the number of IEDs has doubled. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the fifth-poorest country on earth has failed to win over the civilian population, whose attitude toward U.S. troops ranges from intensely wary to openly hostile. The biggest military operation of the year – a ferocious offensive that began in February to retake the southern town of Marja – continues to drag on, prompting McChrystal himself to refer to it as a "bleeding ulcer." In June, Afghanistan officially outpaced Vietnam as the longest war in American history – and Obama has quietly begun to back away from the deadline he set for withdrawing U.S. troops in July of next year. The president finds himself stuck in something even more insane than a quagmire: a quagmire he knowingly walked into, even though it's precisely the kind of gigantic, mind-numbing, multigenerational nation-building project he explicitly said he didn't want."

So even as he decides tonight and tomorrow whether to relieve McChrystal of command, accept his resignation, or permit him to continue the mission in Afghanistan, Obama must be wondering what, if anything, can be accomplished there and whether or not it makes sense to continue this war.

What Was He Thinking?

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:59:00 +0000

General McChrystal has been ordered back to Washington to try to explain to his superiors, including the President, why he and his staff were so critical of the administration in the controversial Rolling Stone article that's been all over the news today. What was he thinking when he decided to give such unrestricted access to a journalist? Will he survive, or will he be fired (or forced to resign)?

Link to Main Line Times Article

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:33:00 +0000

Cheryl Allison's article that I referred to earlier is now posted on line and can be found at this link.

Monday's School Board Meeting

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:42:00 +0000

Here is a link to the video of last Monday's school board meeting. If you want to see some Narberth residents make very compelling arguments to the school board about why the board should drop its efforts to take ownership of Narberth's school building, move the marker to minute 101 and keep viewing until about minute 110.

Monday's Council Meeting (continued)

noreply@blogger.com (Matt Pettigrew) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:00:00 +0000

Cheryl Allison has an article on page 6 of today's Main Line Times in which she describes a discussion Monday night about whether or not Mayor Grady should be included in discussions of certain subjects before Narberth's Council after some people interpreted a recent letter from the mayor as implying that he was considering litigation against the Borough. According to the MLT article, "The discussion that ensued, at points, had the mayor's attorney, Larry Silver, persisting in trying to make his points, over council President Mary Jo Daley's repeated attempts to halt the interruptions. It continued to the point that Daley, declaring Silver out of order, raised the possibility of calling in borough police to remove him from the council chamber."

If you want to read the entire article, it looks as if you'll have to buy the paper because, if it's on the MLT web site, I wasn't able to find it. Maybe they'll post it later.