bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘WILLIAM TECUMSEH SHERMAN’

UGLY–AND UNSPOKEN–TRUTHS ABOUT THE ISRAEL-GAZA WAR

In Bureaucracy, Entertainment, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on December 19, 2023 at 12:13 am

The 1982 TV-movie, “Inside the Third Reich,” offers a scene that has no doubt echoed throughout Gaza during the last two months.  

It’s 1940, and the British—fed up with being repeatedly attacked by German bombers—are retaliating with an air raid on Berlin.

For the first time in its seven-year history, Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich is under attack. 

Albert Speer (played by Rutger Hauer), Hitler’s favorite architect, is forced to take cover in an underground bomb shelter. It’s dark and cramped.

Inside the Third Reich - Where to Watch and Stream Online – Entertainment.ie

Rutger Hauer as Albert Speer

A woman sits next to him, sobbing repeatedly: “The German people only want peace. Why won’t they make peace? Why won’t they make peace?”

By which she means—intentionally or not: Why won’t the British simply agree to give Germany whatever it wants?  

There has been a lot of this sentiment coursing through Gaza—and its allies in the Islamic world and elsewhere. It’s not stated as honestly as it is below, but translates to this anyway:

“Why won’t the Israelis allow Hamas to slaughter them—as it did on October 7?”

(Under the cover of thousands of rockets fired from Gaza, an estimated 1,200 men, women and children were slaughtered by Hamas terrorists in streets, houses, kibbutz communities and at a rave music festival. About 250 others were kidnapped and taken into Gaza.) 

“Why are the Israelis bombing us?”

(Because they don’t like having their men, women and children slaughtered and kidnapped.)

“Why does the United States allow Israel to bomb us?”

(Americans didn’t like it when 3,000 of their own citizens were slaughtered on 9/11. Within a month, America began pulverizing Afghanistan—home of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden—and its occupation lasted 20 years.) 

“We only slaughtered 1,200 Israelis. But they have killed—by our estimate—18,000 Palestinians. That’s so unfair.”

(Under this logic, Israel should be allowed to kill only 1,200 Palestinians: “I smacked you in the mouth once, so you should be allowed to smack me in the mouth once. Actually, you shouldn’t be allowed to smack me back at all.”)

“Israel is waging war on civilians—not Hamas.”

(Hamas has deliberately embedded itself among a civilian population: “Ha, ha, you’ll have to kill all these innocent people in order to kill us.” For Israel to accept such sanctuary would be to confer immunity on Hamas and guarantee ceaseless future attacks.)

Hamas | Military Wiki | Fandom

Emblem of Hamas

“Palestinians didn’t attack Israel—Hamas did.”

(Hamas is overwhelmingly supported by Palestinians. A man who shelters a known killer is by definition an accessory to that killer’s crimes. Yet Hamas refuses to allow civilians to take shelter in its tunnels. Nor does it use its underground network to supply much-needed food and resources for Gazans.) 

“Israel is fighting a war of genocide against Gaza!”

(The universal rallying cry among Gaza residents—and their Islamic and non-Islamic allies—is: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Which means: When Israel is destroyed and its citizens are slaughtered. For Hamas, no “two-state solution” will do.) 

According to CNN, several videos are circulating online that “show Israeli soldiers in Gaza behaving in offensive and disrespectful ways toward the civilian population. Other videos show soldiers ransacking private homes, destroying civilian property and using racist and hateful language.”

(Soldiers are universally notorious for showing disrespect for their enemies, whether civilian or military. During the Civil War, Union General William Tecumseh Sherman set out on his legendary “March to the Sea” through Georgia in 1864. His soldiers ravaged the countryside, destroyed all sources of food and forage and left behind hungry and demoralized Southerners. 

March to the Sea | Civil War Trails | Civil War Sites in Georgia

Sherman’s March

(As for Israeli soldiers “using racist and hateful language”: During World War II, GIs referred to Germans as “krauts” and to Japanese as “Japs.” During the Vietnam war, grunts called Vietcong and North Vietnamese soldiers “gooks.” In Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans used “ragheads” and “Hajiis” to describe their enemies.

(War is, by its nature, destructive—of lives, of property, of feelings for humanity.

(William Tecumseh Sherman minced no words in describing its evil: “You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it….You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war….

(“They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war….”

(Sherman’s words—which appeared in a September 12, 1864 letter to Atlanta Mayor James M. Calhoun—could be addressed to Hamas and the Gaza residents who support it: 

(“Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance.”)

“The Holy Land.” 

(There is no “holy land.” There is only desert claimed by two warring religions. Both sides believe “God is on our side.” So there will never be peace, only eternal war—until global warming finally makes the Middle East so hot that no one can live there.)

MACHIAVELLI’S ADVICE TO ISREAL: BE FEARED, NOT DESPISED

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on November 6, 2023 at 12:10 am

On October 7, about 2,500 Hamas terrorists launched coordinated attacks on Israeli outposts and settlements, firing over 5,000 rockets and burning houses.      

They killed over 1,400 people, mostly civilians—including women, children and the elderly. They also kidnapped over 230 others to Gaza.

Israel responded by declaring a state of war.

Almost nine years earlier—on November 18, 2014—a similar outrage had occurred in Jerusalem. 

Screaming “Allah akbar!”–the Islamic battle cry, “God is Great!”—two Palestinians wielding meat cleavers and a gun slaughtered five worshippers in a Jerusalem synagogue.

Three of the dead were Americans holding Israeli citizenship.  Four of them were rabbis.

Eight people were injured—and one later died—before the attackers were killed in a shootout with police.

 Aftermath of the attack on unarmed rabbis in a Jerusalem synagogue

The attack was the deadliest in Israel’s capital since 2008, when a Palestinian gunman shot eight people in a religious seminary school.

And how did Palestinians react to the grisly murders of five unarmed worshippers?

They celebrated:

  • Revelers in the Gazan city of Rafah handed out candy and brandished axes and posters of the suspects in praise of the deadly attack.
  • Hamas-affiliated social media circulated violent and anti-Semitic cartoons hailing the killings.
  • Students in Bethlehem joined in the festivities by sharing candy.

Why Hamas and Israel reached this moment now — and what comes next | WBUR

Palestinians celebrating the attack 

  • The parents of the two terrorists joyfully declared: “They are both Shahids (martyrs) and heroes.”
  • A resident of the terrorists’ neighborhood stated: “We have many more youngsters and nothing to lose. They are willing to harm Jews, anything for al-Aqsa.”
  • Another resident said: “People here won’t sit quietly, they will continue to respond. We will make the lives of the Jews difficult everywhere.”

And how did Israelis respond to that atrocity?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the demolitions of the homes of the attackers.

The blunt truth was that Palestinians had no interest in preventing such attacks on Israeli citizens—because Israel hadn’t given them any.

Blowing up houses only takes out anger on lifeless buildings. Those who lived there are still alive—and able to seek revenge in the future.

As Niccolo Machiavelli once warned:  

…Above all [a ruler] must abstain from taking the property of others, for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their inheritance.

But there was an alternative which Israelis could have considered.

To instill a sense of civic responsibility—however begrudgingly—in their Islamic citizens: Every time such an atrocity occurred, Israel could have deported at least 10,000 Arabs from its territory.

Suddenly, Arabs living in Israel would have had real incentive for preventing such attacks against Israelis. Or at least for reporting to police the intentions of those they knew were planning such attacks.

“Hey,” they would have thought, “if Abdul blows up that police station like he said he wants to, I could get sent to a refugee camp.”

It’s extremely likely there would have been s sudden rush of Arab informants to Israeli police stations.

Machiavelli, the 15th century Florentine statesmen, carefully studied both war and politics. In his most famous—or infamous—work, The Prince, he advises:

Niccolo Machiavelli

From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved than feared, or feared more than loved.  The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved. 

For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours: they offer you their blood, their goods, their life and their children, when the necessity is remote, but when it approaches, they revolt.

And the prince who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined; for the friendship which is gained by purchase and not through grandeur and nobility of spirit is bought but not secured, and at a pinch is not to be expended in your service.

And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligations which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.

Machiavelli knew—and warned—that while it was useful to avoid hatred, it was fatal to be despised. 

And he also warned that humility toward insolent enemies only encourages their hatred and contempt.

Accompanying this is the advice of perhaps the greatest general of the American Civil War: William Tecumseh Sherman.

Sherman, whose army cut a swath of destruction through the South in 1864, said it best.  Speaking of the Southern Confederacy, he advised:

“They cannot be made to love us, but they may be made to fear us.” 

Israelis will never be able to make its sworn Islamic enemies love them. But they can instill such a healthy fear in most of them that such atrocities as the synagogue butchery and settlement attacks will become a rarity.

WILLIAM TECUMSEH SHERMAN AND NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI ADVISE ISRAEL

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on October 23, 2023 at 1:13 am

Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, the great Southern general of the American Civil War (1861-1865) had a simple philosophy of war. 

To end Union efforts to crush the newly-minted Confederate States of America, he urged Southerners to take no prisoners. Instead, they should kill every Union soldier they could lay hands on.

Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson

Jackson’s views on war were shared by not only his fellow Southerners but, ironically, by one of the fiercest enemies of the Confederacy: William Tecumseh Sherman.

Sherman was the Union general who in 1864 cut a swath of destruction through the South while “marching through Georgia.”

He is credited—or reviled—as the father of “total war,” thus making the suffering of civilians an integral part of any conflict. Sherman realized that civilian support played a vital role in a nation’s war-making capacity.

Destroy that support, he believed, and the conflict would end.

In March, 1985, just as the Civil War was close to its end, a staff officer told Sherman about Jackson’s opinion on not taking prisoners.

Asked for his reaction, Sherman said: “Perhaps he was right. It seems cruel, but if there were no quarter given, most men would keep out of war. Rebellions would be few and short.”

William Tecumseh Sherman

Contrast that with the way Israel has long responded to hundreds of unprovoked rocket attacks by the Hamas terrorist group.

Beginning in July 8, 2014, the Israeli Air Force bombarded more than 900 Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip.

Israel claimed it was trying to avoid civilian casualties in the crowded urban landscape. Members of the Israeli military began telephoning Palestinian residents whose homes had been targeted, warning them to leave.

One resident, Sawsan Kawarea, claimed she received a call  from “David,” who said he was with the Israeli military.

“He asked for me by name. He said: ‘You have women and children in the house. Get out. You have five minutes before the rockets come,’” Kawarea said in an interview.

She ran outside with her children. A small rocket hit the house soon afterward. Five minutes later, a larger missile hit, destroying the house.

For years, the Israeli military has delivered such warnings via cellphone calls and small “warning rockets”—usually sent from drones.

The strategy has a nickname: “Roof knocking.”

It’s Israel’s response to longtime criticism for “collateral damage.” That is: Civilians killed while its military takes action in the crowded Palestinian territories.

The policy allows Israel to say: We did our best to avoid killing civilians.

But in waging Politically Correct warfare to head off criticism, Israel has made a dangerous mistake.

Niccolo Machiavelli, the 15th century Florentine statesmen, carefully studied both war and politics. 

Quote by Machiavelli: “Necessity is what impels men to take action ...

Niccolo Machiavelli

In his major work, The Discourses, he wrote candidly about how to preserve liberties within a republic. In waging war, he advised:

…Often individual men, and sometimes a whole city, will act so culpably against the state that as an example to others and for his own security the prince has no other remedy but to destroy it entirely. Honor consists in being able, and knowing when and how, to chastise evil-doers. 

And a prince who fails to punish them, so that they shall not be able to do any more harm, will be regarded as either ignorant or cowardly.

Meanwhile, on the Gaza Strip: After a week of Israeli bombing more than 900 Hamas targets, Palestinian medical officials claimed that 186 people had been killed and at least 1,390 wounded.

That worked out to about 26 people killed every day.

Contrast those figures with the casualties suffered by a single German city during World War 11 air raids during eight days and seven nights.

Beginning on July 24, 1943, the U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force over several days killed 42,600 civilians and wounded 37,000 in Hamburg and practically destroyed the entire city.

The bombing ignited a firestorm that incinerated more than eight square miles, baking alive many of those who sought safety in cellars and bomb shelters.

Hamburg, Germany, after Allied bombing raids

For the vaunted Israeli Air Force to have killed so few of its enemies after dropping so many bombs testified to a massive waste of ordinance.

Clearly, the only people making good on these raids were the arms makers supplying the bombs.

If the United States and Great Britain had managed to kill only 26 Germans a day in World War II, America, Britain and Nazi Germany would still be at war today.

No wonder Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel.

Machiavelli knew—and often warned—that while it was useful to avoid hatred, it was fatal to be despised.  And he also warned that humility toward insolent enemies will only encourage their hatred and contempt for you.

An Aesop’s fable well sums up the lesson Israel should have learned long ago: A snake was stepped on by so many people he prayed to Zeus for help.  And Zeus said: “If you’d bitten the first person who stepped on you, the second would have thought twice about it.”

NEEDED: TENANT PROTECTIONS AGAINST SLUMLORDS

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 25, 2023 at 12:11 am

…Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature…. If their evil disposition remains concealed for a time…we must assume that it lacked occasion to show itself. But time, which has been said to be the father of all truth, does not fail to bring it to light. 

—-Niccolo Machiavelli, The Discourses  

Related image

Niccolo Machiavelli

As of 2022, seven statesCalifornia, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon  and the District of Columbia—offer tenant protections via residential rent control. 

Only 34 out of 482 cities in California have strong tenant protections.

And only 15 cities in California have rent controls on landlords’ greed: Alameda, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Oakland, Palm Springs, Richmond. San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood.

In California, 17% of the population lives in apartments—more than 6.7 million people or 2.1 million more than New York. 

Nationwide, almost 39 million people in the United States—nearly one in eight—live in apartments.

Many tenants have lived with rotting floors, bedbugs, nonworking toilets, mice/rats, chipping lead-based paint and other outrages for not simply months but years. 

Related image

And yet, there is little enthusiasm among these millions of people to protect themselves against predatory landlords.

Still, even in those cities where rent boards and building inspection agencies exist, landlords continue to victimize tenants every day.

Take San Francisco, for example.

To hear slumlords tell it, San Francisco is a “renters’ paradise,” where obnoxious, lazy, rent-evading tenants constantly take advantage of hard-working, put-upon landlords.

Don’t believe it.

A recent case shows the absolute necessity for reining in predatory landlords before they can inflict serious financial and emotional damage on tenants.

In September, 2021, Frank and Carol Thomas (not their real names) moved into a one-bedroom San Francisco apartment for $1,000 a month. 

Frank had been manager of the apartment complex for 10 years. Now he simply wanted to be a tenant.

Meanwhile,  Carol suffered three close personal losses:

  • Her father died in January, in Knoxville, Tennessee;
  • Her best friend died in June.
  • Her aunt died in July.

Then, in August, Frank left for Tennessee to explore possible business opportunities there. It was while visiting Nashville that he suffered a heart attack and died.

This required Carol to travel to Nashville to:

  • Arrange for Frank’s cremation;
  • Obtain the release of his personal effects—including the release of his car, which had been impounded

She also had to spend time in Knoxville to:

  • Arrange for the disposal of her father’s remains;
  • Attend to his piano business;
  • Attend to his estate, including arranging for the sale of his house.

Since she couldn’t afford commuting between California and Tennessee, Carol stayed at her deceased father’s house in Knoxville while making all these arrangements.

Weeks later, she returned to her San Francisco apartment. 

In April, 2022, Carol received a notice from the property management company responsible for the premises. 

It stated that Carol Thomas was last seen in her apartment in November, 2021 and currently lived at her family home in Knoxville, Tennessee.

The notice also stated that her rent would rise from $1,000 per month to $1,695 per month. 

Fortunately, Carol had a friend who had worked as a reporter and legal investigator. He was able to draft a response to her landlord’s rent demand.

It opened: “There is a moral dimension to this case that must not be overlooked.” 

First, it extolled Frank Thomas’ 10 years as building manager for the property management company now trying to raise Carol’s rent.

Then it pointed out: “During the time Carol was gone, she paid her rent in full and on time. Had she not, We Screw Tenants [not the company’s real name] would now be demanding her eviction.

“What We Screw Tenants is trying to do is to literally profit from the death of this man and the grief of this woman.

“This is utterly despicable. Morally, it’s on a par with robbing corpses and selling fentanyl to schoolchildren. 

“If We Screw Tenants is willing to try to extort monies from the widow of its former building manager, it will do the same the next time a tenant is required to leave one of its buildings for weeks.

“As compensation for this deplorable behavior, We Screw Tenants should provide Ms. Thomas with a moratorium on rent increases for at least ten years.”

Carol, who was in her early 60s, showed the suggested response to a case officer of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission.

The officer then contacted We Screw Tenants and said he would be filing a complaint for elder abuse against the company.

The company immediately promised to drop its demand for a $695 raise in rent—if Carol agreed to forego any legal action. 

Carol has not yet decided if she wants to pursue a lawsuit. 

But she was able to fend off a predatory property management company—only because San Francisco has:

  1. Rent control laws limiting landlords’ greed; and
  2. A Human Rights Commission dedicated to protecting citizens against discrimination.

Other tenants—throughout California and the nation—usually don’t prove so fortunate.

COMBATING SLUMLORDS: PART THREE (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 13, 2023 at 12:10 am

City agencies need to see landlords for what they truly are—as, at best, potential predators, if not actual ones. And to act aggressively on that knowledge. 

As Niccolo Machiavelli warned: 

“All those who have written upon civil institutions demonstrate…that whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it

“If their evil disposition remains concealed for a time, it must be attributed to some unknown reason; and we must assume that it lacked occasion to show itself.  But time, which has been said to be the father of all truth, does not fail to bring it to light.”

Related image

Niccolo Machiavelli

The power of slumlords calls to mind the scene in 1987’s The Untouchables, where Sean Connery’s veteran cop tells Eliot Ness: “Everybody knows where the liquor is. It’s just a question of: Who wants to cross Capone?”

Many tenants have lived with rotting floors, bedbugs, nonworking toilets, mice/rats, chipping lead-based paint and other outrages for not simply months but years

This holds true across the United States. But it also holds true in San Francisco—the “renters’ paradise” where the District Attorney’s Office hasn’t prosecuted a slumlord in decades

SF DISTRICT ATTORNEY on Twitter: "Watch our weekly Facebook Live this Wednesday at noon!… "

Part Two of this series presented a series of badly-needed, long-overdue reforms for the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI). This is the agency charged to ensuring safe housing conditions for San Francisco residents. 

Renters across the country should demand similar protections.

This concluding part will cover the remainder of those needed reforms. 

  • Landlords should be required to bring all the units in a building up to existing building codes, and not just those in need of immediate repair.
  • Landlords should be legally required to hire a certified-expert contractor to perform building repairs. To save money—that they can well afford to spend—-many landlords insist on making such repairs despite their not being trained or experienced in doing so. They thereby risk the health and/or safety of their tenants. 
  • DBI should not view itself as a “mediation” agency between landlords and tenants. Most landlords hate DBI and will always do so. They believe they should be allowed to treat their tenants like serfs, if not slaves, raise extortionate rents anytime they desire, and maintain their buildings in whatever state they wish. 
  • Above all, DBI must stop viewing itself as a regulatory agency and start seeing itself as a law enforcement one. The FBI doesn’t ask criminals to comply with the law. It applies whatever amount of pressure is needed to force their compliance. William Tecumseh Sherman, speaking of the rebellious Southern states, said it best: “They cannot be made to love us, but they may be made to fear us.”  
  • The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office should create a special unit to investigate and  prosecute slumlords. Prosecutors should offer rewards to citizens who provide tips on major outrages by the city’s slumlords.  

  • Install Rent Control protections for tenants on fixed incomes. San Francisco is notorious for having the highest rents in the nation. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment runs $3,000 a month. Even those in the vaunted high-tech industry spend most of their income on rent.
  • For tenants on fixed incomes—seniors, disabled, students—the predatory greed of landlords amounts to a staged-in eviction notice.  Social Security recipients often don’t get  a cost-of-living increase if there hasn’t been a rise in gasoline prices. But many of them don’t own cars—while the price of everything else—such as groceries—has sharply risen.  
  • Allowing landlords to jack up rents to the fullest extent possible every year will eventually drive out all tenants who are not multimillionaires. In fact, an unknown portion of this City’s homeless population doubtless stems from the ability of landlords to gradually raise rents above tenants’ ability to afford them.  
  • In 1979, San Franciscans passed a Rent Control law to protect tenants against predatory rent hikes and unfair evictions. As a result, a landlord can only raise a tenant’s rent a certain percentage every year. This is set by the set by the Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board, more popularly known as the “Rent Board.”  
  • But there is a gaping hole in the law: Once a tenant moves out, the landlord can jack up the rent as high as he wants. This is why the average rent in San Francisco is priced beyond most middle-class wage-earners. 
  • In addition, landlords are allowed to charge tenants yearly fees to maintain the existence of the Rent Board. This is both unfair and insulting, since the Board was created to protect tenants from predatory landlords. Most tenants have far less money to pay such fees than do landlords, who are free to raise rents every year. And landlords—unlike tenants—can and do write off Rent Board fees on their taxes every year. 

As Robert F. Kennedy wrote: “Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on.”

COMBATING SLUMLORDS: PART TWO (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 12, 2023 at 12:10 am

“We investigate complaints of building code violations and compel building owners to fix the violations.”  

So boasts the website for the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI).

Yet DBI has long been outmaneuvered by predatory, law-breaking landlords.

And San Francisco renters—many of them elderly, poor and/or disabled—have been the victims of landlord greed, neglect and/or harassment.

Related image

Among the reforms that DBI should immediately enact:

  • Hit slumlord violators with a fine—payable immediately—for at least $2,000 to $5,000 for each health/safety-code violation. The slumlord would be told he could reclaim 75-80% of the money only if he fully corrected the violation within 30 days. The remaining portion of the levied fine would go into the City coffers, to be shared among DBI and other City agencies.
  • This would put the onus on the slumlord, not DBI. Appealing to his greed would ensure his willingness to comply with the ordered actions. As matters now stand, it is DBI who must repeatedly check with the slumlord to find out if its orders have been complied with.  
  • If the landlord failed to comply with the actions ordered within 30 days, the entire fine would go into the City’s coffers-–to be divided among DBI and other agencies charged with protecting San Francisco residents.
  • In addition. he would be hit again with a fine at least twice the amount of the first one.  
  • Inspectors for DBI should be allowed to cite landlords for violations that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health (DPH). They could then pass the information to DPH for its own investigation.  
  • If the DBI inspector later discovered that the landlord had not corrected the DPH violation within a designated time-period, DBI should be allowed to levy its own fine for his failure to do so.
  • If DPH objects to this, DBI should propose that DPH’s own inspectors be armed with similar cross-jurisdictional authority. Each agency would thus have increased motivation for spotting and correcting health/safety violations that threaten the lives of San Francisco residents.

  • This would instantly turn DBI and DPH into allies, not competitors. And it would mean that whether a citizen called DBI or DPH, s/he could be assured of getting the necessary assistance. As matters now stand, many residents are confused by the conflicting jurisdictions of both agencies.  
  • DBI should insist that its Inspectors Division be greatly expanded.DBI can attain this by arguing that reducing the number of Inspectors cuts (1) protection for San Francisco renters–and (2) monies that could go to the general City welfare.
  • The Inspection Division should operate independently of DBI.Currently,  too many high-ranking DBI officials tilt toward landlords because they are landlords themselves.
  • DBI should create a Special Research Unit to compile records on the worst slumlord offenders. Thus, a slumlord with a repeat history of defying DBI Notices of Violation could be treated more harshly than a landlord who was a first-time offender.
  • Turning DBI into a revenue-producing agency would enable the City to raise desperately-needed revenues—in a highly popular way. Fining delinquent slumlords would be as popular as raising taxes on tobacco companies. Only slumlords and their hired lackey allies would object.  
  • DBI should legally require landlords to rehabilitate a unit every time a new tenant moves in, or have it examined by a DBI inspector every two years. A tenant can occupy a unit for ten or more years, then die or move out, and the landlord immediately rents the unit to the first person who comes along, without making any repairs or upgrades whatsoever.
  • Slumlords, unlike drug-dealers, can’t move their buildings from one street or city to another. If they want to make money in San Francisco, they will have to submit to the jurisdiction of landlord-regulating agencies.  
  • DBI should require landlords to post their Notices of Violation in public areas of their buildings—and levy severe fines for failing to do so. When DBI orders a slumlord to take corrective action, s/he is the only one who is notified.  If that slumlord refuses to comply with that directive, s/he is the only one who knows it. Given the pressing demands on DBI, weeks or months will pass before the agency learns about this violation of its orders. Tenants have a right to know if their landlord is complying with the law—so they can promptly notify inform DBI if a violation is occurring. 

  • Landlords should be legally required to give each tenant a list of the major city agencies (such as DBI, the Rent Board and the Department of Public Health) that exist to help tenants solve problems with their housing.
  • DBI should launch—and maintain—a citywide advertising campaign to alert residents about its services. Everyone knows the FBI pursues bank robbers. But too many San Franciscans don’t even know that DBI exists, let alone what laws it enforces. This should be an in-your-face campaign: “Do you have bedbugs in your apartment? Has your stove stopped working? Are you afraid to ride in your building elevator because it’s always malfunctioning? Have you complained to your landlord and gotten the runaround? Then call DBI at—- Or drop us an email at_____.”

COMBATING SLUMLORDS: PART ONE (OF THREE)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on July 11, 2023 at 12:11 am

As of 2022, seven states—California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon  and the District of Columbia—offer tenant protections via residential rent control. 

Only 34 out of 482 cities in California have strong tenant protections.

And only 15 cities in California have rent controls on landlords’ greed: Alameda, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, East Palo Alto, Hayward, Los Angeles, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Oakland, Palm Springs, Richmond. San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood.

To hear slumlords tell it, San Francisco is a “renters’ paradise,” where obnoxious, lazy, rent-evading tenants constantly take advantage of hard-working, put-upon landlords.

Don’t believe it.

Kip and Nicole Macy are two former San Francisco slumlords who pled guilty to felony charges of residential burglary, stalking and attempted grand theft.

Landlords From Hell, Nicole And Kip Macy, Sentenced For Waging Campaign Of Terror On Tenants | HuffPost null

Nicole and Kip Macy

Determined to evict rent control-protected tenants from their apartment building in the South of Market district, they unleashed a reign of terror in 2006:

  • Cut holes in the floor of one tenant’s living room with a power saw—while he was inside his unit.
  • Cut out sections of the floor joists to make the building collapse.
  • Created fictitious email accounts to appear as a tenant who had filed a civil suit against the Macys—and used these to fire the tenant’s attorney.
  • Cut the tenants’ telephone lines and shut off their electricity, gas and water.
  • Changed the locks on all the apartments without warning.
  • Mailed death threats.
  • Kicked one of their tenants in the ribs.
  • Hired workers to board up a tenant’s windows from the outside while he still lived there.
  • Falsely reported trespassers in a tenant’s apartment, leading police to hold him and a friend at gunpoint.
  • Broke into the units of three tenants and removed all their belongings.
  • Again broke into the units of the same three victims and soaked their beds, clothes and electronics with ammonia.

The Macys were arrested in April, 2008, posted a combined total of $500,000 bail and then fled the country after being indicted in early 2009.

In May, 2012, Italian police arrested and deported them back to America a year later.

Having pled guilty, they were sentenced in September, 2013, to a prison term of four years and four months.

How could such a campaign of terror go on for two years against law-abiding San Francisco tenants?

Simple.

Even in the city misnamed as a “renter’s paradise,” slumlords are treated like gods by the very agencies that are supposed to protect tenants against their abuses.

The power of slumlords calls to mind the scene in 1987’s The Untouchables, where Sean Connery’s veteran cop tells Eliot Ness: “Everybody knows where the liquor is. It’s just a question of: Who wants to cross Capone?”  

Everybody in San Francisco knows who the slumlords are. But the District Attorney’s Office hasn’t criminally prosecuted a slumlord in decades. 

Many tenants have lived with rotting floors, bedbugs, nonworking toilets, mice/rats, chipping lead-based paint and other outrages for not simply months but years. 

Consider the situation at the San Francisco Department of Building Inspection (DBI), which is charged with ensuring that apartment buildings are in habitable condition.  

Under San Francisco law:

  • A landlord is automatically given 30 days to correct a health/safety violation. If he drags his feet on the matter, the tenant must live with that problem until it’s resolved.
  • If the landlord claims for any reason that he can’t fix the problem within one month, DBI doesn’t demand that he prove this. Instead, it automatically gives him another month.
  • A slumlord has to work at being hit with a fine—by letting a problem go uncorrected for three to six months.
  • And even then, repeat slumlord offenders often avoid the fine by pleading for leniency.
  • That’s because many DBI officials are themselves landlords.

But the situation doesn’t have to remain this way.

How could it be changed?

By learning some valuable lessons from the “war on drugs” and applying them to regulating slumlords.

Consider:

  • In 2022, at least 25,000 untested rape kits sat in law enforcement agencies and crime labs across the country
  • But illegal drug kits are automatically rushed to the had of the line.

Why?

It isn’t simply because local/state/Federal lawmen universally believe that illicit drugs pose a deadly threat to the Nation’s security.

It’s because:

  • Federal asset forfeiture laws allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to “facilitate” violations of Federal anti-drug laws.
  • Local and State law enforcement agencies are allowed to keep some of the proceeds once the property has been sold.
  • Thus, financially-strapped police agencies have found that pursuing drug-law crimes is a great way to fill their own coffers.
  • Prosecutors and lawmen view the seizing of drug-related properties as crucial to eliminating the financial clout of drug-dealing operations.

It’s long past time for San Francisco agencies to apply the same attitude–and methods–toward slumlords.  Related image

DBI should become not merely a law enforcing agency but a revenue-creating one. And those revenues should come from predatory slumlords who routinely violate the City’s laws protecting tenants.

By doing so, DBI could vastly:

  • Enhance its own prestige and authority;
  • Improve living conditions for thousands of San Francisco renters; and
  • Bring millions of desperately-needed dollars into the City’s cash-strapped coffers.

THE WHITE POOR: LOVING THOSE WHO DESPISE THEM: PART TWO (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on July 27, 2022 at 12:12 am

Republicans have long tried to prevent or eliminate programs that aid the poor and middle-class, including:

  • Social Security (since it began in 1935)
  • Medicare
  • National health insurance
  • Food stamps
  • WIC (Women, Infants, Children).

So why are so many poor Americans now flocking to this party’s banner?

Two reasons: Racism and greed. There are historical parallels for both.

First, race:

In 1999, historian Victor Davis Hanson noted the huge gap in wealth between the aristocratic, slave-owning minority of the pre-Civil War South and the vast majority of poor white Southerners.

Victor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) | Twitter

Victor Davis Hanson

“Before the war in the counties [Union General William Tecumseh] Sherman would later ruin, the top 10% of the landowners controlled 40% of the assessed wealth.”

In contrast, “more than half of those who were lucky enough to own any property at all still possessed less than 15% of the area’s valuation.”

So Hanson asked: “Why did the millions of poor whites of the Confederacy fight at all?”

He supplied the answer in his brilliant work on military history, The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny.

Nonfiction Book Review: The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny by Victor Davis Hanson, Author Free Press $30 (496p) ISBN 978-0-684-84502-9

One of those liberators was General William Tecumseh Sherman, who led 62,000 Union troops in a victorious “March to the Sea” through the Confederacy in 1864.

So why did so many poor Southern whites literally lay down their lives for the wealthy planter class, which despised them?

According to Hanson: “Behind the entire social fabric of the South lay slavery.

“If slavery eroded the economic position of the poor free citizens, if slavery encouraged a society of haves and have-nots…then it alone offered one promise to the free white man–poor, ignorant and dispirited–that he was at least not black and not a slave.”

And the planter class and its allies in government easily fobbed off their poor white countrymen with cheap flattery. Said Georgia Governor Joseph Brown:

“Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration, and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense his equal. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men.”

Related image

Arlington House and plantation, former home of Robert E. Lee

Similarly, poor whites now flock to the Republican Party–which holds them in equal contempt– in large part to protest the 2008 election of the first black President of the United States.

According to a Pew Research Center study released on July 22, 2011: “Notably, the GOP gains have occurred only among white voters; a 2-point Republican edge among whites in 2008 (46% to 44%) has widened to a 13-point lead today (52% to 39%).”

Since the 1960s, Republicans have pursued a campaign policy of “divide and rule”–divide the nation along racial lines and reap the benefits at election time.

  • Republicans opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  • Republicans opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
  • Republicans, with Richard Nixon as their Presidential candidate in 1968 and 1972, pursued what they called a “Southern strategy”: Use “code language” to stoke fear and hatred of blacks among whites.
  • Republicans have falsely identified welfare programs exclusively with non-whites. (Of the six million Americans receiving food stamps, about 42% are white, 32% are black, and 22% are Latino–with the growth fastest among whites during the recession.)

Thus, in voting Republican, many of these poor whites believe they are “striking a blow for the white race.”

And they can do so in a more socially acceptable way than joining a certified hate group such as the American Nazi Party or Ku Klux Klan.  

Since 2015, openly racist groups such as the Klan and the American Nazi Party have flocked to the banner of Presidential candidate Donald Trump. By enthusiastically courting their support, the real estate mogul has made it possible for Republican candidates to openly display their own racism.

Now greed:

In the hit play, 1776, on the creation and signing of the Declaration of Independence, there is a telling exchange between John Dickinson and John Hancock. It comes during the song, “Cool, Cool, Considerate Men.”

Dickinson, the delegate from Pennsylvania, urges Hancock, president of the Second Continental Congress, “to join us in our minuet.” By “us” he means his fellow conservatives who fear losing their property and exalted status by supporting American independence from Great Britain.

John Dickinson

Hancock declines, saying: “Fortunately, there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy.”

To which Dickinson replies:  “Perhaps not. But don’t forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor.  And that is why they will follow us.”

Today,  poor whites generally identify with the CEOs of powerful corporations. They believe the Republican gospel that they can attain such wealth–if only the government will “get out of my way.”

They forget—or ignore—the truth that government, for all its imperfections, is sometimes all that stands between them and a wide range of predators.

In return, the CEOs despise them as the privileged have always despised their social and economic “inferiors.”

Unless the Democratic Party can find ways to directly address these bitter, Politically Incorrect truths, it will continue its decline into insignificance.

THE WHITE POOR: LOVING THOSE WHO DESPISE THEM: PART ONE (OF TWO)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on July 26, 2022 at 12:16 am

On July 22, 2011, ABC News carried the following story:

The Pew Foundation, analyzing voter identification, found “the electorate’s partisan affiliations have shifted significantly” since Barack Obama won office in 2008.

The GOP had gained strength among white voters, most specifically “the young and poor.”

Whitehead Institute - News - 2011 - Whitehead Member Mary Gehring named a Pew Scholar

A seven-point Democratic advantage among whites under age 30 three years ago had turned into an 11-point GOP advantage. And a 15-point Democratic advantage among whites earning less than $30,000 annually had swung to a slim four-point Republican edge by 2011.

In addition:

  • The GOP gains had occurred only among white voters.
  • Republicans had made sizable gains among white voters since 2008. Fifty-two percent of white voters called themselves Republicans or leaned to the GOP, compared with 39% who affiliated with the Democratic Party or leaned Democratic.
  • Democrats had lost their edge among lower income white voters.
  • In 2008, Democrats had a 15 point lead among white voters with family incomes less than $30,000.  By 2011, Republicans had a four-point edge among this group.
  • The GOP’s lead among middle income white voters had grown since 2008, and Republicans held a substantial advantage with higher income white voters.
  • Republicans have made gains among whites with a high school education or less. The GOP’s advantage over Democrats had grown from one point in 2008 to 17 points in 2011 among less educated whites.
  • Republicans had made smaller gains among white voters who had college degrees.

Five years later, in 2016, these masses of disaffected white men would overwhelmingly vote for Donald Trump, a real estate mogul-turned-celebrity-TV-host of “The Apprentice.”

Trump had been born into a life of luxury. He began his real estate career at his father’s real estate and construction company. He rose to wealth and fame after his father, Fred, gave him control of the business in 1971.

Similarly, soon after acquiring the family business, Trump set out to build his own empire—hotels, golf courses, casinos and skyscrapers across North and South America, Europe and Asia. Of the 515 entities he owns, 268 of them—52%—bear his last name. He often refers to his properties as “the swankiest,” “the most beautiful.” 

During the Vietnam war, his father reportedly paid a doctor to claim that Trump suffered from “bone spurs” in his foot—thus enabling him to escape the draft.

Donald Trump

In short, Trump has literally nothing in common with the masses of poor whites who worship him. 

Howard Stern, the notorious radio host, has known Trump many years. Commenting on the appeal Trump has for his followers, Stern says: “The oddity of all this is the people Trump despises most, love him the most.

“The people who are voting for Trump for the most part …he wouldn’t even let them in his fucking hotel. He’d be disgusted by them. Go to Mar-a-Lago. See if there’s any people who look like you. I’m talking to you in the audience.”

Yet, while the poor worship Trump and Republicans generally, there is a disconnect between them: Since 1980, Republicans have pursued a policy of gutting programs aimed at helping the poor—while repeatedly creating tax-breaks for the wealthiest 1% of the population.

For Republicans, the patron saint of this “love-the-rich-screw-the-poor” ideology remains Ronald Reagan—two-time governor of California and twice-elected President of the United States (1981-1989)

Ronald Reagan, who taught Americans to worship the wealthy

Among those charting Reagan’s legacy as President was former CBS Correspondent David Shoenbrum.

In his bestselling autobiography, America Inside Out: At Home and Abroad from Roosevelt to Reagan, he noted:

  • On January 28, 1981, keeping a pledge to his financial backers in the oil industry, Reagan abolished Federal controls on the price of oil.
  • Within a week, Exxon, Texaco and Shell raised gasoline prices and prices of home heating oil.
  • Reagan saw it as his duty to put a floor under prices, not a ceiling above them.
  • Reagan believed that when government helped business it wasn’t interfering. Loaning money to bail out a financially incompetent Chrysler was “supporting the free enterprise system.”
  • But putting a high-profits tax on price-gouging corporations or filing anti-trust suits against them was “Communistic” and therefore intolerable.
  • Tax-breaks for wealthy businesses meant helping America become stronger.
  • But welfare for the poor or the victims of a predatory marketplace economy weakened America by sapping its morale.

“In short, welfare for the rich is good for America. But welfare for the poor is bad for America, even for the poor themselves, for it encourages them to be shiftless and lazy.

“Somehow, loans to the inefficient management of American corporations would not similarly encourage them in their inefficient methods,” wrote Shoenbrun.

Republicans have sought to dismantle Social Security ever since that program began in 1935. And Republicans have furiously opposed other programs aiding the poor and middle-class—such as Medicare, food stamps and WIC (Women, Infants, Children).

In short, this is not a political party with a history of rushing to the defense of those most in need.

So the question remains: Why are so many poor Americans flocking to its banner?

The answer lies in the history of the American South—and slavery.

GENERAL SHERMAN’S ADVICE TO JOE BIDEN

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 31, 2021 at 10:14 am

When Andrew Jackson, seventh President of the United States from 1829 to 1837, was close to death, he asked his doctor: “What act of my administration will be most severely condemned by future Americans?”

“Perhaps the removal of the bank deposits,” said the doctor—referring to Jackson’s withdrawal of U.S. Government monies from the first Bank of the United States.

That act had destroyed the bank, which Jackson had believed was a source of political corruption.

“Oh, no!” said Jackson.

Then, his eyes blazing, Jackson raged: “I can tell you. Posterity will condemn me more because I was persuaded not to hang John C. Calhoun as a traitor than for any other act in my life!”

John C. Calhoun had once been Vice President under Jackson and later a United States Senator from South Carolina. His fiery rhetoric and radical theories of “nullification” played a major part in bringing on the Civil War (1861-1865).   

John C. Calhoun

Calhoun was an outspoken proponent of slavery, which he declared to be a “positive good” rather than a “necessary evil.” He supported states’ rights and nullification—by which states could declare null and void federal laws they deemed unconstitutional.

Over time, Southern states’ threats of “nullification” turned to threats of “secession” from the Union—and then civil war.

The resulting carnage destroyed at least 750,000 lives. More Americans died in that war than have been killed in all the major wars fought by the United States since. 

When it ended, America was reinvented as a new, unified nation—and one where slavery was now banned by the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Equally important, the Federal Government had now set a precedent for using overwhelming military power to force states to remain in the Union.

But in 2012, within days of Barack Obama’s decisive winning of another four years as President, residents across the country filed secession petitions to the Obama administration’s “We the People” program.

States whose residents filed secession petitions included:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington (state), West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Abraham Lincoln dedicated his Presidency—and sacrificed his life—to ensure the preservation of a truly United States.

And Robert E. Lee—the defeated South’s greatest general—spent the last five years of his life trying to put the Civil War behind him and persuade his fellow Southerners to accept their place in the Union.

But today avowed racists, fascists and other champions of treason are working hard to destroy that union—and unleash a second Civil War.

On January 6, they illegally attacked the United States Capitol Building to halt the counting of Electoral College votes of the 2020 Presidential election. Their goal: Pressure Congress to overturn the election of former Vice President Joe Biden’s in favor of President Donald Trump.

Most of those traitors have not yet been brought to justice. And most importantly, the man who incited their treason—former President Donald Trump—has not been indicted, nor even arrested. He continues to enrage his followers by lying that the election was “stolen” from him.

And most of his 74 million voters stand ready to commit additional acts of violence to “restore” him to office.

President Joe Biden should follow Andrew Jackson’s example—before treasonous acts become the order of the day.

He should warn Stormtrumpers and Right-wing militia leaders that the United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines stand ready to squelch further outbreaks of treason. And that he will send modern-day counterparts of Union General William Tecumseh Sherman to wherever they are needed. 

Sherman’s March through Georgia

Sherman “made Georgia howl” through his now-famous “March to the Sea.” In a letter to his commanding general, Ulysses S. Grant, he expressed his formula for dealing with domestic terrorists:

“They cannot be made to love us, but they may be made to fear us. We cannot change the hearts of those people of the South.

“But we can make war so terrible that they will realize the fact that….they are still mortal and should exhaust all peaceful remedies before they fly to war.”

And Sherman’s counsel is backed up by none other than Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of modern political science. 

In his master-work, The Discouorses, he outlines the consequences of allowing lawbreakers to go unpunished:

“…Having established rewards for good actions and penalties for evil ones, and having rewarded a citizen for conduct who afterwards commits a wrong, he should be chastised for that without regard to his previous merits….

“For if a citizen who has rendered some eminent service to the state should add to the reputation and influence which he has thereby acquired the confident audacity of being able to commit any wrong without fear of punishment, he will in a little while become so insolent and overbearing as to put an end to all power of the law.”