Anti-Immigration Protestors Show Their True Colors

By: Dave Sund If you've been around Omaha for the last couple of years, you may have noticed the protestors that show up every so often in front of the Consulado de Mexico on 36th and Dodge St. Their thinly-veiled racism, however, is no match for the atrocious display of racism that is coming this weekend: The National Socialist Movement will shut down Dodge street Saturday to protest illegal immigration. The Nazi protest at the Mexican Consulate is becoming a cause for community concern. So much concern in fact, the white supremacist group will receive a police escort in and out of Omaha as well as police security during the event, according to both the Consulate and protestors. Well, that's great. I'm sure the people of Omaha will appreciate a bunch of Nazis choking off the main artery to the city for a few hours. Fortunately, everyone will be glued to their TV sets watching the season opener between Nebraska and Nevada, but that's not the point. It's disturbing how similar the Nazi message is to the right-wing party line on immigration. Put this together with the rising ranks of the KKK in recent years because of strong feelings against immigration, and it's not hard to see what kind of people are driving the debate on this issue. And it's sickening.

"This is not Mexico and we don't want it to be Mexico," says Col. Tim Bishop with the National Socialist Movement. Illegal immigration threatens the self described Nazi group's main goal. "The preservation and the promotion of the white Arian Caucasian people," says Bishop. And it's at this point that we have to bring up the thing that fails to get through to these people each and every time: Only the swastika emblazoned protest against illegal immigrants will happen outside the one place in Omaha Mexicans can obtain legal identification. "I guess because it has a Mexican flag out front or they misinterpret what we do," says the Consul. "They're telling people to come here. They're telling people where they can get social services. They're telling people how to exploit the system," says Bishop. At least these folks make their racism very clear, so it becomes easier to expose the racism of those who hold the exact same beliefs as them. How could this not be blatantly obvious at this point? This isn't about "border security" or "amnesty" or any of the other buzz words that politicians in Washington like to throw around. This is about Mexicans. This is about fear. Quite simply, this is racism. And it's unfortunately very politically acceptable, to the point where people who should know better are buying into the buzzwords and phrases. To the point where people are treated like criminals and separated from their families for wanting to make a better life in America. To the point where the "compromise" position has us relegating people to a status of virtually permanent indentured servitude. One last point, which I cannot stress enough: Don't take the bait. The Consul's concern is not the demonstration but the potential for violent public reaction and damage to his building.   "A counter-demonstration is not productive in any way and that's exactly what these people are looking for."

Go to full text...

Public Pulse Taken Over by Republican Spin in Omaha Budget Battle

Ten days ago, Omaha Republican City Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson attempted to embarrass Democratic Mayor Mike Fahey and to pin the blame on him for not doing enough to prevent Omaha's rash of gun violence this summer. To do so, they leaked a letter they'd sent last December recommending a temporary increase in property taxes to fund a temporary increase in the number of police officers. Leaving out the obvious but highly-relevant fact of who had released this letter in the first place, the Omaha World-Herald reported: Fahey's chief of staff, Paul Landow, said the...council members privately sent the letter to Fahey but didn't push the issue further. "If they were really interested in adding 50 police officers, why didn't they say it publicly at the time?" Landow asked.....   Landow also said Fahey has been steadily increasing the number of police officers, including adding 15 officers in 2007 and another 15 next year. But Fahey won't be calling for a temporary surge in police officers, Landow said.   In their letter, the council members suggested that the number of officers increase by 40 to 50, then decrease after three years, or after violence in north Omaha has lessened. Under the plan, the tax increase that would fund the officers would also be rolled back.   Landow said the idea of a temporary surge in police officers is unworkable. "What are we supposed to do at the end of the three years? Fire all the additional cops?" So, essentially, Fahey is planning a permanent addition of 30 police officers rather than the 40 - 50 temporary officers Vokal and Sigerson had recommended. And, Fahey is budgeting for these new officers without relying on the property tax increases Vokal and Sigerson had called for last December. It's rather ridiculous that they would even attempt to milk that difference for political gain, particularly when Omaha's Police Chief, Thomas Warren, had just told the Council, "I'm comfortable with the personnel allocation that we are proposing for the 2008 budget." Honestly, it's sad that the World-Herald even printed this sad bit of partisan spin attacking Fahey and playing on people's increased fears about local crime. But, having opened that door, it was only fair that Fahey's office decided to fight back:

Mayor Mike Fahey's chief of staff is accusing two City Council members of playing politics when it comes to addressing gun violence. Chief of Staff Paul Landow said Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson have alternately advocated in letters to the mayor for both an increase and a decrease in the city's property tax rate....   Vokal and Sigerson...wrote Fahey last December that they would support a tax rate increase in 2008 to hire an additional 40 to 50 police officers. Then in June, Sigerson and Vokal wrote Fahey asking him to lower the property tax rate in response to what was projected to be a significant increase in property valuations....   "It's clearly disingenuous, political nonsense," Landow said. "One minute they are calling for a tax increase, and the next they want a decrease. Which is it?"..... Landow said the shifting positions were intended to bolster Vokal's possible mayoral bid in 2009. "This is all being done in the name of political ambition." Thoroughly established as opportunists and flip-floppers taking advantage of the surge in gun violence for their own political purposes, you'd expect Vokal and Sigerson to shut up. Instead, today's World-Herald ran three curiously-timed and similar-sounding letters in the Public Pulse that attempt one last time to shamelessly spin the fears and heartache of Omaha families to the Republican Party's advantage: Mayor Mike Fahey claims to want input from community leaders in an effort to solve Omaha's crime wave. But where was this concern in December when City Councilmen Jim Vokal and Chuck Sigerson offered to work with the mayor on addressing the sudden increase in gun violence in Omaha? Omaha has again seen a dramatic increase in violent crime this summer. Now, Fahey accuses the councilmen, through his Chief of Staff Paul Landow, of playing politics. If Fahey had been attentive to Omaha's needs and responded to the councilmen's ideas in December, maybe he wouldn't need to play politics now. Possible solutions already would have been in the works.   Joe Risko, Omaha ------------------- Landow called the efforts by Vokal and Sigerson politically ambitious. This is ridiculous. Landown's attempt to twist the facts of the situation and turn it into a political attack is abhorrent. In December, Vokal and Sigerson proposed increasing the number of police officers in Omaha by 40 to 50 and were willing to authorize additional funding to do so. But Fahey refused this offer. In June, Vokal and Sigerson responded to the de facto tax increase caused by property valuation increases by demanding a tax cut. These two positions are entirely consistent. Vokal and Sigerson are in favor of using additional funding to curb violence in Omaha with additional police officers. They are not in favor of raising tax revenues through higher assessments just to pad city coffers. It is time for Landow and Fahey to quit playing politics and start doing something to keep our children from dying on the streets of Omaha.   Scott Knudsen, Omaha ------------------- It seems to me that when these councilmen sent a letter to Fahey back in December, they were putting the interests of the people of Omaha above their own political futures. When it became clear to the them that their suggestion to add more police to stifle a crime wave was rejected, they were free to move on to resolve another increasing problem: Douglas County Assessor Roger Morrissey's desire to increase taxable property valuations. As a voter, I prefer leadership that is sensitive to the changing landscape of the city, not oblivious to it.   Pete D. Pedersen, Omaha I always hate to see the opinion page littered with these faux-letters pre-manufactured by party hacks and signed with the names of loyal Republican footsoldiers. It's sort of amusing, however, how each of these three letters contains its own carefully-crafted message attempting to obscure Vokal and Sigerson's hypocrisy while turning the tables on Fahey and Landow for who's really "playing politics." Of course, in this little skirmish, the real question of who was "playing politics" begins and ends with who first tried to use this issue for their partisan advantage. Clearly, that was Vokal and Sigerson. They simply got out-played, despite the World-Herald giving them every possible advantage. The facts speak for themselves. Sadly, the World-Herald appears to be concerned very little with Letters to the Editors adhering to those facts, instead allowing fabrication by repetition on its own opinion page.

Go to full text...

Obama Says Democrats Must "Show Up" in Nebraska (to raise money?)

The Associated Press reports:

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett says it gets a little lonely sometimes being a Democrat in Nebraska.... But Buffett had plenty of company Wednesday night at an Omaha fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama....  

The total raised wasn't immediately available, but the minimum price to get in was $500 per person, and organizers estimated the crowd at about 200. About 40 of those people attended an earlier reception, and each donated at least $2,300.  

Obama said two Nebraskans - U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson and former Sen. Bob Kerrey - are proof that a Democrat can win in a historically red state. "We can elect Democrats here, but we've got to show up," Obama said.

Offering some further details, the Omaha World-Herald reported:

The Illinois senator was accompanied by his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters: 9-year-old Malia and a very sleepy 6-year-old Sasha. Attendees included some of Nebraska's top Democrats, including Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey, former Lt. Gov. Kim Robak, Omaha attorney James Martin Davis and State Sen. Steve Lathrop of Omaha.

Using the numbers provided, we're looking at Obama receiving somewhere around $172,000 from his Omaha fundraiser - not bad by Nebraska standards, but a drop-in-the-bucket where Buffett is concerned.

Buffett hasn't made any official endorsement of Obama and has also hosted a New York City fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton. But, it's great his legendary status as the Oracle of Omaha was at least enough to entice Obama to show up. And, this was not the first time Obama's appeared in Nebraska after holding a community rally in North Omaha and serving as keynote speaker at the Nebraska Democratic Party's Morrison-Exon Dinner in May 2006. Long time readers may even remember the NNN interview with Barack Obama from that event.

John Edwards also made a fundraising appearance in Omaha earlier this summer, while New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson spoke at a National Conference of the Young Democrats of America hosted by Nebraska Young Democrats in May. So, honestly - at least, more than in years past - Nebraska is seeing a little bit of love from the Democratic Presidential candidates.

Of course, they still don't seem to be very concerned with or aware of the presidential caucus being planned by Nebraska Democrats for Saturday, Februrary 9th, 2008. But no one knows quite how things will shape up in the 2008 primary. It does seem a long-shot, but these candidates might still come back to Nebraska - hopefully asking for our vote.

Go to full text...

Gun Violence in Omaha Spurs Calls for 24-Hour Surveillance

The Associated Press reports on the response to a proposal by Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey to install surveillance cameras in the city's high crime areas after a wave of shootings these last five weeks: Residents in areas where shootings have become common would accept the installation of more surveillance cameras as long as their privacy is respected, a city councilman says.  Mayor Mike Fahey made the camera proposal last week while announcing strategies to deal with a surge in violence that has seen 37 people shot, including two killed, since July 1. Councilman Frank Brown, who represents much of northeast Omaha, said feedback to Fahey's proposal has been mostly positive....  In addition to his surveillance proposal, Fahey wants increased staffing in the police gang unit and changes in city ordinances dealing with minors caught with guns.... State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha said Fahey's proposals are "knee-jerk reactions." Chambers said eliminating the source of guns, not adding cameras, is the best solution to the violence. "Until the source of guns is found, none of these plans or schemes will be a success," Chambers said. "If law enforcement agencies don't know where the guns are coming from, I suggest we make the kids the law enforcers because they certainly know where the guns are." Who's right - Brown/Fahey or Sen. Chambers? Of course, I don't foresee a whole lot of 16 year-old student deputies rising up to take back the streets like an army of Batman Juniors. Cameras definitely seem like the more reasonable alternative, even if Chambers is right to point out they're not much of a solution. There are some legitimate concerns about the infringement on civil liberties (especially in the post-9/11, Bush-Cheney Era), but I assume these cameras would go only in public places where one can't reasonably expect much of a right to privacy, let alone a right to shoot a fellow citizen. Besides, the city is going to have to replace its O! slogan sooner or later. I kind of like the idea of "Smile! Mayor Fahey Is Watching."

Go to full text...

Omaha: One City, Period.

Schools Controversy Highlights Nebraska's Political Shortcomings

I'll admit LB 641 was an imperfect and messy solution to a poorly defined problem. It's frustrating that compromise required the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy, and there's certainly no guarantee that the separate districts will keep their promises to cooperate in a way that minimizes redundancy and waste.

Actually, there's no guarantee that any of the provisions in this bill will do what they were intended to do and eliminate the shameful achievement gap between black and white, wealthy and impoverished. It's probably fair to characterize this law, as one recent letter to the editor did (OWH, 6/2/07), as a "social experiment with no basis for guaranteed success." There are no guarantees here. This is a gamble. But considering the magnitude of the problem and the absence of any solution offering "guaranteed success", a gamble was precisely what the doctor ordered.

The few alternatives the Legislature could seriously consider -either ignoring the problem entirely, or funding study after study while allowing more and more kids to fall through the cracks- were morally unacceptable. There is at least some hope that any serious overhaul of the status quo might produce the grassroots optimism, innovation and dedication necessary to make our schools work. But by embracing a bold and equitable plan to confront the issues of race and wealth, the Unicameral has given their bill a fantastic chance to succeed, and that is reason enough for our enthusiasm and praise.

But even if I thought these concerns were legitimate, they wouldn't explain the size and volume of 641's opposition. No, there is a bigger issue at work here, one that's more familiar and more universal to Nebraska politics in general. Let's take another look at those letters to the editor:

I moved to Gretna years ago to avoid the big-school problems of the Omaha Public Schools, and I dislike being dragged into it now. The schools in towns like Gretna or Springfield have nothing in common with OPS and shouldn't be a part of it. (OWH, 6/2/07)

The message the Legislature has sent to Sarpy County students is clear: Those who reside in a district that values education and produces high-achieving students will work hard and be rewarded by having funds seized from their district and given to districts that need it more. That concept is straight from Karl Marx: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Sarpy County needs to find a legal way to kill this awful plan or look into seceding from Nebraska. (OWH, 6/1/07)

Sound familiar? This is the "rugged individualism", the "my way, my money, my rights" attitude that has defined Nebraska politics to a greater extent than either conservatism or Republicanism.

The problem with this attitude, in part, is that I hesitate to even call it a problem. Frankly, it's endearing. It's the very quality that makes this state "home". And it's done a lot of good for politics on both a state and a national level, in both parties and in every decade.

Without this attitude and our subsequent identification with the loner and the iconoclast, we may never have produced figures like Democrat William Jennings Bryan or Republican George Norris, statesmen who played invaluable roles in the Progressive reforms of the early 20th century and the passage of the New Deal. And yes, if any solution should ever arise from this mess in Iraq, it may come in large part thanks to the efforts of current mavericks like Senators Hagel, Nelson and Kerrey, all of whom demonstrate a unique willingness not only to cross party lines, but to break them down.

But even when the lone wolf shows remarkable success at building consensus, he cannot by his very nature build a community. That is the nature of Nebraska: politically, culturally, at every level and in every corner of the state. LB 641 is an affront to that sense.

That's the only real gamble. Our schools will work for us when we work for each other. But, frankly, that's asking a lot. It's asking us to overcome history and inertia. To part with the very quality that makes this state home.

Is there some middle ground, some way we can build that sense of community while maintaining our individualistic identity? Maybe, but it starts with us recognizing the need for that same consensus building and risk taking in a realm outside our government.

It's not enough to just win elections. If it were, Omaha would be in far better shape than it is today. Policy can only do so much, it is we the people who must find that optimism, innovation and dedication necessary to make this city work. We must find it in ourselves. Our rugged, egotistical selves.

Go to full text...

LB 641: An Unlikely Mission Accomplished

On sale now (via Paging Power)

At the start of this legislative session I outlined my significant doubts that a Unicameral this inexperienced could successfully tackle an issue as laden with tripwires and land mines as the Omaha schools boundary dispute. I'm happy to admit I was wrong.

LB 641 confronts the two most urgent issues at hand -money and race- with courage, common sense and innovation. Inevitably, with so many different chefs seeking to put their individual stamp on this effort, the result is imperfect and a little messy. But the legislature kept their eye on the prize and managed a compromise that contained the best ideas of all proposals. I am especially fond of the "focus schools" concept (weird as it seems) - your best chance of combating institutionalized attitudes of ignorance and bias are the construction of communities small enough and cooperative enough to forge a new identity, an identity not tied to race or geography but to common need and interest.

There are many people to thank for this effort (which, while unproven, offers real promise and a rare opportunity for large-scale change), but give credit especially to Senator Chambers for forcing everyone back to the drawing board. I have been especially critical of his proposal to divide OPS along racial lines, but considering his strategic willingness to embrace compromise and surrender earlier demands of racial division, I have to wonder if this isn't exactly the result he intended all along.

What's that you say? Far-fetched? Inconceivable? Sure, but if any legislator invites such "cloak-and-dagger" fantasies it's the parliamentary giant from North O. I may not agree with Chambers' vision of what race relations in this nation could be or should be, but I have to admit his uncannily accurate sense of what they are. He understands this powder keg better than just about anyone, and at times he can be downright brilliant in the use of its explosive power for productive purposes.

After all, demolition is often the first step in construction.

So, my hats off to Chambers and the rest of the legislature for a job well done. And thanks also to the Governor and those Senators who supported LB 1024 for playing the necessary but unenviable role of "the stooge". Without your petty opportunism, this would have never been possible.

Go to full text...

Lee Terry Is An Irresponsible Twit

Paranoid Congressman Abandons Constituents; Passes the Buck to Ben Nelson on Omaha Earmark Requests

Two months ago, I wrote about Lee Terry's political stunt, playing games with essential federal funding for the city of Omaha to advance his self-serving partisan agenda. At that point, Terry had neglected to request any earmarks for his constituents using the silly excuse that he could not do so under newly-imposed ethics requirements by the Democratic Congress.

At the time, David Obey, the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, gave all representatives a one month extension to get any concerns addressed to the point that they could make requests with confidence of their ethical propriety. In that month, Terry's fellow super partisan stooge, Adrian Smith, decided to do what was best for his 3rd District constituents rather than continuing to play this partisan game with their best interests. Terry, however, was just stubborn, stupid, and self-centered enough to persist in this intelligence-insulting gambit jeopardizing a number of essential projects in Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District.

The Omaha World-Heard reports:

Earmarks are special provisions that individual members of Congress attach to spending bills to direct federal money to specific projects.

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Lincoln and Iowa Rep. Steve King, both Republicans, are among this year's earmark seekers. Rep. Adrian Smith, a rookie with barely four months on Capitol Hill, sought earmarks on behalf of Nebraska's sprawling 3rd Congressional District. But not Rep. Lee Terry.

The Omaha Republican said he was too worried about those ethics rules, which require lawmakers to certify that they have no financial interest in an earmark.

Terry said he was afraid that House Democrats might attempt to show that he stood to profit from one of the earmarks.

Terry has shown little hesitation in the past about seeking federal funding to finance city sewers, local university research and other projects.

This spring, The World-Herald examined two sets of earmarks by Terry and other Nebraska congressmen: to fund construction of an Interstate 80 interchange in rural Sarpy County and to subsidize an Omaha business, 21st Century Systems Inc., as it tries to develop computer software for the Defense Department.

Terry, who received campaign contributions from people wanting earmarks for those projects, vigorously defended his role in both instances.....

Democrats, who won control of Congress last year, instituted new ethics rules, including ones on earmarks....

Terry said others seem to be willing to take the risk of submitting requests, but he isn't. He said he needs to be above reproach because he previously spoke out in favor of reforming the earmarks process.

Terry also said there was considerable confusion over the rules. He said his staff was told informally by ethics committee staff members that an earmark to pay for sewer separation projects in Omaha could be interpreted as a financial interest for him, because it might affect property taxes on his Omaha house.

He also said the Democrats controlling the House seem driven to find violations of the policy: "This is truly the most vicious 'gotcha' atmosphere I've ever seen," Terry said.

Others described the new rules as simply an attempt to provide transparency in the process as well as guidance to congressmen.

The rules make it clear that there has to be a direct and foreseeable benefit to a congressman before there is a violation, said Brian Svoboda, a Washington attorney who primarily advises congressional Democrats on ethics rules.

"They were not intended to preclude members from doing anything to help their constituents through the appropriations process," Svoboda said. According to the rules, a financial interest would not include "remote, inconsequential or speculative interests."

The rules encourage lawmakers to seek advice from the ethics committee if they are worried that specific earmarks could represent a financial interest.

Terry previously released the list of earmarks he had planned to ask for, including $6 million for a project to separate waste and storm water sewers in older parts of Omaha.

Typically, only a fraction of the multimillion-dollar requests are awarded; the city has been receiving about $500,000 a year for sewer separation.

Still, losing a half-million dollars a year could stall the efforts, said Paul Landow, chief of staff to Mayor Mike Fahey. Landow said Terry has been supportive in getting that money before, and the city hopes Terry will reconsider ending his support....

Nebraskans can always hit up their senators, Democrat Ben Nelson and Republican Chuck Hagel. Nelson sits on the Appropriations Committee, which wields a great deal of influence over how federal funds are doled out.

"Lord Nelson will be their savior," Terry said. "'Just go talk to Ben' - that's what I'm telling them."

Nelson, who also owns a house in Omaha, submitted a request for the City of Omaha sewer separation money, said his chief of staff, Tim Becker. Nelson signs statements that say he has no financial interest in his earmark requests, Becker said.

A Hagel spokesman declined to comment, but Hagel previously has talked about how appropriations are the result of the state's entire delegation working together....

Becker, the Nelson aide, also cited the importance of having support from other members of the delegation. "Those projects that have support in both houses stand a better chance of getting funded," he said. "They're not going to give you what you don't ask for."

Lee Terry has just told the people of Omaha that he doesn't give a damn about their concerns. Driven by either paranoia or political ambition, he's given up any pretense of true representation. By adopting this new philosophy of "Go talk to Ben," Terry has completely turned his back on his own constituents, demonstrating a total lack of character and courage without any sense of responsibility or shame.

No one can say exactly what game Terry thinks he's playing. But, one thing is certain - he's screwing over the city of Omaha in the process. This is a man who just last year thought of himself as next in line to run for statewide office, yet who's now so scared of his own shadow and so conscious of his weak political position that he's gone from being a very poor representative to one who is absolutely pathetic.

A number of new nicknames for Terry quickly come to mind. Lee "Off Duty" Terry? Lee "Talk to Ben" Terry? How about Lee "Fire Me & Give Someone Else a Chance" Terry?

Seriously, Omaha couldn't do much worse than what they've got. That realization started to sink in last fall when insurgent Democratic challenger Jim Esch shocked Terry with the closest race of his career on a shoestring budget. Right now, Terry has just admitted that the Second District is without representation and doesn't have a voice in the House. Thanks to Terry's cowardice, all they have is Ben Nelson - a powerful ally who still can't possibly make up for Terry's incompetence.

Nebraska's Second District deserves so much better, despite the voters' repeated mistake sending this cowardly incompetent back to Congress. 2006 demonstrated that more and more people are waking to the need for change, and they'll have that chance again in 2008.

Ultimately, Omaha doesn't need to look to "Lord Nelson" to be its savior. By getting rid of Lee Terry, the voters can save themselves.

Go to full text...

Catching up

* Following up from my post on Friday, I'd like to thank the World Herald for their Sunday morning cover story about poverty in Omaha's black community. This is exactly the sort of discussion that should have to endure the 24/7 "Imus cycle": Why does Omaha, home of five Fortune 500 Companies, have the third highest rate of black poverty in the nation? Why does the 19th best city for business -the largest city in the 10th best state for business- have the highest rate of black children in poverty?

Fortunately, as the OWH also reports, there is no shortage of possible solutions: "A coordinated effort by government, schools and the business community...", "reduce the isolation of blacks...", "jobs", "homes", "public transportation", and of course, "education." But all of these efforts start with political will, and that will only come when the rest of us stop being satisfied with "cleaning the airwaves" and start tackling the real problems, the ones that can't be solved with a memo from a radio executive. The problem isn't on MSNBC, it's next door. It's in all of us.

But as I've said before, this problem is bigger even than public policy. I've asked why these problems persist in a business friendly state. Now I ask: why does the state with the second highest rate of volunteers have such a large and largely isolated community of impoverished blacks?

There's a statue, just inside Boy's Town, of a little boy on another kid's shoulders. The caption reads "He ain't heavy... he's my brother." Omaha needs more brother's keepers. We all need to invest in a community that is less segregated, less isolated, and richer in ways beyond any dollar amount. In that spirit, the OWH has a list of organizations that would love to have your time and money (and yes, this goes to the preacher as well as the choir).

* We can all breathe a sigh of relief: Adrian Smith has been to Iraq, and he assures us that "progress has been made".

* Harold Anderson is gunning for Hagel's Senate seat:

Don't overlook the possibility that U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel, the increasingly controversial Nebraska Republican, will face potentially strong opposition next May in the Republican primary....

I do not suggest that the following report of a recent conversation involving eight Nebraska Republicans approaches a comprehensive survey. But it was typical of almost all of the comments I have been hearing in recent day's when Hagel's name comes up. And it is coming up with increasing frequency.

The consensus of the conversation was strong dissapproval of the nature of Hagel's campaign of criticism over the way President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq.

I don't doubt the sincere possibility that Hagel could face a right-wing primary challenge next year. Sometimes this anecdotal evidence is ahead of the polls in revealing underlying vulnerabilities, and it isn't necessarily wise to dismiss a growing murmur just because it hasn't been recorded in a survey (then again, this is coming from the man who claims to get floods of e-mails begging to know what his wife and dog are up to).

I still think it's unlikely that a big name like Daub or Bruning (the two mentioned in Anderson's column) will get the ball rolling, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Dave Nabity out there waiting to take a swing at it (Speaking of which... why not Nabity? What's he been up to?).

As always, I can't provide a link to this column because the largest paper in the state won't put their opinion page online. Just saying.

Go to full text...

Race and Racism in Omaha

There are two stories about race on the front page of today's Omaha World Herald: one that's important and one that isn't. First off, Don Imus.

I'm trying to be professional about this story, but I just can't get past my first reaction, which is a sort of maddening, fuming indifference that wants to scream and point fingers but might be satisfied with a sermon or lecture so long as my "holier than thous" are on prominent display. Well, neither reaction is warranted. Imus' comments were inexcusable, but they weren't unforgivable.

They certainly weren't unforgettable. And the real subject of my anger, the real object of my sermon -not just the mass media, but the masses themselves, for driving this story and swelling those ratings- well, they deserve something less than my "Godawmightys", too. Then again, they deserve much more than another sideshow witch hunt masquerading as "racial dialogue".

I can understand the attraction of this story. Race is still a dominant issue in our lives, but we're so bottled up about it pretty much the only release we'll allow comes from those minor celebrities stupid enough and mean enough to say the wrong words at the wrong time. Well, we've got another head on the pike, what good'll it do us this time? Will it branch out into a larger discussion, not just about the them -the hip hop artists and the talk show hosts and the rednecks- but about the us, about all of us, about how we've fallen short of that ideal of Dr. King? That dream to live free of color, free of division... that one?

No, of course not. It didn't happen with Michael Richards, it didn't happen with Mel Gibson, it won't happen now. There are real problems with race relations in this country... are we seriously going to deal with them just as soon as we scrub the Earth clean of every shock jock, one by one?

Our task is too big and Imus is too small to matter. Let's start with OPS.

On the integration question, there are two proposals: the superintendent's plan, which offers priority to any student whose first choice of a school would help improve that school's socioeconomic integration (be they a poor student choosing to go to a wealthy school, or a middle class student who prefers a poorer school); and the Raikes plan, which would allow low income students their first choice of schools, even if it didn't improve that schools' diversity.

The superintendents claim the Raikes plan will only work to integrate middle-class schools, leaving poorer facilities far less diverse. They're right. But their plan won't work either.

The truth is that the voluntary integration OPS has relied on for decades is too little, too late for most students. There's some data considered in that sweeping statement, but for the most part I speak from experience alone. I was a "West O" student who attended a "North O" magnet school, Omaha North High, a fine and diverse school which is nonetheless quite segregated. Voluntarily segregated.

North attracted kids from out west with genuinely high quality academics, especially in the areas of computers and technology. Most of these recruits were serious students who bussed themselves halfway across town to take advantage of North's exciting honors classes. The majority of the neighborhood kids, like the majority of kids everywhere, elected instead to take the path of least resistance and filled up desks in the academic classes (some, like me, occupied a bit of both worlds).

The result was like squishing two schools right up next to each other: the West O's and the neighborhood kids, with some overlap but not quite enough. Not that there was racial conflict. Race was a dominant issue in our lives, but we kept ourselves pretty well bottled up (I remember that, as editor of the Commentary section of the school paper, the only thing the administration ever censored of ours was a political cartoon about the alleged racism of the school's security, a controversy quietly acknowledged by students and staff alike but never discussed in any productive way. Reminds of me news today that OPS condemned an article in Benson High School's Gazette that attempted to deal with student use of "the N word").

This isn't the fault of North, or OPS, or the Legislature. Not any of them alone. This is a problem that can't be solved by policy alone. But there are a few things we can do to help, so long as we're honest about the shortcomings of the status quo.

The first is an equitable distribution of the city's wealth, for which this "Learning community" seems an adequate solution. We could also do something about the "3,000 children, 3 or 4 years old," most of them from North Omaha, who "are either on waiting lists or otherwise not being served" by Head Start in Douglas County (OWH, 1/24/07). The lack of adequate funding for preschool and elementary education in North Omaha contributes significantly to the "black-white achievement gap", which is worse in Nebraska than many other states (you can play around with state by state comparisons here).

But this is an issue that's too big for the Unicameral and the superintendents. It's an issue that's way too big for Don Imus. It starts with letting some pressure out of that bottle, letting the students at Benson open up a real dialogue and encouraging their parents and neighbors to do the same. It starts, too, with an integration plan that will help convince some more "West O" students and their families to drive east of 72nd Street. It starts with us, with all of us, and a dream. Yes, that one.

Go to full text...

CommuNity ColumNist - Equality for Elkhorn

With Omaha's highly-publicized and somewhat controversial annexation of Elkhorn nearing its final resolution in the courts, there are still a lot of bad feelings about how the entire process was conducted.

People like rooting for an underdog and no one likes a bully. The idea of self-government is also so tied into the American character that Elkhorn had a lot to work with in demanding that its citizens have a say in Omaha's takeover of their city. As a matter of law, Omaha always had them beat, but - in the court of public opinion - Elkhorn might have found salvation and survival with a different strategy that played up its victimization rather than playing along in the annexation game that was always so clearly tilted in Omaha's favor.

In hindsight, Elkhorn's pre-emptive annexation was a bad idea. Hoping to force its population over 10,000 and to thereby gain protected status right under Omaha's nose, all they really managed to accomplish was to draw first blood, to become the bad guy, and to lose the public's goodwill.

Last month, unsurprisingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled entirely in Omaha's favor in the matter, not only on the cities' dueling annexation proposals but also on their respective compliance with the state's open-meetings laws. While there certainly appears to be some objectionable reasoning in the Supreme Court's opinion, the ultimate decision granting Omaha the right to annex Elkhorn without the consent of its citizens is a well-established peculiarity of our state statutes that the court seems to have relied upon as something of a foregone conclusion.

Elkhorn has promised to exhaust all their appeals, but those efforts are long-shots, to say the least. That leaves Elkhorn's last real appeal an emotional one. And, in that vein, the New Nebraska Network presents the argument of one of Elkhorn's Omahans-to-be, objecting to the supposed trampling of his and his fellow citizens' rights to self-government.

----------------------------------------

Thomas Fencl on
Equality for Elkhorn


Discrimination is alive and well in Nebraska.

The Nebraska Supreme Court was appointed to interpret the law, not rewrite it. In January of 2007 the court chose to replace both state and federal laws with what was convenient to them at the time. Their ruling, which appeared as a strain to re-apply and disregard past rulings and the state constitution, changed the overall scope of the trial to make Elkhorn, and any other smaller community with similar ideas of remaining independent, the “bad guy” and Omaha the Emerald City.

In what was depicted by the area news media as a David vs. Goliath scenario Omaha threatened Elkhorn with, according to the Nebraska voters, an illegal annexation. (In 1998 Nebraska voters passed an amendment to the constitution stating no merger or consolidation of two cities or counties could take place without a vote of the people according to the ballot) In an attempt to make themselves safe from annexation, Elkhorn expanded their city limits to the outlying unincorporated areas to increase their population beyond 10,000.

According to Nebraska law cities of 10,000 or more cannot be annexed without a vote of its citizens. By the state constitution and by the annexation laws already on the books Elkhorn would be double protected. Upon receiving information of Elkhorn’s actions Omaha scheduled a “hurry-up” public meeting to be held at ten o’clock in the evening.

Notice of the meeting went out only seven hours prior thus creating a violation of the open meetings law, which in turn, makes all decisions at that meeting null and void. Omaha city officials voted to file suit against Elkhorn to block their expansion and in turn expand their boundaries by 5 miles to annex Elkhorn.

At the same time, The Omaha World Herald, which works hand in hand with the City of Omaha to present a “positive image” began a biased assault on Elkhorn and their community leaders. Insulting cartoons, misleading and falsified maps, and slanted stories filled the pages of the World Herald. When Elkhorn asked for corrections they were denied. When Elkhorn asked for the right to rebut statements they were told no. Nevertheless, Elkhorn remained positive knowing in the end they had done everything legally and above board.

In January the 8,000 residents of Elkhorn, were shocked to learn the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected ALL of Elkhorn’s arguments. Many attorneys from across the state read the decision in disbelief. Others saw it as a complete destruction of the open meeting law leaving any public entity the ability to hold meetings whenever and wherever they would like.

Likewise, constitutional ballot issues decided by the voters are now only considered law when it is convenient. If they get in the way of a ruling they can be disregarded as a misinterpretation by the voters.

Finally, in their last statement it was said Elkhorn ceased to exist on March 24, 2005. That would make every traffic violation, every criminal offense, every fine paid and so on and so on open to severe scrutiny by a parade of criminal defense attorneys due to the fact that their clients were prosecuted by a city that didn’t exist.

What was the Supreme Court thinking? Do the political strings that are supposed to be nonexistent in our judicial branch have that much power over the people that were bestowed the responsibility to keep justice blind?

8,000 people had their voting rights, and their independence squashed into the pages of Nebraska law all for the City of Omaha’s unquenchable thirst for more power and more tax dollars.

Discrimination comes in many forms. When the hint of discrimination arises due to race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation the proverbial alarm bell rings loudly through the hills and valleys. But what happens when it’s a mostly white, mostly Christian, mostly middle class small community in Nebraska? Aren’t the voting rights of the residents of Elkhorn just as important as Jesse Jackson’s? According to federal law no person in Elkhorn stands higher than Jesse Jackson, Kim Gandy, Rosie O’Donnell, or Louis Farrakhan. But at the same time, according to that same federal law, none of those mentioned people stand higher than the ordinary citizen of Elkhorn.

Doesn’t our federal constitution afford EVERYONE the right to vote regardless?

Many years ago George Wallace, the governor of Alabama stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama and blocked African-American students from attending. Our federal government sent the National Guard to the University of Alabama to insure those students were guaranteed their right to the education of their choice. Will the Elkhorn citizens’ rights to vote and live independently be defended as vigorously as the rights of those students in Alabama?


Tom Fencl lives in Elkhorn, NE. He can be contacted at pubprint2@earthlink.net.

Go to full text...

"Make Room for Elkhorn" - Time to Expand the Omaha City Council

In October of 2005, a great idea was floated by Omaha Councilman Jim Suttle to add an additional representative to that seven-member body to compensate for the continued growth of the city, including it's then-planned annexation of neighboring Elkhorn.

From that idea, a wonderful discussion began on the UNO College Democrats' blog in which I (and others) praised Suttle for his visionary concern for good democracy - even at the expense of dilluting his own power on the city council. Yet, many of us were of the opinion that the addition of one more councilman invited and/or demanded the addition of a second, bringing the council to nine total members. This would not only maintain an odd-numbered council less likely to result in tie votes but also create a more representative body in which each member would still represent approximately 45,000 citizens.

Unfortunately, no action was taken on Suttle's proposal. 15 months later, though - with Omaha's annexation of Elkhorn finally receiving what seems the ultimate blessing of the courts just last week - this most worthy idea of expanding the City Council has again been raised.

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Now that Omaha has received the go-ahead from the Nebraska Supreme Court to annex Elkhorn, city officials must decide how Elkhorn's residents will be represented in city government.

The Omaha City Council has not finalized plans for how district boundaries would be redrawn to include Elkhorn. The leading proposal would split Elkhorn into two districts, said Council President Dan Welch....

Not everyone is happy with the idea of splitting Elkhorn into different council districts. State Sen. Dwite Pedersen, who represents Elkhorn, said he plans to introduce a bill in the Legislature next week to add two members to the Omaha council. His hope is that only one person would represent Elkhorn on the council....

"Elkhorn has always been unified, and I don't want to see the community sliced into two," Pedersen said. "I'm very concerned about representation, because the people of Elkhorn haven't had the opportunity to vote for those who will represent them on the council"....

The idea of adding two seats and creating a nine-member council was first initiated by Pedersen and Omaha Councilman Jim Suttle in late 2005. It received a lukewarm reception from other council members at the time.

Suttle said he would still support the measure, but not because he is concerned that Elkhorn would lack adequate representation under the city proposal.

Suttle said having smaller, similar-sized districts would help provide representation for minority populations. It also would give citizens a louder voice with their council representatives because they'd have fewer constituents, he said.

Welch said he is not convinced that adding council members is a good idea.

"I would prefer to keep the number where it is," Welch said. "It seems like the more people you have on a legislative body, less things get done."

If that's the best argument Welch can make, he really should keep his democracy-hating mouth shut.

At the end of the day, expanding Omaha's city council to nine representatives is an entirely reasonable idea that should be no detriment to that body's effectiveness beyond empowering the voters and giving the people a larger say. As seems to be the case of Welch and his fellow councilmen who opposed this plan originally, theirs is an almost unjustifiable position more about holding onto power for themselves than doing what's right for the city of Omaha and its newest citizens.

One more positive effect of expanding the city council is that it will, as explained by Suttle, encourage greater diversity. For what I believe has been the last six years, the council of Nebraska's most populous city has been entirely comprised of men. It's about damn time that Omaha women again have a voice in their city government as well.

Go to full text...

Sifting Through the OPS Mess

Cartoon courtesy of Neal Obermeyer, as published in the Omaha Reader

Interwoven in the overly-complicated story behind LB1024 are threads of the very worst elements of state politics: Omaha the bully, the rural/urban split, Governor Heineman's naked political opportunism, and the legislative dominance of a single man with a very backward sense of race relations. This is a bill composed of nothing but tripwires, and charged with sorting through it is one of the least experienced legislatures in state history.

Further complicating efforts for a workable compromise is the sheer magnitude of alternative proposals that have already been advanced in anticipation of the new legislative session. Top of the stack is the now months-old plan negotiated by the superintendents of affected districts, which seeks to maintain a semblance of status-quo by shifting the focus away from district boundaries/finances and towards closing the more abstract "achievement gap". Their plan (which has seemingly been cosponsored by the World Herald's News Bureau) offers a few proposals worthy of consideration, but it's foolish to expect equitable academic performance among metro-area schools without an equitable distribution of the city's wealth, and I find the superintendents' continued faith in "voluntary integration" dubious.

While this bill offers legislators -especially the 22 incoming freshmen who had nothing to do with the passage of 1024- a consensus solution that may allow them to sidestep the "Millard Forever!" and "I (Heart) OPS" landmines, there remains one big obstacle in the road: Senator Ernie Chambers.

There is not the slightest hint that Chambers is serious about passing his most recent proposal, which would merge OPS and District 66. By his own admission he is happy with 1024 as written and this proposal seems the opening shot in an upcoming campaign against any measure that doesn't offer Omaha's black community autonomy over their home district. Chambers' argument that Westside is "a white enclave" that should be considered unacceptable to opponents of his plan to create racially identifiable school districts has rhetorical merit, but his intention is clearly to clutter the debate and prevent other suggestions from overshadowing his own.

The only way forward is for legislators to ignore these attempts by Chambers and the superintendents alike to distract the public and change the terms of debate. There are two fundamental issues at play that must be confronted directly for any compromise to succeed. The first of these is money. The creation of a learning community that would pool resources from all metro area schools seems a perfectly reasonable solution to this problem, and there are hopeful signs in the superintendents' negotiations that they will begin to coordinate their efforts to a degree that will reduce administrative costs and minimize redundant operations.

The second issue that must be confronted is race. In this area Omaha has one of the saddest legacies of any city its size outside of the South. Witness the Race Riot of 1919 that resulted in the still prevalent segregation between white "West O" and black "North O". Witness the nightriders who terrified and intimidated the family of a young Malcolm X. And witness the documentary "A Time for Burning", which chronicled the failure of a young Lutheran minister to integrate his Omaha church and, incidentally, launched the political career of a bright young barber named Ernie Chambers.

Today on the intersection of 24th and Lake there is a simple but beautiful memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King and a dream of his that is yet unrealized, in this city or elsewhere. LB 1024 represents an abandonment of that dream. It is intended to move race relations backward, not forward. It is underlined by Senator Chambers' sincere belief that the white man will never care about the needs or the welfare of the black man, that everyone therefore is better off just looking out for their own.

I believe he is wrong, but I will give him credit for calling the state's bluff. The schools, as currently organized, are not serving Omaha's black community. If we are serious about moving race relations forward -moving beyond our troubled past and answering the problems that still plague us today- then we need to put our money where our mouths are. Or where our heart is. If we can't do that, if we can't commit ourselves to that cause, then we might as well just tear down that monument on Lake Street and start all over again.

Go to full text...