Today, some 57 years later, the murder of a  family in a rural area would barely make the front page. Mass murders such as the recent horrific event  in Lewiston, Maine are now commonplace in schools, recreational facilities and retail establishments.

Within the past week, just prior to the Lewiston tragedy,  a judge was gunned down by a father whose custody rights the judge had limited.  The circumstances surrounding these events  and scores of other mass murders illustrate our collective vulnerability due to the  superior status many still insist is provided by the Second Amendment.

As these murders continue, time after time the public offers “thoughts and prayers” to families of the victims and mourns the senseless killings of children and adults who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  In the meantime, a feckless Congress struggles for weeks to elect a Speaker because many remain beholden to the lingering shadow of an indicted former president fined $10,000 last week by a judge  for refusing to keep his mouth shut.

In reality, we are all still held hostage by a government unwilling to face the grim reality that citizens have no reason to possess these weapons of mass destruction. Gun control remains the third rail for too many elected officials who still maintain the right to possess them is as sacred as it was when enacted to protect the militia during the Revolution.

In 1919, following World War I, the United States was besieged by a national crisis of widespread intoxication and domestic violence. Both the House and the Senate concluded that a moratorium on alcohol consumption could reduce the number of incidents. As a result, Prohibition, the 18th Amendment, was enacted, to substantially restrict the consumption of alcohol.  Although repealed in 1931, Prohibition succeeded in reducing alcohol related domestic violence during the period and thereafter.

A similar legislative enactment is needed in 2023 since we are all hostages staring down the barrel of the next assault rifle that could murder any of us or our families. Lewiston, Maine is just the latest location that underscores that vulnerability.

Each day,  we continue to read the shocking details of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Ironically, the refusal of Congress to pass any meaningful gun control legislation makes us hostages in our own country, endangered by  the tactics of unpredictable and unstable individuals still entitled to possess assault weapons.

Unless and until preventive actions are taken concerning their possession, we will probably see many sequels to “In Cold Blood.”

Thoughts and prayers have limits.

Steven Kramer was an assistant attorney general under Massachusetts Attorney General Frank Bellotti from 1980 to ’87.

It is not unusual for those who confer a benefit or provide a charitable act to prefer and even seek recognition for their good deed.

Then there are those who are the perpetual givers – and stay below the radar screen. Their satisfaction comes from within and as long as those in need receive needed help and support, these providers are satisfied.

Tim Wakefield would never have made it as an character on “Seinfeld.” He would have bought the salad, dressing and even the croutons and given it to the hungry recipient then slipped out the side door. And then, more than likely, he would have checked the next day to see if the dressing was the right kind.

Too many athletes receive hero worship regardless of whether they donate any spare time for those less fortunate. Then there are those that as a function of their celebrity, assist others on occasion and usually have a presentation ceremony in promotion of their generosity.

Then there are the few – like Tim Wakefield – who silently went about his charitable efforts with little or no fanfare and the only relevant factor was whether a few sick kids had a better day.  It didn’t matter to Wakefield whether anyone knew he bought the lettuce, the tomatoes, the peppers, onions or dressing. He just wanted to make sure that those who needed a “salad” – got one.  He gave a lot of “salads”  to  many little kids, made them smile and never asked for a photo-op for  his contribution.

Wakefield’s number should be retired for the Red Sox next spring.  His legacy should remain a permanent part of Fenway.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

In February 2017, when the Patriots were trailing Atlanta 28-3 in the Super Bowl, Brady went up and down the sidelines, screaming encouragement and firing up his teammates. Many fans  who had been watching on television had already given up due to such a large deficit. Not Brady.

Over the next quarter, Brady sacked Atlanta like General William Tecumseh Sherman did  for the Union  in 1864 and his leadership that day set an example that still sticks.

“Never Give Up.”

A card was given to those who attended the rain-soaked tribute Sunday at Gillette Stadium. It included personal records Brady accomplished over his career. The list goes on an on. He was not the fastest quarterback, nor did he have the best arm of many of his predecessors. Brady’s success centered on an unparalleled determination not to lose which surpassed that of everyone else.

The Patriots’  comeback from a 28-3 deficit against Atlanta in February 2017 to win 34-28 truly was the signature moment in his storybook career. It  provided millions of kids and others with a prime example why they should never give up.

The lesson transcends football.

The final tribute at Sunday’s ceremony was the playing of Bon Jovi’s “Who Says You Can’t Go Home.” It was a fitting song to welcome Brady back to Foxboro. The work ethic he demonstrated for his entire career is the lesson that he has driven home. It is his most valuable legacy.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

The NBA began its “Final Four” championship pursuit this week with the Celtics a prime contender. Having survived prior series with tough opponents, players have even more at stake as the competition for a championship is heightened in the semi finals and the finals. Each basket and foul become even more important as competition becomes even more intense.

Currently, when a foul is called, rarely is it not followed by a visible and vocal adverse reaction by the culprit and his coach.  Players react with wide-eyed wonder, arms flailing and verbal denials . The coach stalks the referee back and forth and often the game is delayed by a challenge involving a midcourt meeting of the referees and a conference with the NBA Replay  Center.  The game is delayed and fans join in with the verbal taunts of the referees.

In contrast, for those of us who played competitive basketball growing up, there was one gesture, and one gesture alone,  permitted by a player against whom a  a foul was called . The player was instructed to raise a hand to enable the official scorer to identify who committed the foul and how many had been assessed.  Any other gesture was prohibited.

As the NBA final rounds continue, Commissioner Adam Silver would be well advised to address the issue and instruct players and coaches to minimize their antics and complaints after a foul is called against them.

NBA players are role models for young athletes and the example they currently set when constantly questioning fouls is regrettable to say the least. If professional baseball can toss a player for questioning a called third strike, it is about time that the NBA instituted a code of conduct that allows referees to issue a warning for whiners, followed by ejection when their antics continue. As it stands now,  NBA players are inspiring young athletes to be talented crybabies.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

However, due to the polarized climate in local, state and national government, municipalities have found it increasingly difficult to attract qualified individuals to serve, especially on boards and committees which interact directly with citizens.

Many towns have now adopted either oral or written rules of conduct and civility for participation in public meetings. The town of Southboro has adopted a policy and one particular paragraph reads as follows:

“All remarks and dialogue in public meetings must be respectful and courteous, free of rude, personal or slanderous remarks. Inappropriate language and/or shouting will not be tolerated”.

I served for eight years, two as chairman, on the Medfield School Committee.  Each meeting had a “public participation” agenda item when citizens could ask questions, comment or give opinions.  Courtesy was self -imposed on our members and on citizen participants. There were disagreements, but exchanges were not to be disagreeable. During my tenure, we debated and passed a multi -million dollar school renovation project and many controversial  school policies.  Requiring civility was a policy that ensured productive results and exchanges in meetings.

A compelling state interest exists in the promotion of substantive and productive interaction between local government officials and the public. Free speech by citizens is required but strict scrutiny of how it is exercised is crucial to allow community governmental leaders to fulfill their duties.

In the recent case of Barron v. Kolenda, SJC No. 13284, the Supreme Judicial Court nullified a municipal civility code of conduct  for public meetings due to free speech restrictions.

The case involved a confrontation between a selectman in the Town of Southboro and a citizen, who alleged that her freedom of speech was violated by a civility code enacted to maintain decorum in public meetings. The Court unanimously held that citizens’ rights to choose their own words to express an opinion under the state constitution nullifies the provision passed by the Town to ensure civil discourse. Several quotations from the decision are as follows:

“Although civility, of course, is to be encouraged, it cannot be required regarding the content of what may be said in a public comment session of a governmental meeting…”

“The content sought to be prohibited – discourteous, rude, disrespectful or personal speech about governmental officials and government actions – is clearly protected by Article 19, and thus the prohibition is impermissible”

“In this country, we have never concluded that there is a compelling need to mandate that political discourse with those with whom we strongly disagree be courteous and respectful. Rather, we have concluded that political speech must remain “uninhibited, robust and wide-open”.(citing court precedents)

The crucial question is whether reasonable limits can be imposed upon the words spoken by citizens at a public meeting.

The Supreme Judicial Court, in Barron, extended the free speech protection well beyond any reasonable protection that must be afforded by the state constitution   – and, in doing so,  rejected the town’s compelling interest in maintaining civility at the meetings.

The Plaintiff began her public comments in a Southboro selectmen’s meeting by stating that the town ”had been spending like drunken sailors”. Next was an exchange where she compared the board chairman to Hitler by saying, “You’re a Hitler… I can say what I want”. The meeting then went into recess. The Board chairman told the woman that her comments were “disgusting.”

In its decision, the Court stated that the citizen’s comparison of the board chairman to Hitler was simply “ hyperbole used to describe the chairman as behaving in a dictatorial manner…and although a comparison to Hitler is certainly rude and insulting, it is still speech protected….”

In other words, when a volunteer public official is called “Hitler,” his initial reaction and obligation must be to honor the speaker’s  constitutional right to make the comparison.

I can honestly say that during my eight-year tenure as a Medfield School Committee member,  if  a participating citizen had called me Hitler and my initial duty was legally declared to be the protection of the person’s First Amendment right to make the accusation, that would have ended my term of service.

Ironically, although court hearings are not public meetings, per se, they are public in nature. Advocates often address public interest issues and there can be heated exchanges. Nevertheless, when they appear before a judicial tribunal, Rule 3.4 of the Professional Rules of conduct requires advocates to refrain from “abusive or obstreperous conduct,” when presenting their cause and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness rather than “belligerence or theatrics.”

Southboro, and other communities, simply seek to incorporate civility in  governmental public meetings. There is, and always will be, a constitutional mandate to protect First Amendment rights. However,  strict scrutiny of that right should  make the choice of words subject to the compelling interest of a community to have civil public meetings  so qualified citizens  will still participate in the process. Hopefully, the Town of Southboro will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. There is a reasonable chance that the Court would overturn the SJC decision and rule that in official public meetings of a government entity, there is a compelling  interest in allowing a code of civility to be imposed  upon participants’ choice of  words, not their ideas.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

After four years of Donald Trump’s negativity and cynicism that widened the enormous divide between the parties, Clyburn knew, more than anything else, that the country needed a congenial healer with sufficient character to restore some civility and decency in the White House. Though Biden may not have been the most substantively qualified candidate, he would be a  leader who could restore respect and collegiality to the presidency and provide an antidote to Trump’s divisive and hateful approach.

Clyburn threw his support behind Biden, whose recent State of the Union speech proved that he backed the right man at the right time. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Biden’s initiatives or accomplishments, his State of the Union speech confirmed that a decent, caring leader now occupies the White House. He provides the antidote to the venomous approach by Trump before, during and after his tenure.

In many speeches on many occasions, Biden has demonstrated the capacity to be a uniter, not a divider – in values, whether or not in substance. He has a proven track record of cooperation with Republicans, best exemplified by his close relationship with the late Senator John McCain, and an overall capacity for  worthwhile discussions with the other side of the aisle.

Independent of partisan issues, it would be difficult for most Republicans, except perhaps Marjorie Taylor Greene, to maintain that listening to Biden’s State of the Union was less patriotic than enduring the bombastic rhetoric of Donald Trump.  They, too, should privately thank James Clyburn for returning some class and character to the White House.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

Ironically, the latest hostage crisis is not an international incident but domestic. It is also happening with considerable media attention within the House of Representatives in Washington.

The crisis began well before the recent 15-round split decision which approved Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House. To obtain the requisite support, McCarthy agreed to change House rules and appoint several extremist colleague supporters to prominent committee assignments. By virtue of their support, Kevin McCarthy became their “Charlie McCarthy” as they have made him their puppet. They demanded and received committee assignments that will give them a bully pulpit to continue to spew venom into the legislative process.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert were appointed to the House Oversight Committee. They vow to investigate the investigations of past investigators.  As for the House Judiciary Committee, one can only hope that opposites will attract when Chairman Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz screen potential jurists.  Further, George Santos, who was rewarded for supporting McCarthy, will continue to resemble a panelist in “What’s My Line” and will take a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Speaker McCarthy will also remain beholden to supporters from the Donald Trump MAGA constituency as they still have a stranglehold on a significant percentage of the Republican party.

McCarthy will remain beholden to these folks who seek to remake the Bill of Rights. He will remain their hostage and puppet rather than emerge as a leader seeking to restore bipartisan government and principles to the country.

This hostage crisis will probably last until at least  the election in 2024.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

This weekend, however, a notable exception to that rule, passed away. Barbara Walters’ notoriety and accomplishments transcended gender lines. She died at 93 years old.

In the 1960’s, Barbara Walters began her media career and she eventually evolved into a newscaster, anchor, interviewer and dominant figure on the “View.” Her pleasant, but incisive, take-no-prisoners questioning became famous with many who refused to speak to others.

Richard Nixon, Monica Lewinsky, Muammar Gaddafi, Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin, Fidel Castro, Audrey Hepburn and many others agreed to be interviewed by her. She never gave up pursuit of interviews with controversial figures and eventually many agreed although they knew she would not lob them softball questions.

Equally as important, through the years, Walters helped to shatter the glass ceiling for women in the media.  Although early positions required her to accept secondary roles with male co-anchors, she persisted, carved her own niche, and eventually left many male commentators in the dust.

Gilda Radner’s imitation of her style on “Saturday Night Live” occurred during the pinnacle of her career as a newscaster – for some, a sure sign of success.

It is hard to imagine that neither 20/20, nor occasional news specials will no longer include participation by this icon of the media for half a century.  And, for women who seek to improve their stature in a field still predominantly dominated by men, Walters will remain a pioneer.   The level of admiration for her was demonstrated by fellow participants and others who honored her on The View when she retired in 2014.

In fact, Walters’ persistence and success made her a role model for both men and women in the media. Her influence for women, however, is perhaps symbolically described by Lady Gaga in her recent hit song, “Hold My Hand”.  Walters’ hand and guidance, by example, will be extended to those seeking media careers long after she is gone.

Democracy supposedly includes a reflection of the majority will as to what laws, statutes and policies will be advanced in the country. If that is the case, why should one state become the potential bellwether of  national preference for candidates for higher office? If the nominee  who eventually prevails will  someday represent the whole country, why shouldn’t the first primary include  a regional cross section of New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa, Oregon and New Mexico  or some similar combination? Instead, candidates flock to one state as their potential launching pad  and debates focus on  the preference of that limited constituency. Whether it be too liberal, too conservative  or have a limited minority population, the priorities of one state  shouldn’t  dominate the political stage  and  political  contributions shouldn’t flood into that area as the kickoff for a national campaign.

Th “either or” mentality of conducting the initial primary in either New Hampshire to South Carolina misses the point. Whether it be for Republicans or Democrats,  the  voters of  one  state should not be given a  proxy to be the soul of their party  and dictate the candidates priorities for upcoming contests. Initial debates should focus  on a combination of regional and national issues, and the political dialogue between candidates should  reflect the needs and wishes of the voters in the country, not one state. If the successful candidate will eventually represent the entire country, why not hear his or her views about national versus one state’s priorities? Why isn’t it that way already? Politics.

If the winds of change of democracy are  truly in the air, a multiple initial state primary might be a good idea to toss into the mix.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

But late Tuesday evening, a couple of national commentators  suggested that Ryan had delivered a noteworthy concession speech after his loss to J.D. Vance. So, although mesmerized by the brilliant network analysts predicting which counties in which states would likely vote blue or red, I switched to Ryan’s concession remarks.

There have been many famous speeches in the nation’s history by politicians following victories or losses or at  times of national tragedy.  But few politicians have delivered  a more timely, compelling or gracious message than  Ryan in his remarks.  He spoke of the privilege of competing , losing and conceding  in an election. Ryan emphasized the duty to concede is unwavering  when a candidate is unsuccessful. He warned of the dangers faced by the nation and future generations if the lack of decency and civility that has enveloped the country isn’t eradicated.  Ryan stated that the highest  office  with the most important duties is not  president, senator or other elected official – it is citizen. Thanking the everyman crowd that supported him in the election, Ryan simply hit all the right buttons in a speech that should be replayed in the Senate and House Chambers. The speech will not receive the notoriety of the Gettysburg Address, nor provide memorable quotations like the Inaugural address of President Kennedy. But Ryan told it like it is, respectfully, and with a heartfelt message that provides a challenge not only to elected officials, but to the electorate:

“It is time to clean up our collective acts.”

In a real sense, Tim Ryan’s concession speech gave the state of the union.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

A plethora of ads for candidates and ballot questions has dominated the airwaves. Invariably, the ads have followed a similar pattern over the course of the campaign.

The initial candidate ads are respectful with background information describing their longstanding commitment and accomplishments on important issues.  Subsequently, the ads become a general rejection of their opponent’s policies and qualifications. Then, the spots ramp up personal attacks that all but suggest incarceration for their opponent. The campaign attack ads seem based upon the old Clairol line, “the closer you get the WORSE they look.” Finally, by the end of the campaign, the ads only include reasons not to support an opponent rather than arguments supporting the candidate him or herself.

The venom and frequency of current ads always turn the contests into political mud wrestling. More importantly, a circular on ballot questions received by registered voters is their only objective means of deciding which candidate is the lesser of two evils.

What is and remains lacking are formal oversight bipartisan panels assigned to evaluate the substance and civility of all political television ads. The panel would review all ads and issue a “grade” that would appear at the end of each ad. The grade would assist voters in determining the credibility of the ad. There would be no prior restraint or First Amendment violation. The process would simply ensure that voters had a reasonable means to evaluate candidates better than the character assassination snippets and inevitable mud-wrestling.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

Unfortunately, no similar federal opportunity exists for citizens  to seek national reforms.  If such an opportunity were available, one law would undoubtedly be championed by a bipartisan coalition of Democrats and Republicans. The law can be summarized in two words and most Americans have lamented its absence for years.

Term Limits.

Life tenure is purportedly only given to federal judges. However, many current members of Congress seem to have held office since the founders passed the Constitution.  Through the power of incumbency and the capacity to raise millions of dollars directly and through PAC funds, many senators and representatives seem to have squatters’ rights to their elective positions in Washington.

Despite the public outcry for a change in the system, there is one prohibitive roadblock that prevents term limits.  Similar to tenants who don’t seek to evict themselves, elected officials, now less willing than ever to put principle over self interest, have no interest in promoting a law that would limit their tenure in office. Absent such an initiative, the chances of such a change are minimal.

A simple change could incorporate the following:

Representatives’ terms could be expanded to four years and their tenure limited to three terms or 12 years. Senators’ tenure could also be limited to 12 years or two six -year terms. After sitting out a term, the official could seek to return to elective office.

Many elected officials admit that they spend two hours each day as panhandlers on the phone seeking contributions. Representatives have little choice but to begin immediately after an election based upon their two year terms . The system, as is, turns the process into a Dialing for Dollars TV show.

The solution requires a sufficient number of elected officials to put principle over self interest and propose term limits – or adopt a federal legislative vehicle for a national citizens’ initiative .

Don’t hold your breath.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

Many viewers of Burns’ presentation undoubtedly lost family in the Holocaust, and still recall the evil of the Nazi regime, either personally or passed down from older generations.

The younger generation, however, now includes those whose lives are far removed from the Holocaust. They need to be taught about the evolution of Hitler’s evil that included eugenics concepts embraced by many in this country. The current U.S. history curriculum, however, often describes the Holocaust as a statistical footnote to World War II.

Inclusion of Burns’ documentary in a school curriculum would provide a meaningful lesson in human vulnerability to acquiesce to such widespread horror and tragedy. Its historical accuracy and compelling imagery provide a sobering reminder that under the right circumstances, any country can turn its back on atrocities and human suffering. It provides a valuable history lesson as opposed to the whitewashed versions that often ignore Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh’s complicity in Hitler’s rise to power and simply label them as a famous car manufacturer and a pilot.

Historical events are typically de-emphasized as they become more distant. Burns’ series provides a timeless lesson in the human dynamic that propaganda can cause a vulnerable population to support a regime that ultimately ignores all sense of human decency. His documentary forces U.S. citizens to look at ourselves by providing a historical prism and evaluation of the American policies in place during the Holocaust. It would provide an invaluable lesson for the generation that only sees the Holocaust as a sad time gone by.

Steven Kramer was an assistant attorney general under Massachusetts Attorney General Frank Bellotti from 1980 to ’87.

When I was a law student, several of my classmates were brilliant. They received the highest grades, wrote the most incisive legal briefs, and many went on to judicial clerkships, prestigious law firms and even judicial appointments of their own. For a few, however, despite their intellectual superiority, there often seemed to be one quality missing — common sense.

Common sense is lacking in the decision to overturn Roe v Wade.

The concept of federalism has dominated governmental policy since the Founders drafted the Constitution. A long-standing tension exists between state control and that entrusted to the federal government. Traditionally, states retain jurisdiction over issues such as licensing, age eligibility and topics where some geographic factors warrant more local control. The division exists between federal and state legislative control unless certain rights are protected by the Constitution, which makes them applicable everywhere.

When Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, et al. were drafting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,  abortion and many other rights were not considered in the laws. Eventually, in 1973, the right to abortion was found as part of a woman’s right to privacy in Roe. Since then, Republican and Democratic appointed justices have upheld Roe v. Wade and the legitimacy of protecting the right to an abortion.

Common sense dictated that this Court should do the same.

Apparently, however, the majority of justices has determined that women’s burdens and benefits in reproduction and risks inherent in unwanted pregnancies are matters that do not deserve uniform protection. The justices concluded that Texas, Missouri, California and others should have the authority to separately conclude when and if abortion should be permissible.

Their conclusion defies logic.

The Supreme Court has essentially cast women’s reproductive fate to the political winds of the states. As such, common sense has not been included in their 200-page treatise.

It is a barbaric decision. To paraphrase Stevie Wonder in “Ebony and Ivory,” “we all know that (women) are the same wherever (they) go.” Regardless, the Court now concludes that they must become the equivalent of a human safe deposit box from the moment of conception to be regulated by the states.

To reach their conclusion, the justices reviewed hundreds of cases, statutes and rules to patch together their argument. Perhaps they would be well advised to jointly view the “Cider House Rules” film in which a young black girl is impregnated by her father.

Federal legislation or a Constitutional amendment may be needed to alter the result of the Court’s decision.

In sum, if I were provided the opportunity to address the court  on this issue, it would be as follows:

“May it please the Court — shame on you.”

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

His remarks were the subject of an editorial titled “Political Risks, Political Power,” which quoted Bellotti’s convention speech and complimented his classy departure and political leadership during his tenure.

“Political leadership,” Bellotti said, “does not derive from a negotiated agenda, nor from managerial strategies, nor from articulating the perceived public will. True leaders consider the human element in making decisions and never forget that the purpose of government is to respond to human need.”

Bellotti, who turns 99 this week, spoke those words 36 years ago, and warned that, “It is not power that corrupts, it is the fear of losing power.”

During Bellotti’s tenure as attorney general, he transformed the state Department of the Attorney General from a State House part-time law office into a formidable public interest firm in One Ashburton Place. It became a model for other AG offices throughout the country. His alumni include former and present justices, cabinet leaders and many renowned private practitioners.

His former staffers were required to hold themselves to the same high standards that Bellotti demanded of himself. Many were reformers who sought to achieve from the inside what was not possible in the private sector. His public interest law firm worked tirelessly to both utilize and propose laws to protect the little guy against the big guy — the needy against the greedy. Ironically, one such successful effort was in 1979 when, as attorney general, he challenged the Massachusetts statute that forbade abortions for minors absent parental consent. In Bellotti v. Baird, Justice Stevens struck down the requirement in an 8-1 Supreme Court decision.

Bellotti was further quoted on leadership in his 1986 address: “Genuine political leaders refuse to sacrifice their judgment to public opinion and take political risks, including the risk of losing political power.”

As he celebrates his 99th birthday, political power is only a distant memory for Bellotti. However, those of us who were fortunate enough to work for him learned about political courage and leadership from a master. A birthday candle should be lit on his cake to commemorate the flame that Bellotti lit under more than a generation.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

The hostage crisis of November 1979 involved the detainment of 52 United States diplomats and personnel in Iran, which continued for 444 days until Jan. 20, 1981. The primary impetus was U.S. support of Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. This resentment of U.S. policy was opposed by our labeling the hostage-taking as terrorism and blackmail.

The current Ukrainian crisis is a hostage crisis of much greater proportion. The hostages are not a group of diplomats and citizens, but rather the entire Ukrainian population, all NATO countries and the entire world, which abhors the invasion and sympathizes with the plight of its population forced to flee the country. Russian President Vladimir Putin, invoking his ready access to nuclear weapons, is holding the West, Ukraine and his own people hostage due to their collective fear that he will utilize the weapons to achieve his goal — the restoration of the former Soviet Union.

Having acquired a fortune of his own, he scoffs at economic sanctions, maintains that he IS the government, and exercises unilateral authority to reinstate the Soviet Union’s prior boundaries. The human interests of his own Russian population are secondary to the re-establishment of the former geographic empire. As for the economic and overall well-being of Russian citizens is concerned, Putin has adopted the Marie Antoinette approach, “Let them eat cake.”

This scenario calls into question the extent to which any economic sanctions can stop the brutality and destruction of property and democratic independence of Ukraine. By the time economic sanctions achieve measurable consequences, the country will have been reduced to a Russian-dominated wasteland.

This scenario differs significantly from former Soviet Union Premier Nikita Khruschev’s attempt to install nuclear missiles in Cuba in October 1962. President John F. Kennedy’s naval blockade worked but there was some quid pro quo since our own missiles were installed in Turkey and the unsuccessful U.S.-led Bay of Pigs invasion forced his hand. This differs from Putin’s unilateral geographic fixation seeking to reverse what former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev and his own country agreed to in 1991. Putin is playing his own high-stakes single poker game by holding hostage the entire world simply by his nuclear threat, which he has now shown the willingness to invoke by callous attacks at nuclear facilities.

Human life in the Ukraine and his own country is Putin’s currency to secure and regain geography using nuclear capital. The current situation and turmoil more than likely will have to be stopped by his own leaders and the Russian population. As Sting said many years ago in a song that was pertinent then and now, “I hope the Russians love their children too.”

Former President Donald Trump remains an admirer of Putin, one of his principal allies between 2016 and 2020. When he hosted a famous press conference with Putin and was asked if Russia had interfered with the 2016 election, Trump never hesitated to say, “No, because he told me and I believe him.”

Perhaps Putin also assured Trump that he would never invade an independent Ukraine and wanted to maintain peace in the region and with the West. Trump probably believed that, too.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

During his years at the orphanage, Wells becomes the trusted assistant for Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine), a physician who not only oversees the institution but also provides abortions for young women with unwanted pregnancies, too scared or financially incapable of securing one elsewhere.

Wells’ experience working with Larch becomes invaluable at the cider house when a young woman, impregnated by her own father, needs an abortion to preserve any chance for a normal life.

The young woman’s mental and physical trauma, combined with the potentially tragic circumstances she would face, are not dissimilar to horrific experiences endured by many young women today all over the country .

Regardless, a majority of Supreme Court justices are poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow each state to decide when and if abortions can be performed. Rather than preserve the uniform pro-choice policy of Roe, the Court is prepared to defer abortion eligibility to state politicians whose current policies too often simply rubber stamp their constituents’ reactionary preferences. Although the Court has declared that federal legislation is preferable, the chances of bipartisan congressional action on abortion are as likely as Super Bowl opponents deciding in advance which team should win.

Many on the Court still harken to originalist constitutional interpretation on the abortion issue. They are convinced that the pro-life vs. pro-choice controversy should reflect the founders’ intention that such issues should be deferred to the states. Texas and Mississippi have already enacted unduly restrictive abortion laws and the Court seems intent on upholding their right to do so and that of others that will soon enact laws with similar restrictions.

Most, if not all, of the justices grew up in privileged environments and were rarely, if ever, exposed to “Cider House” type incidents of incest or rape. In the event that one of their contemporaries needed an abortion, professionals were available to terminate the pregnancy.

Before it’s too late, the Supreme Court needs to realize that Roe must be preserved to protect women from trauma similar to that faced by the young girl in “The Cider House Rules.”

Protecting a woman’s pro-choice right needs to become a primary, not secondary focus for the Court. Their decisions on this issue should not be held hostage by an antiquated originalist interpretation of the Constitution —  drafted to provide a foundation for the government, not determine women’s reproductive rights, nearly 250 years ago.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

No one wants to extend our prior inconveniences. However, medical experts declare that it is best to wear a mask in designated sites, get a booster shot when available and limit the size of gatherings. Many politicians and citizens maintain that these requirements infringe on our freedom and liberty.

Give me a break.

In less than two weeks we will celebrate Labor Day and commemorate those who insisted on a humane and safe workplace. In November, Veterans’ Day will honor those whose sacrifices preserved a country that ensures health care for all.

Today, however, when the most highly qualified medical research personnel in the world recommend vaccines and masks, a large segment of elected officials, scared of their own political shadow, equate non-compliance  with an exercise of freedom. They suggest that citizens have a fundamental right to refuse vaccination and wearing a mask.

Adhering to this self-centered philosophy does not embrace freedom — it transforms it into a selfish, individual concept that jeopardizes our collective well-being.

Perhaps appropriate legislative enactments would read as follows:

“For those who receive vaccination and wear masks when recommended to do so, activities can be pursued with minor limitations. Those who totally refuse to wear a mask or receive vaccination, absent certified medical grounds, must stay in their homes.”

Make sense?

Many World War I veterans wanted masks but didn’t have them and died of mustard gas. Many World War II veterans died of malaria in the Pacific since they lacked a vaccine to protect them. We now have access to masks and vaccines, a deadly virus that has killed several hundred thousand Americans and a large segment of the population refuses both — thereby endangering their own lives and those of others.

Those who refuse masks and vaccination should go to a National Military Cemetery and tell the veterans buried there of the infringement on their freedom imposed by masks and vaccines.

Steve Kramer is an attorney and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

What should be done? What reasonable policy can eliminate the endless community disagreements about Native American nicknames that should be discussions on more compelling issues? The issue is not limited to schools and their logos, as millions of dollars are at stake in collegiate athletics and numerous professional sports franchises with longstanding Native American nicknames such as Braves, Indians, Seminoles and many others.

The answer is simple, and it simply reflects common sense by considering the preferences and concerns of those most affected — Native Americans themselves.

Let them decide as opposed to groups of white Caucasians — Native Americans can choose which logos and images should be eliminated, and which, if any, are permissible and not offensive to their sensitivities,

If  logos were to be proposed with images of Italians, Asians, Irish or African American citizens, they would be subject to their approval. As a result, why should predominantly Caucasian communities be the arbiters regarding Native American interests? Let the Native Americans determine which, if any, of their images or logos are acceptable.

There are numerous Native American leaders who have the capacity and authority to solicit a democratic consensus from their constituents as to which logos should stay or go. Once that determination is made, communities, professional and collegiate athletic teams should be willing to abide by the collective determination of their fellow Native American citizens.

Rather than continue to engage in polarized Caucasian debates about matters of Native American self-interest, it’s about time we defer to the Native American community to decide these issues for themselves

Steve Kramer is an attorney, and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

Where do we start?  An analogy may be helpful.

When a large building is constructed and a flaw requires some dismantling, to the degree possible, the foundation and certain components are preserved in the rebuilt structure. What does this have to do with immigration? Everything.

In 2013, a bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators — Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Jeff Flake, Robert Menendez, Michael Bennett, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin — sponsored the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act, S.744. The bill was omnibus comprehensive legislation reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and passed  by the Senate, 68-32. It included Title I, which addressed Border Security. The bill was referred to the House of Representatives and Speaker of the House John Boehner killed it since he preferred piecemeal solutions.

Some components of the 2013 bill may need tweaking eight years later. However, there is no logical reason that a bill that received bipartisan sponsorship and nearly 70% Senate approval  in 2013 cannot provide the foundation for effective emergency legislation today .

In the movie “Twelve Angry Men,”  a group of emotionally disparate men served as jurors in a murder trial. They began their deliberations with polar opposite opinions of the innocence or guilt of the defendant. Sequestered in a room with a  mandate to reach a unanimous verdict, eventually they do so.

It is time for the majority and minority leaders of both parties to huddle for a weekend at Camp David with the administration  and stay there — like President Carter with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat — until they forge an immigration agreement. Perhaps  S.744 from 2013 would provide a good starting point for their discussions.

Steve Kramer is an attorney, and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

Times have changed. Sensitivity to the subtleties of racial and ethnic discrimination have come a long way — and overall that is a good thing since we all are supposed to be created equal.

Today, six Dr. Seuss books originally published decades ago will no longer be published because they “portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong,” the San Diego-based company that controls the late author’s catalog said Tuesday.

The problem that has emerged with the removal of the six books is today’s insistence that too many historical figures be “recreated equal.” The banning of Dr. Seuss books eliminates historical depictions that once were considered benign and their absence will prevent teaching children how new standards have evolved. Even more damaging is the racist and prejudiced label assigned by many to those who oppose removing the books.

This excessive adherence to imposing revisionist racial and ethnic standards by eliminating all reference to past, less stringent ones pours kerosene on the fires that separate the left and the right and — once again — abandons the sensible center.

Most importantly, removing these books surrenders yet another opportunity to teach children not only the sensitivities of today, but also the previous ways of thinking that existed — and in so doing, eliminate their opportunity to decide on their own how objectionable a lot of standards really were. Realistically, there are racist materials, non-racist materials and  some, like a few that Dr. Seuss created, that appear racist to some. Equating the first and third categories, for censorship purposes, creates a dangerously divisive slippery slope.

Steve Kramer is an attorney, and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980 to 1987.

The overall population, however, has not limited its indictment to police who have enabled or committed deplorable acts. Many now insist that our collective wrath and indignation be directed  at the entire police profession and departments should be defunded. Police officers with no connection to the death of Floyd or any other minority victim have become the targets of verbal and physical assaults with frozen water bottles, signs and other abuse during many riots. Even those who are decent, hard working, and conscientious law enforcement officials are now collectively vilified due to the regrettable acts of the Minnesota Police officers.

Media reports and protests have extended the allegations of prejudice and umbrella of responsibility for the death of Floyd and many other victims to all police, rural, suburban and urban, throughout the country. Any expression of appreciation for the efforts and commitment of decent cops is met with the allegation that the  support shows insensitivity and racism since the focus must be exclusively the global problem of prejudice. Our concern and empathy for Floyd, his family and the entire black community is considered disingenuous if even a footnote is included which praises the commitment of the good police officers.

But that is where we are today. We live in the land of hyperbole where the historical slavery that exists in “Gone With the Wind” will now cause the film to be indeed, gone with the wind.

Examples of dangerous generalizations:

If players on Red Sox opponents were recipients of racial slurs from a few bigots in the bleachers, Boston is a racist city.

If a teacher or coach is found guilty of abuse, the entire school system is criticized.

Since many members of Congress fail to conscientiously perform their duties, all members are considered lazy and ineffective.

There once was a time when  fairness required that charges of wrongdoing be directed toward the perpetrators to ensure that others were not wrongfully accused. An allegation against individuals in a particular field resulted in penalties leveled against those responsible, not the entire profession. One could simultaneously recognize the merits of dedicated and conscientious workers while contrasting them to  the troublemakers. Not so today.

Police misconduct needs to be systemically addressed. So do examples of misconduct in the media, government, teaching, corporate hierarchy and many other professions. And when misconduct occurs, the perpetrators, not the entire profession should face sanctions — a suggestion that is neither racist nor disrespectful.

Many decent police currently describe their morale as devastated since they have been identified with the perpetrators. Without them, the safety of our homes and families is at risk. The good ones deserve much more appreciation for their work. It is not racist to simultaneously  appreciate their efforts while protesting and  prosecuting those whose atrocities caused George Floyd and others to succumb.

Steve Kramer is an attorney, and former assistant attorney general in Massachusetts from 1980-1987.