On December 6, President Donald Trump took the seriously controversial step of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and beginning a plan to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Predictably, violent protests broke out in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, featuring the familiar scene from the past few decades at similar moments, of Palestinian youth burning tires and throwing stones at Israeli soldiers, who responded with tear gas and firing rubber bullets (Wall Street Journal, 12/8/2017, p. A8; Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, NC, 12/7/2017, p. 12A).
At an emergency meeting in Cairo, Arab foreign ministers demanded the U.S. reverse its decision (Charlotte Observer, 12/11/2017, p. 6A). No specific action against the U.S. was approved, however. In contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called President Trump’s move “historic,” and noted Israel has held its capital in Jerusalem for 70 years, and that the Jewish claim/connection to the city dates back 3,000 years, according to the Charlotte Observer (12/11/2017, p. 6A).
The question then falls on good people caught between the Israeli Jewish position and the Arabic Muslim stance, what position is best, on President Donald Trump’s recent moves?
First, I understand that the peace process, namely, negotiations toward a two-state solution, has been stalled, for many years. At least since 2000, when then-President Bill Clinton gave an election-year push in Mideast peace talks that failed miserably, at least since then the peace process has been stalled, essentially, in a fragile and tense stalemate, and have gone nowhere. In the light of over 15 years of virtually no substantial progress in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, I can understand President Trump’s decision.
Nonetheless, I cannot agree. I cannot go as far as France's President, Emmanuel Macron, has gone, when he called Trump’s move “dangerous for peace,” according to the Charlotte Observer (12/11/2017, p. 6A). As I already pointed out above, in my opinion the peace process has been stalled for a long time. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process was already going nowhere, and the current situation was merely continuing to ossify.
Siding with Israel so blatantly, however, in this ongoing standoff, by embracing Jerusalem, on the Israeli side, this move by the U.S. President, I cannot follow. President Trump's decision ignores the feelings of the Arabic Muslim people, leaders across the Arab world, and all of the displaced Palestinian people.
If it were up to me, I would have kept the U.S. affiliation with Israel through Tel Aviv, and not taken a distinct side in deadlocked talks on Jerusalem, and East Jerusalem. Taking the Israeli side on that long-standing dispute, I would see as a mistake. I would vote Tel Aviv, and not Jerusalem, but that choice was not up to me, I am not the American President, and so far as I know, President Trump did not put the issue up for a vote.
What to do from here? What can be done? Adapt to another policy change by President Donald Trump, and continue from here.
As for the cause for Mideast peace? I cannot claim to have the answer, any more or less than President Bill Clinton thought he had the answer in 2000 in the grand peace initiative that failed. All I do know is, do not give up on the cause of peace in the Middle East, and on the cause of peace and justice in Palestine and Israel.
To quote the Reverend Jesse Jackson, on a different issue, we must “keep hope alive.” In this context, we must try, we must strive for hope, even though the outlook right now may appear bleak.
Despite this setback to Mideast peace, and despite the already sorry state of the peace effort, still, I feel, we must keep our hope alive. The alternative, as usual in the ugly wars in the Arab world and the Mideast, is too disturbing to contemplate.
Although I disagree with President Trump’s decision, I continue to stand for the cause of peace in the Middle East.
--Nicholas Patti
Charlotte, NC
Monday, December 11, 2017
Monday, November 13, 2017
Celebrating 2017 Dem Election Victories; Mourning Recent Terrorist Attacks
Charlotte, NC—One week has passed since the 2017 elections in the USA. I am happy to report that Democrats won in mayoral contests in New York City and Charlotte, NC, and gained ground nationally. This result is cause for celebration.
In
New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio won an easy re-election with 66% of the vote,
with 97% of polling machines counted, as of late on November 7th,
according to the New York Times (website, 11/7/2017). I applaud his
victory and wish him a productive, successful second term.
In
Charlotte, NC, Democrat Vi Lyles defeated Republican Kenny Smith to take the
Mayor’s office, and to become the city’s first African-American, woman mayor.
She won with 59% of the vote to Smith’s 41%, according to the Charlotte
Observer (11/8/2017, p. 1). I was sorry that the incumbent Democratic
mayor, Jennifer Roberts, lost to current mayor-elect Vi Lyles in the primary,
but I am happy that Ms. Lyles won the office after all was said and done in the
general election. I applaud Ms. Lyles’s victory and wish her the best as she
begins her first term.
Nationally,
voters chose the Democrat, Philip D. Murphy, for governor of New Jersey, and
the Democrat, Ralph S. Northam, for governor of Virginia. These were two
closely-watched races that were illustrative of what many observers called a “political
wave” for Democrats, nationally (New York Times, 11/8/2017; website, Charlotte
Observer, 11/8/2017). Hanging in the balance are the mid-term elections
next year, and the control of Congress in Washington. Although much can change
either way in one year, this year’s elections augur well for Democrats, looking
ahead to next year’s prize. I cheer the Democrats for their wins this year, and
on toward taking back control of Congress, next year.
I
wish I could comment on the elections in this blog post and leave it at that. I
feel the need to express my sympathy and solace, however, for the victims and
families of multiple, recent terrorist attacks in the United States, of late.
Specifically, I would like to express my sorrow and support for the victims of
the truck attack in New York City on Halloween, and for the victims and
families of the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on Nov. 5.
Additionally, I should note our national pain at the mass shootings earlier
this year in Las Vegas, Nevada, and previously, in recent years, in the nightclub
in Orlando, Florida. These individual attacks keep coming at us, and with the
truck attack in New York City and the church shooting in Texas in quick
succession in recent weeks, I feel compelled to note sympathy and solidarity
for the victims and survivors.
Democracy
does not always come easy, and an open society like ours, especially in these
times, internationally, does not come without significant risk. We pay the
price in lives lost to repeat, almost random, attacks against our society and
against our public good will.
In
this context, I celebrate the results of our recent elections this year,
nationally.
—Nicholas
Patti
Charlotte,
NC
Thursday, September 21, 2017
GROWING PAINS COME TO CASINO GAMING INDUSTRY IN NEW YORK STATE
With fears of nuclear war with North Korea looming over U.S. allies in East Asia, and in the continental United States, as well, along with fighting words from both President Donald J. Trump of the United States and from Kim Jong Un, leader of North Korea, the newscycle is now anything but slow. Taking top priority for this blog writer, Nicholas Patti, however, are the growing pains felt by our society in New York State regarding the recent growth in casino gambling, as part of the broader tourism industry in New York State, particularly in Upstate New York. Nothing is certain in life except death and taxes, but some Seneca Indian owners of two casinos in Western New York would like not to think so.
Should the Seneca Indian casino owners be forced to pay New York State for their moderate, yet significant corporate profits, or should they not have to pay?
At stake is $31. million in "payments to the state," according to the New York Times (9/20/2017, p. A19), as requested by New York State in a September 7 demand for arbitration to settle the current dispute with the Seneca Indian tribe. The Seneca do not want to pay.
A law passed in New York in 2013 authorized seven new casinos statewide, including, for the first time, from non-Indian owners. The Seneca, Oneida, and Saint Regis Mohawk tribes currently operate five full-scale casinos in Upstate New York. Previously, non-Indian casino owners in New York State were allowed to operate only racinos, which are scaled-back casinos directly connected with horse racing, also legal in New York State, but prohibited from operating any full-scale casinos, according to the New York Times (9/20/2017).
Numbers from the New York Times (9/20/2017) article are impressive to me, contrary to the editorial spin of the paper, which headlined the article, "Glittering Casinos. Lackluster Results."
Two examples are cited by Jesse McKinley, author of the New York Times (9/20/2017) article. First, there is Rivers Casino and Resort in downtown Schenectady, NY. They earned $81.8 million in gross revenue since opening this February 8. Those revenues, not net profits, fall short of Wall Street expectations. That figure, as projected by Jesse McKinley of the New York Times, would represent only 77 percent of the low-ball estimate for annual revenues, which had been targeted at $181.5 million.
The owners of the Rivers Casino and Resort in Schenectady, NY, are happy with the results so far, however. They are reported to have been "satisfied with the casino's financial performance," in a paraphrase, according to the New York Times (9/20/2017).
Not so on Wall Street. "Not overly impressive," said Colin A. Mansfield, a director and gaming analyst with Fitch Ratings, aka Wall Street, in reference to the early results and projections from Rivers Casino and Del Lago Resort & Casino, near Rochester, NY, another new casino under the 2013 State law. Del Lago Casino officials reserved comment, according to the New York Times (9/20/2017).
I wish the owners, staff, management, and above all, the players at the Rivers Casino, much good fortune. Remember, the losses of the gamblers in the casino by the players themselves build the numbers we see reflected as tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of "gross revenue," and then, after expenses, "corporate profit." But I digress.
Del Lago Casino & Resort is the more important subject for the topic of my commentary, however, not Rivers Casino. Del Lago Casino, you see, is near Rochester, NY. That qualifies as part of the Western New York region of New York State.
The existence of this new Casino brings us back to the details of the dispute between the Seneca Indians and New York State over the growth of gambling in New York State under the 2013 law, and in particular, in Western New York since 2002, when the compact was agreed to by the Seneca and New York State regarding the opening of their first casino in Niagara Falls, NY, in the famous and historic resort and tourist destination of Niagara Falls, shared by both the U.S. and Canada.
The Seneca have done well with their casino in Niagara Falls, NY, obviously, I think, since they opened a second casino in Buffalo, NY, within the past few years. The Seneca "have continued to thrive," according to the New York Times (9/20/2017).
The crux of the dispute between the Seneca Indian casino owners and New York State government regarding "payments" to New York State government revolves around total corporate profits derived from gamblers' losses in the growing Seneca casino corporate empire, and the relationship between Indian tribes in general with New York State government.
It's an Indian business. Why should they have to pay taxes to a foreign, U.S. government, on the land they share with New York State? Never mind for a moment that the business is open to all, as it should be, and derives profit (thankfully) from all players who lose money while receiving their entertainment at the Seneca facility. You can win, after all, when gambling at casinos, both at the Seneca casinos, and in general, too, I must point out.
I should know about casino corporate profits. I have gambled in the Seneca Casino in Niagara Falls, NY, and I enjoyed the experience, overall, in reflection, even though I, too, lost money. I was a responsible gambler, however, and did not gamble or lose too much.
I believe the Seneca Casino in Niagara Falls, NY, and casinos, in general, when run well, are a nice place for gambling and entertainment, and the Casino in Niagara Falls adds value in dollar terms, and in general, to the tourism industry of New York State. The Senecas benefit Niagara Falls and New York State by running their casino there.
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has been sponsoring the growth of the gaming industry in New York State, both for taxation purposes, general economic health, and to create jobs in Upstate New York. I support that effort--to a point.
Under the 2002 compact, the Seneca Indians were allowed to open their casino in Niagara Falls, NY, with a monopoly guaranteed by New York State in their market, in exchange for "payments" to New York State, from their corporate profits.
Since then, there has been growth, and the monopoly status has been threatened, but not directly challenged, in the Western New York region of New York State. Specifically, the existence of the new Del Lago Casino, near Rochester, NY, also in Western New York, by non-Indian owners under the 2013 New York State law, threatens but does not directly challenge the monopoly of the Seneca in Western New York, namely in Niagara Falls, NY, North of Buffalo, NY, along the Niagara River, at the border with Canada. What we are left with is a grey area.
On the one hand, there has been growth, including by the Seneca, themselves, in the gaming industry in Western New York. On the other hand, under the specific terms of the original 2002 compact, between the Seneca, in this case, and New York State government, their monopoly status has been abated by a new, non-Indian casino near Rochester, NY, also a part of the Western New York region.
The Seneca do not want to continue their "payments" to New York State, at this time. They claim to be fulfilling their obligations, currently, under the ongoing 2002 agreement, which, I hesitate to point out, is no longer an agreement, but more of a set of guidelines for continuing to run businesses worth hundreds of millions of dollars in New York State on land essentially shared with the Seneca, but New York State land (mostly), nonetheless. The business, it should be pointed out, is not a New York State, nor United States business. It is an Indian business, an operation owned and controlled by the Seneca. The "payments" to New York State for their Indian business are, as you can see, delicately, and in this case quite painfully, negotiated.
I am a happy New York State gambler who loves the Seneca Casino in Niagara Falls, New York, and who would like to win money there, next time I visit. For now, however, this gambler and writer cannot rightly see how the owners of this Casino, Indian or not, can really get away, rightfully, with not paying New York State, as originally agreed, for their ongoing corporate profits in a growing corporate, gaming empire.
The Seneca want their monopoly in Niagara Falls and Buffalo to continue to be protected and authorized, locally and regionally, by New York State government. I agree. Beyond the growth that has already happened and been authorized under the 2013 law, I think growth should be limited, from here on. The monopoly of the Seneca, historically an Indian monopoly granted by New York State government since 2002, should continue in Western New York. No more casino growth in the industry should be allowed at this time, I think, by New York State. The Seneca monopoly should be allowed to continue, even if it already has been threatened by Del Lago Casino near Rochester, NY, but not directly undermined. The Governor is not challenging that monopoly, at this time.
What the governor is doing, of course, is trying to continue to collect from the Seneca while letting other people into the business of making profits from casino gambling in New York State. It is a delicate balancing act. In New York State, the Indian tribes were granted a monopoly, and that is being/ has been removed. I hope that monopoly will continue, as much as possible, at this point. The Seneca, along with the other Indian tribes of New York State, should not have their monopolies removed by a free-for-all, and a run on, essentially, their successful businesses.
Therefor, I am not against Governor Cuomo's efforts to collect "payments" at this time, and in the future, as long as those casinos are, in fact, profitable. New York State should be careful in the amount it chooses to collect, however, so as not to threaten the underlying Indian businesses with "payments" to New York State government.
I do not know the scale of the operations at the Seneca casinos in Niagara Falls, NY, and Buffalo. Therefor, I cannot arrive at an informed decision about the exact amount, regarding the requested figure, $31. million.
I think it is fair, however, for New York State and Governor Andrew Cuomo to collect the "payments" at this time from the Seneca full-scale casinos. Further, and this point needs to be stressed, no growth in the gaming industry should be allowed, beyond the limits set forth in the 2013 law. What is left of the Indian monopolies--now essentially an oligopoly with the new, non-Indian casino owners--should be protected, at this time and into the future.
Go ahead and collect those "payments" from the Seneca, in particular, on those successful casinos in New York State (mostly). Just leave those Seneca alone, however, to continue to run those casinos in peace.
And for gamblers, like myself, play on! May you find much luck in your gambles, although take note, however, that the house always wins.
—Nicholas Patti
Albany, NY
Should the Seneca Indian casino owners be forced to pay New York State for their moderate, yet significant corporate profits, or should they not have to pay?
At stake is $31. million in "payments to the state," according to the New York Times (9/20/2017, p. A19), as requested by New York State in a September 7 demand for arbitration to settle the current dispute with the Seneca Indian tribe. The Seneca do not want to pay.
A law passed in New York in 2013 authorized seven new casinos statewide, including, for the first time, from non-Indian owners. The Seneca, Oneida, and Saint Regis Mohawk tribes currently operate five full-scale casinos in Upstate New York. Previously, non-Indian casino owners in New York State were allowed to operate only racinos, which are scaled-back casinos directly connected with horse racing, also legal in New York State, but prohibited from operating any full-scale casinos, according to the New York Times (9/20/2017).
Numbers from the New York Times (9/20/2017) article are impressive to me, contrary to the editorial spin of the paper, which headlined the article, "Glittering Casinos. Lackluster Results."
Two examples are cited by Jesse McKinley, author of the New York Times (9/20/2017) article. First, there is Rivers Casino and Resort in downtown Schenectady, NY. They earned $81.8 million in gross revenue since opening this February 8. Those revenues, not net profits, fall short of Wall Street expectations. That figure, as projected by Jesse McKinley of the New York Times, would represent only 77 percent of the low-ball estimate for annual revenues, which had been targeted at $181.5 million.
The owners of the Rivers Casino and Resort in Schenectady, NY, are happy with the results so far, however. They are reported to have been "satisfied with the casino's financial performance," in a paraphrase, according to the New York Times (9/20/2017).
Not so on Wall Street. "Not overly impressive," said Colin A. Mansfield, a director and gaming analyst with Fitch Ratings, aka Wall Street, in reference to the early results and projections from Rivers Casino and Del Lago Resort & Casino, near Rochester, NY, another new casino under the 2013 State law. Del Lago Casino officials reserved comment, according to the New York Times (9/20/2017).
I wish the owners, staff, management, and above all, the players at the Rivers Casino, much good fortune. Remember, the losses of the gamblers in the casino by the players themselves build the numbers we see reflected as tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of "gross revenue," and then, after expenses, "corporate profit." But I digress.
Del Lago Casino & Resort is the more important subject for the topic of my commentary, however, not Rivers Casino. Del Lago Casino, you see, is near Rochester, NY. That qualifies as part of the Western New York region of New York State.
The existence of this new Casino brings us back to the details of the dispute between the Seneca Indians and New York State over the growth of gambling in New York State under the 2013 law, and in particular, in Western New York since 2002, when the compact was agreed to by the Seneca and New York State regarding the opening of their first casino in Niagara Falls, NY, in the famous and historic resort and tourist destination of Niagara Falls, shared by both the U.S. and Canada.
The Seneca have done well with their casino in Niagara Falls, NY, obviously, I think, since they opened a second casino in Buffalo, NY, within the past few years. The Seneca "have continued to thrive," according to the New York Times (9/20/2017).
The crux of the dispute between the Seneca Indian casino owners and New York State government regarding "payments" to New York State government revolves around total corporate profits derived from gamblers' losses in the growing Seneca casino corporate empire, and the relationship between Indian tribes in general with New York State government.
It's an Indian business. Why should they have to pay taxes to a foreign, U.S. government, on the land they share with New York State? Never mind for a moment that the business is open to all, as it should be, and derives profit (thankfully) from all players who lose money while receiving their entertainment at the Seneca facility. You can win, after all, when gambling at casinos, both at the Seneca casinos, and in general, too, I must point out.
I should know about casino corporate profits. I have gambled in the Seneca Casino in Niagara Falls, NY, and I enjoyed the experience, overall, in reflection, even though I, too, lost money. I was a responsible gambler, however, and did not gamble or lose too much.
I believe the Seneca Casino in Niagara Falls, NY, and casinos, in general, when run well, are a nice place for gambling and entertainment, and the Casino in Niagara Falls adds value in dollar terms, and in general, to the tourism industry of New York State. The Senecas benefit Niagara Falls and New York State by running their casino there.
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo has been sponsoring the growth of the gaming industry in New York State, both for taxation purposes, general economic health, and to create jobs in Upstate New York. I support that effort--to a point.
Under the 2002 compact, the Seneca Indians were allowed to open their casino in Niagara Falls, NY, with a monopoly guaranteed by New York State in their market, in exchange for "payments" to New York State, from their corporate profits.
Since then, there has been growth, and the monopoly status has been threatened, but not directly challenged, in the Western New York region of New York State. Specifically, the existence of the new Del Lago Casino, near Rochester, NY, also in Western New York, by non-Indian owners under the 2013 New York State law, threatens but does not directly challenge the monopoly of the Seneca in Western New York, namely in Niagara Falls, NY, North of Buffalo, NY, along the Niagara River, at the border with Canada. What we are left with is a grey area.
On the one hand, there has been growth, including by the Seneca, themselves, in the gaming industry in Western New York. On the other hand, under the specific terms of the original 2002 compact, between the Seneca, in this case, and New York State government, their monopoly status has been abated by a new, non-Indian casino near Rochester, NY, also a part of the Western New York region.
The Seneca do not want to continue their "payments" to New York State, at this time. They claim to be fulfilling their obligations, currently, under the ongoing 2002 agreement, which, I hesitate to point out, is no longer an agreement, but more of a set of guidelines for continuing to run businesses worth hundreds of millions of dollars in New York State on land essentially shared with the Seneca, but New York State land (mostly), nonetheless. The business, it should be pointed out, is not a New York State, nor United States business. It is an Indian business, an operation owned and controlled by the Seneca. The "payments" to New York State for their Indian business are, as you can see, delicately, and in this case quite painfully, negotiated.
I am a happy New York State gambler who loves the Seneca Casino in Niagara Falls, New York, and who would like to win money there, next time I visit. For now, however, this gambler and writer cannot rightly see how the owners of this Casino, Indian or not, can really get away, rightfully, with not paying New York State, as originally agreed, for their ongoing corporate profits in a growing corporate, gaming empire.
The Seneca want their monopoly in Niagara Falls and Buffalo to continue to be protected and authorized, locally and regionally, by New York State government. I agree. Beyond the growth that has already happened and been authorized under the 2013 law, I think growth should be limited, from here on. The monopoly of the Seneca, historically an Indian monopoly granted by New York State government since 2002, should continue in Western New York. No more casino growth in the industry should be allowed at this time, I think, by New York State. The Seneca monopoly should be allowed to continue, even if it already has been threatened by Del Lago Casino near Rochester, NY, but not directly undermined. The Governor is not challenging that monopoly, at this time.
What the governor is doing, of course, is trying to continue to collect from the Seneca while letting other people into the business of making profits from casino gambling in New York State. It is a delicate balancing act. In New York State, the Indian tribes were granted a monopoly, and that is being/ has been removed. I hope that monopoly will continue, as much as possible, at this point. The Seneca, along with the other Indian tribes of New York State, should not have their monopolies removed by a free-for-all, and a run on, essentially, their successful businesses.
Therefor, I am not against Governor Cuomo's efforts to collect "payments" at this time, and in the future, as long as those casinos are, in fact, profitable. New York State should be careful in the amount it chooses to collect, however, so as not to threaten the underlying Indian businesses with "payments" to New York State government.
I do not know the scale of the operations at the Seneca casinos in Niagara Falls, NY, and Buffalo. Therefor, I cannot arrive at an informed decision about the exact amount, regarding the requested figure, $31. million.
I think it is fair, however, for New York State and Governor Andrew Cuomo to collect the "payments" at this time from the Seneca full-scale casinos. Further, and this point needs to be stressed, no growth in the gaming industry should be allowed, beyond the limits set forth in the 2013 law. What is left of the Indian monopolies--now essentially an oligopoly with the new, non-Indian casino owners--should be protected, at this time and into the future.
Go ahead and collect those "payments" from the Seneca, in particular, on those successful casinos in New York State (mostly). Just leave those Seneca alone, however, to continue to run those casinos in peace.
And for gamblers, like myself, play on! May you find much luck in your gambles, although take note, however, that the house always wins.
—Nicholas Patti
Albany, NY
Monday, July 24, 2017
Slow Newscycle This Summer... MY COMMENT
The summer of 2017 is beautiful, sunny, and hot, and I have little of note to comment on in politics on my blog. The newscycle is decidedly slow. I apologize deeply, but I cannot bring myself to care about the latest gossip and leaked documents about Russia, the Trump administration, and Vladimir Putin. I do not really care whether Putin dredged up dirt on Hillary Clinton in the 2016, U.S. Presidential election, or not. It seems clear to me he did probably dig up dirt on her, then shared it with then-candidate Trump and the world, and otherwise made trouble for her, in general.
Regarding President Donald Trump's involvement, I do not care at all. The election was Hillary's to lose, as far as I can see, and she lost it, fair and square. Case closed. All the rest is useless drivel, partisan horse manure, and bad sportsmanship, so far as I am concerned.
What to write about, then? Keep an eye out at this blog address for a review of a good book of contemporary poetry. More soon....
Regarding President Donald Trump's involvement, I do not care at all. The election was Hillary's to lose, as far as I can see, and she lost it, fair and square. Case closed. All the rest is useless drivel, partisan horse manure, and bad sportsmanship, so far as I am concerned.
What to write about, then? Keep an eye out at this blog address for a review of a good book of contemporary poetry. More soon....
—Nicholas Patti
Charlotte, NC
Thursday, May 18, 2017
U.S. SUPREME COURT CLOSES THE BOOK ON NC VOTER ID LAW
Voting rights and civil rights advocates in North Carolina won a major victory this past Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last summer that struck down the 2013 NC Voter ID law. This decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ends debate on this particular, onerous law as it passed in North Carolina in 2013, and finalizes its repeal, according to The Charlotte Observer (May 15, 2017, website) and The New York Times (May 17, 2017). I applaud this decision and the final repeal of the 2013 NC voter ID law.
The end of the struggle against the NC voter ID law represents a major victory in the ongoing battle to sustain the currently relevant right to vote in North Carolina. The NC voter ID law had chipped away at that right, and the effort to diminish the right to vote in North Carolina has been defeated, at least for now.
In an earlier blog post in which I interpret and celebrate NC Governor Roy Cooper's election, I predicted that the days remaining for that law in the federal courts were numbered, now that a Democrat occupied the governor's office. The voter ID law had already been struck down at the 4th Circuit, but an appeal remained to the U.S. Supreme Court. That forecast of mine in my earlier blog post turned out to be accurate, now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal.
Republican Party leaders in North Carolina have vowed to write and pass a new law to accomplish the 2013 law's goals and that could pass federal judicial review. The Republican Party controls the state legislature in North Carolina, so theirs is no idle threat. Passage of such a new law would be difficult, however, in the current political climate of North Carolina, which features Gov. Roy Cooper, Democrat, as the current governor.
"...Republican legislators will continue fighting to protect the integrity of our elections by implementing the commonsense requirement to show a photo ID when we vote," said NC House Speaker Tim Moore in a joint statement with NC Senate Leader Phil Berger, as quoted in The Charlotte Observer (May 15, 2017, website). There may well be more-to-come in North Carolina on this issue, then, but at the very least, the 2013 voter ID law has now been repealed, finally.
Leaders of the struggle against the 2013 law in North Carolina over the past few years, including the Rev. William J. Barber II, President of the NC NAACP, were thrilled at the news of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. The NAACP had filed the lawsuit against the law, and in a news conference in Raleigh, NC, when the ruling was announced, people in attendance broke into a standing ovation and a chant, "Forward together, not one step back," according to The Charlotte Observer (May 15, 2017, website).
Nationally, according to analysis in The New York Times (May 17, 2017), the decision about the North Carolina law represents a temporary victory in a broader, ongoing struggle, according to Heather K. Gerken of Yale University, as quoted in The New York Times. More cases on similar laws relevant to voting rights, federally, are pending in front of the Supreme Court, regarding Wisconsin, Texas, and even North Carolina, in a different instance.
Although the struggle is far from over, nationally, and even in the State of North Carolina, in the long-term, this current ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the Court rejects the appeal of the federal repeal of the 2013 NC voter ID law, this final defeat of the 2013 NC law marks a major victory for the struggle to maintain voting rights in North Carolina, and nationally. I applaud this ruling and celebrate this moment in our common, shared history.
--Nicholas Patti
Charlotte, NC
The end of the struggle against the NC voter ID law represents a major victory in the ongoing battle to sustain the currently relevant right to vote in North Carolina. The NC voter ID law had chipped away at that right, and the effort to diminish the right to vote in North Carolina has been defeated, at least for now.
In an earlier blog post in which I interpret and celebrate NC Governor Roy Cooper's election, I predicted that the days remaining for that law in the federal courts were numbered, now that a Democrat occupied the governor's office. The voter ID law had already been struck down at the 4th Circuit, but an appeal remained to the U.S. Supreme Court. That forecast of mine in my earlier blog post turned out to be accurate, now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal.
Republican Party leaders in North Carolina have vowed to write and pass a new law to accomplish the 2013 law's goals and that could pass federal judicial review. The Republican Party controls the state legislature in North Carolina, so theirs is no idle threat. Passage of such a new law would be difficult, however, in the current political climate of North Carolina, which features Gov. Roy Cooper, Democrat, as the current governor.
"...Republican legislators will continue fighting to protect the integrity of our elections by implementing the commonsense requirement to show a photo ID when we vote," said NC House Speaker Tim Moore in a joint statement with NC Senate Leader Phil Berger, as quoted in The Charlotte Observer (May 15, 2017, website). There may well be more-to-come in North Carolina on this issue, then, but at the very least, the 2013 voter ID law has now been repealed, finally.
Leaders of the struggle against the 2013 law in North Carolina over the past few years, including the Rev. William J. Barber II, President of the NC NAACP, were thrilled at the news of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. The NAACP had filed the lawsuit against the law, and in a news conference in Raleigh, NC, when the ruling was announced, people in attendance broke into a standing ovation and a chant, "Forward together, not one step back," according to The Charlotte Observer (May 15, 2017, website).
Nationally, according to analysis in The New York Times (May 17, 2017), the decision about the North Carolina law represents a temporary victory in a broader, ongoing struggle, according to Heather K. Gerken of Yale University, as quoted in The New York Times. More cases on similar laws relevant to voting rights, federally, are pending in front of the Supreme Court, regarding Wisconsin, Texas, and even North Carolina, in a different instance.
Although the struggle is far from over, nationally, and even in the State of North Carolina, in the long-term, this current ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, in which the Court rejects the appeal of the federal repeal of the 2013 NC voter ID law, this final defeat of the 2013 NC law marks a major victory for the struggle to maintain voting rights in North Carolina, and nationally. I applaud this ruling and celebrate this moment in our common, shared history.
--Nicholas Patti
Charlotte, NC
Saturday, April 15, 2017
North Carolina Is No Pariah State
I
add my voice to the growing chorus of voices to welcome the State of North
Carolina back into the fold of the other 49 States in the United States of
America. The current mayor of Charlotte, NC, Jennifer Roberts, joined fifteen
other mayors across North Carolina to call for an end to the travel bans to
this State, according to The Charlotte Observer (4/15/2017). Ms. Roberts
was the author of the original, local anti-discrimination ordinance in Charlotte
that granted access to transgender men and women to the bathroom of their
choice, and that banned discrimination against LGBT people in Charlotte. That
local law prompted HB2, the obnoxious State law that overturned her
anti-discrimination ordinance and institutionalized discrimination based on
sexual orientation, statewide. HB2 has been overturned by North Carolina,
following the lead of the new, Democratic governor, Roy Cooper. As part of the
deal, the original Charlotte ordinance had already been repealed, some months
ago. About the replacement law, HB142, Governor Cooper was reported to have
said that he would have liked it to have gone further, but that this compromise
was all he could achieve, in terms of a compromise with NC Republicans in the
State Legislature, who followed his lead and repealed HB2. North Carolina
should be understood to be no pariah State any longer.
The problem with the new law, HB142, is that it leaves in place a ban on any new, nondiscrimination local ordinances across North Carolina until 2020, according to The Charlotte Observer (4/15/2017). Even so, the new, Democratic governor of NC, Roy Cooper, was reported to have said that the new deal would begin to reverse the economic damage already done to the State, and would prompt the return of sporting events and economic development back to North Carolina. This benefit would happen, he is reported to have said, despite the new law being, “not a perfect deal” and “not my preferred solution,” according to the New York Times (3/31/2017).
Unfortunately, the issue still
generates controversy. I think controversy is good, so far as it goes, but it
should not extend to social and economic damage to North Carolina, and
Charlotte, NC, anymore. Let us look at the facts:
First, the travel bans. Just this
past Wednesday, April 12th, California’s attorney general, Xavier
Becerra, announced that his State would continue the travel ban on
taxpayer-funded travel to NC despite the repeal of HB2 in North Carolina. He
claimed the repeal and replacement law did not go far enough in protecting LGBT
people in North Carolina from discrimination, according to the Richmond
Times-Dispatch (Richmond, VA: 4/13/2017). In addition, the City of Chicago,
Illinois, and the State of Washington reaffirmed their travel bans to NC just
this past week, despite the repeal of HB2, according to The Charlotte
Observer (4/15/2017). Critics claim the new law is still discriminatory.
In contrast to these renewed bans on
travel to North Carolina, the NCAA and ACC college sports leagues gave a “vote
of confidence” to North Carolina after the repeal, according to The
Charlotte Observer (4/15/2017). They had moved significant sporting events
out of the State, previously, in protest of HB2. The NBA (National Basketball
Association) is considering bringing its All-Star Game back to Charlotte at
this time, also. It had pulled it out-of-state, previously, also in protest
against HB2. I support the return of the NBA All-Star Game back to Charlotte at
this time.
Next, we should take a look at the
new replacement law, itself. The civil rights community, including in North
Carolina, agrees that it does not go far enough. I would include the Mayor of
Charlotte in those ranks, however, and she just called for people and
government entities to drop their isolation and alienation of Charlotte and the
State of North Carolina. Mayor Roberts faces re-election this year in
Charlotte, also. I support her bid for re-election.
The problem with the new law, HB142, is that it leaves in place a ban on any new, nondiscrimination local ordinances across North Carolina until 2020, according to The Charlotte Observer (4/15/2017). Even so, the new, Democratic governor of NC, Roy Cooper, was reported to have said that the new deal would begin to reverse the economic damage already done to the State, and would prompt the return of sporting events and economic development back to North Carolina. This benefit would happen, he is reported to have said, despite the new law being, “not a perfect deal” and “not my preferred solution,” according to the New York Times (3/31/2017).
The state of the bathroom policy,
after the repeal of HB2, is to remove the state from the bathrooms, once again.
Only the State Legislature of North Carolina may now regulate any such rules
for and in the State, under the replacement State law, and no regulations
currently exist (The Charlotte Observer, 4/15/2017). That means police
officers will not need to be posted outside bathrooms to enforce hoped-for
equality inside the bathrooms for transgender people. Instead, there will be no
police in the bathrooms. The freedom that comes with no police in bathrooms
will continue, but the dilemma for transgender people using this bathroom or
that bathroom will remain unsolved, I think. The issue is left with our
culture, changing or otherwise, and with our civil society—not our government.
This is where the issue belongs, in my opinion, and where people should focus
their energy to create progress for transgender people, also, in my opinion. We
need to keep police, on-the-clock and on-duty, out of our bathrooms, I think,
although I wish no harm to our officers, either.
One less noticed provision that has
been repealed from HB2 is the clause that restricted access to State Courts in
North Carolina for any anti-discrimination, civil rights (or human rights) lawsuits,
stemming from any acts of discrimination in the State, regardless of any local
ordinances. This provision of HB2 fell without comment by civil rights
advocates or anyone else, according to the New York Times (3/31/2017). I
considered that quite a significant, discriminatory aspect of HB2, however, and
I am surprised no one commented on it in the press, positively or negatively,
and in fact, that the passing of the restriction from State Courts went
unnoticed, also, by the press. Barring any comment or criticism about this
provision, or about it being continued in the new law, which I understand it
has not been, that provision fell, I believe.
Therefore, although North Carolina
is not leading the way against discrimination, not by any means, still, the
State has restored standard, state-level access to justice to fight
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, on par
with other states in the United States of America.
What’s more, on Friday, the
Republican administration of President Donald J. Trump dropped a federal
lawsuit against North Carolina, one that had been filed by former President
Barack Obama, on the basis that the State had been discriminating, under HB2.
President Trump dropped the case in response to North Carolina’s repeal of
House Bill 2.
Although more progress needs to be
made, in North Carolina and elsewhere, I think North Carolina is no longer a
pariah State in the United States of America, not on this basis. People should
drop their travel bans and isolation of the State, and return to North
Carolina.
—Nicholas
Patti
Charlotte, NC
Charlotte, NC
Sunday, January 22, 2017
POEM: ...a Note on President Donald J. Trump's Inauguration
From
the Lower East Side, a Note on President Donald J. Trump’s Inauguration
The
rust-colored
steel
beams
rise
in
the construction siteover
what used to be
a
nice,
little Spanish
diner
here
in the Lower East Side
of
Manhattan.
I
sit
across
the street,
looking
out
fromthe McDonald’s,
where I had
an
egg
mcmuffin
breakfast
sandwichwith a
I wish
I could have had
a
hash brown,
cooked
hot,
to
complete the breakfast
meal deal,
but the extra
dollar-and-a-half
would have been
too much
for me to spare.
I miss
the ketchup
I could have had
with it, too.
I savored
the coffee, though,
and
the few moments
of bliss
biting into the
breakfast sandwich,
as well.
Outside,
swirling about
in
the balmy, January air,
against
a grey sky,
but low
to the ground, mainly,
pigeons and sea gulls
are flying, nearby.
There
are lots
of
hungry people
sleeping,
probably,
down below
in
the subway
station,
underground.
None
have
come up
as of
yet
this morning
to
this McDonald’s.
Last night,
within
a couple of city blocks,
in
this neighborhood,
I read
that over one million
people
protested President Donald J. Trump’s
inauguration
in Washington, DC,
and protested here
in New York
and other cities
across the country.
The news
said, also, that roughly 800,000
people
turned out to celebrate
the
inauguration,
to witness
to witness
the swearing-in
and the new, conservative President’s speech,
which
I heard, also,
I heard, also,
here
in New York,
and
which
was strident, and
was strident, and
partisan.
Here in the Lower East Side
of
Manhattan, however,
Manhattan, however,
life continues
to
carry
on.
on.
—Nicholas
Patti, 1/22/2017
New York, NY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)