July 28, 2010 - We often complain about laws or conditions that we believe are wrong or unjustified. Sometimes we ask how these conditions are allowed to continue, when the injustice of the situation is relatively apparent.

The answer to that question is often simple: the forces that benefit from the injustice have more influence in the legislature than those who suffer because of it. There are numerous situations in which a law or a regulation benefits a small number of people or businesses at the expense or to the detriment of the general public. Those with a specific interest in particular situations hire other people, known as lobbyists, to influence the legislature on their behalf.

Now lobbying is a legitimate industry, protected to some extent by the First Amendment rights of individuals and now, of corporations. It also professionalizes contact with lawmakers, which many people just do not know how to do.

The problem is that lobbyists have a tendency to monopolize access to legislators. Ordinary people, without the time or resources of a lobbying firm, often have a hard time getting through the door. They find it necessary to hire a professional in order to be heard. Also, lobbyists bring money, in the form of campaign contributions from their clients, which create a general feeling of good will in the recipient toward the donor. That is human nature, and if a legislator did not appreciate contributions he would be considered arrogant, indifferent and ungrateful. If he responded only to contributions, he would be corrupt, but that is a difficult matter to prove.

It is true that both sides to a controversy can hire lobbyists, and equal contributions by people with opposite interests can level the playing field for legislators' favor. Unhappily, the general public interest is less likely to organize itself than a specific commercial group, which is likely to have a direct financial interest in the particular piece of legislation.

This issue is clearly presented in Governor Paterson's proposal to allow the sale of wine in supermarkets, on payment of a licensing fee to the state. The governor sees this as a way to increase revenue, and he estimates that the tax will raise between $147 and $300 million in the next two years. The fee would rise for stores with larger total sales, so large supermarkets would have to pay more. Thirty-five states currently allow the sale of wine in supermarkets, and according to a February 22, 2010 poll conducted by the Siena Research Institute, New Yorkers support making our state the 36th to do so by a margin of 58 per cent to 39 per cent.

July 22, 2010 - Our Tuesday column on stop and frisk legislation produced interesting reactions. The first emailed replies received were negative, some castigating me for going over to the dark side. The next day, Wednesday, predominantly supportive emails were received. Today (Thursday) people are no longer writing us on the subject. This shows that, although the opinion of our readers is divided, the opponents of the bill feel more intensely about it. Further comments are welcome. You may go to this link to post your thoughts.

The new law, which precludes an electronic database of those stopped by the police but not arrested, passed 85-55 in the Assembly, with 14 Democrats joining 41 Republicans in opposing it. The Democrats were Assemblymembers Marc Alessi, William Colton, Steven Englebright, Ginny Fields, Dennis Gabryszak, Sandra Galef, Aileen Gunther, Janele Hyer-Spencer, Michael Miller, Amy Paulin, Mike Spano, Robin Schimminger, Harvey Weisenberg, and Kenneth Zebrows. Three of the 14 are from New York City: Colton (Brooklyn), Miller (Queens) and Hyer-Spencer (Staten Island).

In the Senate, all 32 Democrats supported it. If any one of them had opposed it, abstained, or been absent, the bill would not have passed. All 29 Republicans opposed it.

Governor Paterson signed the bill on July 16th, ignoring appeals by Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Ray Kelly, the News and the Post. You can click here to read our article from Tuesday, which has many links to primary data on the subject, including the governor's written signing statement in support of the bill.

Governor Paterson's explanation, a spontaneous expansion of his signing statement, was quoted in a Daily News editorial this morning:

"'That is not a policy for a democracy. Maybe that might work in Bosnia. Maybe that might in Somalia. Maybe it would have worked in the Soviet Union or in 1984. But we can't allow it to happen here.'"

The News' editorial continued with increasing vigor, denouncing Paterson's remarks as "slander". We quote:

"He also cited the Police Department's computerized files in the same breath with egregious infringements on civil rights, including the Alien and Sedition Acts [1798], and the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

"This is gubernatorial slander of a department that has a deserved reputation for successful crimefighting well within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. Somalia? Bosnia? The Soviet Union? Are those the precincts into which Paterson believes Commissioner Ray Kelly has led the NYPD?"

The new law was sponsored in the Senate by Eric Adams, and co-sponsored by Pedro Espada, Velmanette Montgomery, Kevin Parker and Jose Peralta, who defeated Hiram Monserrate, his predecessor. The Assembly sponsor was Hakeem Jeffries.

July 20, 2010 - In most places, state legislatures enact laws which assist local authorities to prevent crime or catch criminals.

New York State is an exception.

The New York State Senate and Assembly, with the signature of Governor Paterson, have enacted a law to prevent the Police Department from using information in its own database as leads in the investigation of violent crimes.

The bill was sponsored by Senator Eric Adams and Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, who represent Brooklyn districts where robbery, assault and rape are serious problems. Adams, a retired police officer, once headed One Hundred Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care. One would think that they would be particularly concerned with the apprehension of criminals who prey on their constituents. The predators, however, also include constituents.

Predictably, the New York Civil Liberties Union calls the database a "virtual police lineup of millions of completely innocent black and Latino New Yorkers". We are not surprised at the views of the NYCLU, who consistently oppose any measure considered helpful to the authorities. The group is not as concerned with the right of citizens not to be attacked, robbed or raped, in favor of the robbers and rapists interest in avoiding apprehension and punishment for their violent, sometimes fatal, assaults.

It depends on what kind of society one wants to live in. I value personal security, for myself, elderly parents, spouse and children. I would not mind being stopped and frisked if that would result in a safer community. Stop and frisk is usually employed for a reason, and that need not be criminal behavior at that instant. How do you know whether someone is carrying a gun unless you can check him and find out?

July 16, 2010 - In the last two days, we received 28 emails in response to our article on the slaughter of the 400 Prospect Park geese because they were viewed as hazardous to air travel.

Our attitude has been not to condemn or to approve the action, which was said to have been taken by the United States Department of Agriculture with the concurrence of local authorities. We want to know more about the decision and the basis on which it was made. Is there a general policy of exterminating Canada geese? Are there reasons for singling out the Prospect Park geese for the mobile gas chamber, followed by the landfill? Does it make any difference if these geese were migratory or non-migratory, or whether they ever left the precincts of the park?

We posted the emails that we received on our blog, you can find them here. They range from readers supporting or condemning the killing of the geese on principle to others seeking more information, which we are finding is not that easy to elicit from the government agencies involved.

We will continue our inquiries, so we can get the facts for you on this matter. We read in the Times where the bodies are buried – in a landfill.

What we do not know is how, why or by whom this gaggle of geese was selected for termination with extreme prejudice. We suggest an inquiry by an agency not previously involved with the program. If the standard is proximity to an airport, who draws the lines and on what basis are they determined? The radius from the airport was said to be seven miles in the multi-agency press release, increased from five miles in 2009. Prospect Park was alleged to be between six and seven miles from both LaGuardia and JFK airports.

The determination of distance should be made as the crow (or goose) flies. With the aid of Google Earth, a tool equally available to the authorities, we measured the distance from the Prospect Park Lake to JFK airport at over 9 miles, and to LaGuardia at over 10 miles. We derive from this a certain lack of confidence in government data and a suspicion of ansercide (slaying of ducks and geese, cf. arborcide, the wanton murder of trees - see NY Times, 7/15/10, AFTER ARREST IN ATTACKS ON TREES, THINKING MORE THAN JUST OAKS NEED HELP).