Is Something Delayed also Something Denied?

In the wake of the heinous decision by the SCOTUS to declare part of the Voter’s Rights Act of 1965 as invalid, as well as voting to limit Affirmative Action, and then to grant federal recognition of gay marriage but not a corresponding recognition by states that outlaw it, Progressives have once again been drawn in by a conservative Republican-affiliated Court to believe that gains are being made.  YES, there is some hope in the fact that federal rights to marriage equality are Court approved.  This is a recognition that one type of marriage -- heterosexual marriage -- cannot remain the only norm in a free society, just as past bans against interracial marriages in certain states could not survive forever.  

However, according to Wikipedia, “In 1967, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Loving vs. Virginia that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional. With this ruling, these laws were no longer in effect in the remaining 16 states that at the time still enforced them. However the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2001 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.”

It took about 34 years for all the states to undo those outrageous laws on interracial marriage.  This should give great pause to those who say the Court has taken a huge step in declaring DOMA unconstitutional and setting the requirement for the federal government to abide by their ruling.  What this Court has really done is to recognize a right to marriage for all persons as to federal protections and judgments, but has delayed justice once again by not ruling that states have to comply.  The Conservative Court has spoken with forked tongue and granted rights at one level while denying them at another level in order to protect “states’ rights.”  And why? Because they know from past experience that, in spite of public opinion moving toward acceptance of gay marriage and gay rights, the full implementation of all those rights will be a matter of future history because they chose not to invalidate the ability of state legislatures to determine marriage laws in their (shall we say it?) sovereign states! 

I’m going to venture to say that the cadre of conservatives on the SCOTUS knew what they were doing.  First they attacked civil rights, and to blunt that attack, they put out a decision that looked like a great victory for the gay community.  It had the desired effect -- the attack on voting rights received little press, even though small-minded legislators in several states went right to work crafting legislation that will limit voting rights of minorities in their states.  Secondly, as if by plan, the Justices did that which has worked so many times in the past: they declared a law unconstitutional, but delayed justice so that full implementation could be denied for as long as possible.  As with the abolition of slavery, as with the declaration that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional, thus with segregation and school integration,  thus with Roe v. Wade and the constant delay of full rights to choose, exemplified by the latest Texas attempt at restricting abortion and the restrictive Ohio abortion law that just passed there.  In all these cases, and many more, the result is that justice delayed is justice denied!  They knew what they were doing!

This is just one more reason to be a discouraged Progressive. There are many others, of course.  And, although I hate to do it, let us take some time to remind ourselves that Conservatives have a very different view of the world around them than do Progressives, which results in what the radical Right is doing to undermine progressive and common sense values. 

1. Conservatives are tied to a view of  rugged individualism.
2. They believe in a social Darwinism that implies that only the strong should survive; that individuals must take personal responsibility for their own development and their own prosperity
3. They believe that central government should be at the least restrained and at the most weak and unable to intervene or interfere in the day-to-day lives of individuals.
4. They therefore hold to a view of the states as being sovereign, or at least being  “laboratories” where one should determine to what extent and by what method government should assist and support its citizens
5. They believe that all government is potentially evil; that it can turn upon the people at any moment, and take away our god-given (or constitutionally provided) rights and privileges.  Thus, they advocate the unalienable and unrestricted right of citizens to bear arms so they can be prepared to defend themselves against rogue government action.
6. Conservatives believe in a system that should be as tax-free as possible, but they know that neither state nor federal government can exist without taxation of some kind.  And so, they advocate as few taxes, and the lowest tax rates, that one can make possible.  Not only do they want to lower current income tax rates, they want to abolish our current tax system and replace it with a consumer tax, a flat tax, or a two-tier tax system.
7. Then, they believe that all other taxes must be abolished (or drastically reduced), including: corporate income taxes, the estate tax, the capital gains tax, tax on interest earnings, etc.
8. Although they believe in the individual, they happen to believe that there are certain individuals who are more worthy than others of government support and largess.  While touting the importance of government incentives for small businesses and huge tax breaks for large corporations, they are more than willing to limit government programs that support the disabled, the homeless, the unemployed, the college student, the returning veteran, the poor and the sick.  In other words, the richest 2% get special treatment because they have proven themselves to be the kind of individuals one would want running things (the fact that they have money to spend on members of the Congress, doesn’t hurt their standing!)
9. Conservatives have a world view in which patriotism is at the top of their list of values.  Individuals must come together to support their country, especially in conflicts with other nations.  But individual citizens must also be willing to sacrifice on behalf of their country (unless it involves them).  The Republicans have a great deal of difficulty with the concept of peace or peaceful negotiation as the way to co-exist with other nations on this planet.
10. This leads inevitably to a view of our nation as “exceptional.”  And that is the view of this Republican party.  However, once one accepts that view, it leads to all kinds of delusions: that our nation should be regarded as the best in all things; that our nation is the leader of the free world; that our nation must be supported even when it holds views, practices or policies that are detrimental to other nations (“our country right or wrong”); that we should be at War, rather than making peace because we are exceptional, they are not.  Pro-active war with rogue or out-of-line nations (or terrorist groups) is a result of an “America first above all” approach to foreign relations.  Constant talk of “war” in this country is a trap and a killing machine.  We sacrifice more of our “best and brightest” than I care to recall: in Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and places like Bosnia and Serbia, Korea; but we also sacrifice their lives in places like  Somalia, Grenada, and Lebanon.

It’s when Conservatives act on their world view that I get nervous.  When they act out, or when they act like they’re crazy, it’s best that Progressives understand that they really don’t care what anyone thinks!  They have gone off the edge of reason and sanity, and are verging on a coup d'état.  They are no longer the “Party of Lincoln”, nor the Party of Barry Goldwater, nor even-  God help us - the Party of Ronald Reagan.  This party has moved so far to the Right that one has to expect that they will stop at nothing to gain control of state and federal governments so that they can twist and shape them to support their view of what the nation, and the world, should look like.  Let us list the ways:

• Control certain districts.  Their strategy is to gerrymander not only congressional districts, but state legislature districts, so that some will be perpetual winners for the Republicans.
• Control enough state legislatures and governorships to keep radical conservatism alive and well within the states
• Use decisions by the Supreme Court that favor states’ rights, to delay, overturn, ignore federal mandates in many areas: social welfare, housing, public education, etc.
• Control how social issues (abortion, contraception, gay marriage, women’s issues, minorities, etc.) are dealt with by controlling the make-up of the state governments
• Use big money as the key to winning elections at all levels; above all, do not give in to election reform advocates
• Oppose and undo all legislation that protects the vulnerable and the “lower” and middle classes (health care, women’s rights, gay rights, Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid, voting rights, student loans, social welfare such as food stamps, consumer advocacy) and force people to be responsible individuals who must achieve success by their own actions
• Where possible, devolve to the states all responsibility for programs that touch people’s lives where they live such as those mentioned just above
• Make “religion” a major concern in order to control the world-view of the masses; in other words, these radicals are not concerned with the rituals of religion being foisted on society; they want to control what gets spoken, what gets taught, what gets valued. Take the ritual of prayer, for instance. They use the ritual of prayer to teach their values. They are not in favor of just putting “religion” or Christianity”  or “prayer” back into the classroom or the school or as part of national celebrations; they are concerned with controlling, as much as they can, how people think, and what they believe.
• They want a “protestant ethic” to underlie our government which will spread it’s concepts of rugged individualism, personal responsibility, survival of the fittest, heterosexual families and lifestyle, and private relief efforts (good Samaritan approach) throughout the land.  Their concept of religion and their worldview are synonymous.
• Use the Supreme Court to take away “rights” won during the Civil Rights era.  The Court has done their bidding by saying that certain things like ‘affirmative action’ and voting protections are obsolete.  They have opened the way to voting discrimination laws in the states; to lack of minority participation in higher education, and to a view that civil rights advocacy is passé.
• Use well-worn phraseology to confuse the public (“death panels”; “Obamacare”, “welfare queens;”)  and to turn the citizenry that can be so cajoled, away from support for the President’s policy agenda.  It was pollster Frank Luntz who helped Republicans figure out the power of words like: “activist judges” “big government”    “class warfare” “climate change” (instead of “global warming”) “death tax” “Defense of Marriage Act” “energy exploration” (in place of “oil drilling”) “enhanced interrogation”      “family values”  “government-run health care” or “government takeover of health care” “illegal” (describing illegal immigrant) “job creators” “judicial activism” “partial birth abortion” “pro-life” “reform” (euphemism for “cut”) “teachers’ unions”  “right to life”  “right to work”  “tax and spend liberal” “War on Terror” “War on Drugs”

There is right now a central question for all Progressives to answer: what can we do to stop this juggernaut?

As Cole Lystra of Progressives United said recently: “We know our work will never be complete if we don't empower all Americans -- or those striving to become Americans -- to be full participants in our democratic process.  So we're setting Progressives United on an expanded new path, not just to continue our push for campaign and government reforms, but also to defend progressive policies and values wherever they are threatened by the influence of big money -- on issues like immigration reform, voter suppression, and the dominance of the gun lobby in Congress.

But as we look to broaden the promise of democracy, the barriers to full participation are startling:

• The far right wing of the Republican Party continues to fund and beat the drum of voter suppression in states across the country.
• The corporate gun lobby stalls even the most basic background-check reforms that 90% of Americans support.
• Extremists looking to block much-needed immigration reform at all costs frustrate our immigrant brothers' and sisters' struggle to weave into the American tapestry.

We can take on all of these worthy fights, and expand our progressive reach. “

Well, that’s all fine and good, but there are certain internal barriers to expanding Progressive efforts, based upon my experience with more than one national Progressive group of which I have been a member, or local leader.

• Progressives don’t work well in coalitions because their narrowly-defined issues are sacred to them in the groups they choose.
• Progressives have a hard time believing that there are genuine organized conspiracies on the Right and they often ignore remedies until its too late
• Progressives have been lax in formulating a plan of attack, although now President Obama’s grassroots campaign organization has been morphed into a non-profit, called Organizing For Action (OFA), one of whose aims is to bring community groups together into coalitions to attempt a concerted effort at combating right-wing views and activities.
• Progressives believe that intellectual honesty and persuasion are what matters.  They shy away from using “loaded terms” unlike the conservative Republicans.
• Progressives take a short view and don’t attempt longer-term strategies very often; like taking control of certain districts, or getting local boards and councils to pass resolutions supporting various progressive causes, such as overturning Citizens United and amending the Constitution.
• Progressives don’t seem to be able to carry on for very long without getting discouraged.  The same people in local organizations show up for all the rallies, speeches, vigils, and demonstrations; while recruitment for new members and activists falls apart because people respond with “I’m too busy right now”  “Got something else to do”, “I belong to so many organizations, I haven’t got time to give”
• Progressives seem to be somewhat “at sea” in using media to their advantage.

My conclusion is not completely formulated, for it is built around un-doing the negatives I have just mentioned.  Of course we must lessen or eliminate those negatives.  But as to the Positive: what can we do?  I confess I do not know the answer.  I can only list some thoughts here:

1. We must think long-term by amending our Constitution to reflect Progressive values and principles
2. We must protect civil and social rights
3. We have to elect progressive Democrats in 2014, or else a legislature - both houses of Congress controlled by a radical Right Republican majority - will begin the dismantling, not only of central government, but of programs and policies that now serve the vast array of our people.  It has already begun, as Sequestration was probably the greatest gift ever given to the radical Republicans!
4. We have to push for more involvement of ordinary citizens in our governmental processes (example: all commissions that re-draw districts after a census must be made up of non-office holders and seekers, with a bi-partisan spirit, who will draw lines fairly under the possible guidance of a judicial panel).
5. We will ultimately have to come together in some entity that gives us permanent status, such as the Tea Party has obtained.  There has to be a broad-based Coalition of Progressive groups in order to obtain what must be done.  There has to be a party platform; there have to be candidates who will support that platform; there will have to be a strong grass-roots party organization to have a say in which candidates are nominated to run.
6. We cannot continue to operate in a vacuum, as though the realities I have outlined today do not exist.  Paul Begala reports: “The Koch brothers’ notorious political arm is ramping up its vast right-wing money machine at breakneck speed. Just in the last 5 months, they’ve given a whopping $559,000 to dozens of national Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor. That’s a new Koch record for this point in the campaign.”

We know that justice delayed, can often mean justice denied.  In this volatile atmosphere, where the Koch brothers can fund a conspiracy of the Right unknown in its depth to the Progressive Left, indecisive and uncoordinated action on our part is tantamount to victory denied.

Letter on Gun Violence Prevention

The following letter was written in response to a presumably legitimate inquiry from a gun owner and NRA member about the philosophy of a certain non-profit, issues-oriented organization.  As an advocate of gun violence prevention, I was asked to respond.  Although my response was not as long as the answer below, I now offer this as a reasonable response to a reasonable inquiry.  Names of people and organizations have been removed.  The original inquiry was as follows:

“I am just wondering what your organization is standing for. I am an avid gun owner/hunter and believe in my right to keep and bear arms. Now when you say "common sense" do you mean just that or are you against firearms in general?  I believe criminals should not have the right to own guns, but I don't believe that law abiding American gun owners should bear the burden. Most of the current legislation has done little to nothing to attack the criminals, but has made it more burdensome on the honest. How many drug dealers do you know that register their Military look-a-like guns or have to worry about renewing their pistol permit every 5 years. You can see where I am going with this, they don't because they are criminals. Therefore its only the law abiding citizen who is affected by such laws.  Please let me know where your organization stands on Gun Control and just what your definition of "Common Sense" actually means.”

 

Dear Inquirer:

Recently, I was asked by ________________, to send along some of my thoughts on your inquiry about his organization, and about the stance of his organization toward gun control.  First, let me explain that, although not a member of that organization, I am a member of another organization that often works with his group as co-sponsors of issue-oriented events and activities. So, I am speaking as a member of a particular group, but the opinions are mainly my own. Second, we are not gun-control advocates as much as we are advocates of gun violence prevention.

In answer to one of your questions -- "are you against firearms in general? " - I would answer absolutely not.  It is not our intent to limit legitimate access to guns and ammunition for the purposes of hunting, sporting events, contests, collection or even legitimate self-defense.  The second amendment right to bear arms is a well-accepted norm in both existing law and judicial decisions; we are not looking to overturn those basic rights.  Likewise, in answer to a second question, we are not in existence to increase any particular "burden" on legitimate gun-owners.   Present laws and requirements already impose a paperwork "burden," but that routinely comes along with any system of registration, application, or sale.  We are not sure what other "burdens" might come to legitimate gun-owners because of more stringent laws on background checks, for instance.  Please enlighten us if you know of something that would occur as a burden other than some additional paperwork for gun sellers. However, if you mean by this that legitimate gun owners would be having to be part of a national gun registry, that is a myth belied by the fact that pending legislation on expanded background checks specifically prohibits national gun registries.

We are in agreement with your statement that "criminals should not have the right to own guns."  We would add that there are probably others who should not own guns as well, including those shown to be violent toward others in ways that are clearly evident.  This gets into the whole area of the mental health system which is something that our organization is also ultimately concerned about, as that system does not currently have efficient and effective standards for sharing "mental health" information among practitioners in the mental health field, with law enforcement, universities or colleges, or even with relatives of those who demonstrate aberrant behaviors.  Nor is there an efficient and effective way for school, law enforcement and other legitimate providers and relatives to share pertinent information with the mental health care providers and with each other.  So, prevention of gun violence (and other forms of violence) also depends on an overhaul of our mental health system and its requirements, and abilities, for information-sharing. 

Criminals are those who disobey established laws.  Therefore establishing new laws does not insure that criminals will be stopped or that they will even be prosecuted because that is what criminals do:  they find ways to circumvent laws.  There are very few pieces of legislation that even attempt to stop all criminal behavior in a certain area, because they cannot.  Nor do most laws “target criminals.”  Rather they set standards and rules by which criminals can be arrested, charged, and prosecuted in the justice system.  Therefore, we agree with the premise that certain laws we propose - such as universal background checks - will not stop all criminal behavior in connection with gun violence.  However, such laws will provide law enforcement with stronger tools to prosecute those who disobey that law, will set new norms for society, and will have a lasting positive effect and influence on our culture of violence.  Those are some of the intended purposes of our proposals, and are about all that can be reasonably expected. 

Right now, under federal laws, background checks are limited in scope, as you know, in that they only apply to federally licensed gun dealers.  Even under that less-than-universal law, the current background check system since it started has kept over 2 million criminals and other dangerous people from buying guns at licensed dealers (according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Justice Department). We advocate for expanded background checks to close gun sale loopholes.  In fact, we support H.R. 1565 which is a replication of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment from the Senate, by which background checks would be required for all gun sales in commercial settings, including at gun shows, on the internet and in classified ads.  Private, unlicensed firearms sellers would be required to conduct these checks through licensed dealers using the same system (NICS) already in use for licensed dealer sales.  The bill would, however, exempt transfers of firearms between friends and family from such requirements. 

In answer to your main question, this is what we consider to be an example of "common sense" legislation.  One way to look at it is that this makes a "sound basic sense" that appeals to a broad range of people  with at least an average intelligence.  It doesn't have a lot of complicated language, but stresses a point that most people can understand: that we need to expand background checks to cover most gun sales.  In  this way we have a better chance at reducing gun violence by gun wielders who should not have access to guns in the first place.

But, there is a second meaning of "common sense" not often cited, that applies in this case most especially.  It is the definition of common sense as "pertaining to the whole community or public."  In the case of universal background checks, we have for some time now heard that up to 92% of the public, and around 84% of NRA members, favor this kind of legislation, feeling that it makes good sense.  To their discredit and peril as legislators, certain Senators thought they could simply ignore this expression of the "common sense" and they voted against the wishes of their constituency.  A few of those Senators have seen their positive poll numbers take a nose-dive, and are now feeling the heat of public pressure to change their vote or be fired by the electorate next year.   When a "common sense" develops among voters from across this country, it is not wise simply to ignore it.  This commonality is what has pushed our nation forward at certain critical times in our history, and we believe that one of those critical points has clearly been reached when the "common sense" about background checks must prevail.

Finally, let me add to these answers a bit of a personal note.  I come from a long paternal line of gunsmiths; some of whom started out as independent locksmiths and then switched to gun-making in their hometown of Birmingham England.  Those relatives include my great grandfather, at least three great granduncles and my grandfather.  An uncle and a cousin born in this country continued on that same occupational path.  Some of these men came to the States when they were quite young (in 1886 and 1888) to work in a series of gun factories, first in New York and New England; also in Ontario (where my grandfather came to work with his oldest brother in a company that had been transferred lock, stock and barrel from Norwich, CT).  My grandfather, one of his sons and another of his brothers, ended up their careers working for a Gun Company in my birthplace.  What is important to me is that these men were not only accomplished gunsmiths (three of whom served as superintendents of their factories at one time or another) but they were part of making gun manufacturing in this country a vital industry, and, when called upon, they used their skills and positions to build the munitions that helped win the Great War (WWI).  One of my granduncles worked for New England Westinghouse company in Springfield, MA that had a huge contract for rifles used to end the war; another worked for Henry Ford in his large plant in Highland Park, Michigan that ended up making munitions for the War.  My grandfather, before he immigrated to the U.S., was an Armorer Sergeant in the Canadian Armed Forces that helped forge the way through France and Belgium into Germany to end WWI.  He was on the front lines in some heavy fighting and was a victim of mustard gas causing his early death in 1947.

I tell you all this because I want you to know that I am proud of my family's heritage.  I am proud of their commitment to sporting rifles, and wartime munitions-making.  I am equally proud of their achievements in their communities as Lodge leaders, as churchmen, as people one could always count on.  Although I have never owned a gun, and am part of a movement and organization that believes that every constitutional right comes with certain responsibilities; and, that every right must be restricted when that same right becomes abused or distorted and brings harm to others (such as yelling "Fire" in a closed theater), I am not about to abandon my heritage by helping to impose burdensome or unreasonable restrictions on legitimate gun owners. 

Therein lies something that my ancestors would never have understood: how could a very legitimate club called the National Rifle Association go from a sportsman's club to an advocate of allowing absolutely no restrictions on military assault rifles, made-for-battle ammunition clips, and the right to carry concealed weapons wherever you please, plus an outright opposition to the saving of innocent lives by a system of universal background checks?  My ancestors would be appalled because they knew in their own lives that the right to bear arms meant sport and target-shooting, collection and competition, and self-defense.  They would not have understood absolute gun and ammunition rights advocacy that endangers the lives of innocent children and young people, as well as adults.  In other words, they would not have understood the NRA’s obsession with a totally unrestricted second amendment that allows harm and death to come to innocent citizens at the hands of violence-prone, mentally unstable, or criminally-intentioned gun owners.  Such illegitimate gun ownership would not make "common sense" to them, nor does it to me.

I hope this explanation has been helpful to you.

 

Sincerely yours,

Definitions of “Scandal”

How much longer do we have to endure the specter of “scandal” created by the champions of scandal: the Republican Party? 

Take a quick look at the Republican candidate for Lt. Gov. of Virginia, Bishop E.W. Jackson, and a few of his better-known scandalous quotes:

1. On gay people: “Their minds are perverted, they’re frankly very sick people psychologically, mentally and emotionally and they see everything through the lens of homosexuality. When they talk about love they’re not talking about love, they’re talking about homosexual sex.” “Homosexuality is a horrible sin, it poisons culture, it destroys families, it destroys societies; it brings the judgment of God unlike very few things that we can think of…”
2. On Planned Parenthood and the KKK: “Planned Parenthood has been far more lethal to black lives than the KKK ever was. And the Democrat Party and the black civil rights allies are partners in this genocide.”
3. On liberals and the KKK: “Liberalism and their ideas have done more to kill black folks whom they claim so much to love than the Ku Klux Klan, lynching and slavery and Jim Crow ever did, now that’s a fact.”
4.  On Obama’s Muslim sensibilities: “Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of ‘The Muslim World’ is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world.”

Such remarks are a good “fit” with the original definition of the word “scandal” which had to do with the “unseemly conduct of a religious person that discredits religion.”  Asked if Jackson was trouble, another senior Virginia Republican responded, “Oh. My. God. Yes.” The danger, the Republican said, is that “Jackson will bring Democrats to the polls who might otherwise stay home. You just don’t want one candidate to rile up the base of the other side. That’s what you’re trying to avoid.”  
 
Another definition of “scandal” is: “malicious gossip; defamatory or slanderous talk.”  So, in essence, that means that the hearings being held by a third of the committees in Congress are scandalous.  That’s exactly what I mean.  Since every hearing that has been held has included malicious gossip (or ignominious innuendo) and defamatory or slanderous talk on the part of certain members, we can safely say that their rhetoric fits with this definition, and that they, themselves, are the “scandal.”  Let’s take a brief look at one example.

Darrell Issa called Jay Carney a "paid liar" this week.  According to The National Journal, Issa’s aggressive approach is just what the Republican House leadership wants.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor singled out Issa for praise at a closed-door GOP conference meeting on Tuesday. Hours later, Cantor gave him plaudits on national television, saying on CNN that Issa and other GOP chairmen investigating the IRS were doing “a fantastic job.” 

The National Journal continues: Democrats say Issa has prejudiced the IRS investigation by declaring on CNN on Sunday that the targeting “was coordinated in all likelihood right out of Washington headquarters and we're getting to proving it.” Issa, they argue, is following his well-worn path of lobbing accusations first and then searching for evidence to back them up later.  “It’s hard to trust someone who makes assertions on which he has no basis to make [them],” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Tuesday.

In addition, says the Journal, Democrats complain of Issa’s selective use of evidence to bolster pre-conceived “gut” feelings. On Sunday, Issa released only selected chunks of the transcribed interviews that his panel and the Ways and Means Committee had conducted with IRS officials. And he shared the excerpts on national television before giving a copy to committee Democrats—a breach of decorum and protocol, Democrats say.  Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the oversight panel… before a recent Benghazi hearing, had accused Issa of keeping panel Democrats in the dark about interviews with a key State Department witness, Mark Thompson. “They have leaked snippets of interview transcripts to national media outlets in a selective and distorted manner to drum up publicity for their hearing,” Cummings said at the time.

Basically, Republicans agree, without much dissent, that Issa is the poster boy for their efforts to unearth so-called scandals.  He is helping to forge a tableau of an overreaching, overbearing, and unaccountable executive branch—all without real notable proof that any scandal exists, other than his own scandalous behavior.   In like manner, let us use Issa as the quintessential illustration of the scandalous activity of many Republican committee members and move on rather than citing numerous similar examples from other committees.

Instead, let’s stand back a bit and ask, what do we really have here?  In my estimation, it is nothing more than the imperfections of bureaucracy that are omnipresent, and the lack of clear definition of certain policies that have been assumed to be adequate when they aren’t.  What do I mean?

First of all: you can’t run a government accurately, efficiently or effectively when many of your agencies are run by interim directors and deputies.   That is clearly the fault of Senate Republicans who have held up approvals for Obama appointees at alarming rates.  There are still over 1,080 appointments waiting confirmation from the Senate, many of which are appointments to the federal judiciary.  But, among appointments critical to functioning of Executive departments and agencies, we find the following examples:

Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection and Commissioner, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Principle Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology
Under Secretary of the Air Force
Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances – EPA
Under Secretary for management – DOState
Asst. Administrator of Office for Water – EPA
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services – DOEd
U.S. Governor of the International Monetary Fund
Asst Attorney General for Justice Programs
Administrator EPA
General Counsel Treasury
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Energy – DOEn
Secretary of Labor – DOL
Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Associate Attorney General

The IRS is a sterling example of this destructive delaying tactic.  First, Obama had to deal with a Bush leftover appointee, Douglas Shulman.  Then he had to settle for another interim appointment, Steven Miller.  And now that Miller has also resigned in light of the Cincinnati office debacle, another interim appointment has been made (Daniel Werfel of OMB), as the Huffington Post reminds us --because his choice for the permanent IRS director’s position has been delayed in the Senate.  “The Senate has not yet confirmed a full-time commissioner since Douglas Shulman, a Bush appointee, stepped down this past fall.”

Second, you cannot allow policies from one administration to govern the actions of another administration unless those policies have been thoroughly examined, evaluated and adjusted or amended to fit the philosophy and tenor of the new administration.  I fault the Obama administration for allowing certain Bush era policies, established in the context of, or under the influence of 9/11 to have continued without this thorough vetting.  The right-wing obsession with surveillance, hawkishness and control is all too evident in the Patriot Act and subsequent immigration legislation and policy than can be tolerated.  I believe that the balance between the rights of citizens and the necessity of controlling terrorist actions and activities was upset during the Bush years, and should have been modified considerably during an Obama administration.  Instead, for instance, deportations of illegal aliens increased; surveillance procedures at airports were increased to absurd levels, and use of surveillance of phone records and other private communications was continued without much scrutiny until recent revelations. 

Third, this obsessive investigation of so-called “scandals” within the Obama administration is nothing more than Republican revenge for his victory in 2012 at the polls.  This is a vigorous attempt to destroy his legacy, not because he is a Democrat, but because he is a black Democrat.  The bigots and racists have come forth to fight for their white supremacy views so that, essentially, an African-American candidate in future will find it very tough-going in a general election for this highest office.  This is no longer just about President Obama.  It is now about trying to destroy the legacy of inspiration he has already left with young people of many ethnic origins, including African and Hispanic.

Finally, it is important to say that this whole manufactured scenario of “scandals” not only diverts the public’s attention from the real issues of jobs, economy, infrastructure, climate change, immigration reform, gun violence prevention, the shrinking middle class, homelessness, treatment of returning veterans, plus much more. It also tends to skew the vision of voters in terms of the invasiveness of government.  Even though people’s lives are not being negatively affected by the “scandals” (because our government is mainly there for the protection and care of people), unthinking numbers of voters tend to believe that government is “overreaching” or “interfering” or “disrupting” their lives.  This, in spite of the fact that life goes on much as it did before Benghazi, the IRS missteps in Cincinnati, the collection of AP press phone numbers, and anything else that has garnered the unseemly attention of Republicans in the Congress. 

The point is, these so-called scandals are not encroaching on the well-being of Americans.  We are not living in a punitive state where rights are largely ignored, people are arrested for no cause, property is being confiscated, and the government is watching every move.  It just isn’t happening no matter who tries to make it seem so.  Think about it: if government (the Executive Branch) were as evil or as interventionist as Congressional Republicans like to claim, legislators would be the FIRST to feel its effects, because that is what a run-amuck Executive would do – close down the legislature and get rid of all the legislators!!

Take to heart another quite important definition of “scandal”:  “any act, person or thing that offends or shocks moral feelings of the community and leads to disgrace.”  You want scandals; I’ll give you some examples of disgraceful scandals:

Head Start cutbacks 
All the other sequestration cutbacks affecting children, seniors, the poor, first responders, research, veterans, etc.
The attack upon public education, especially teachers
The Ryan Budget, and the vouchering of Medicare
Un-prosecuted denizens of Wall Street
Attack upon women’s health and women’s rights
48 attempts by House Republicans to repeal Obamacare
No serious healthcare proposals by Republicans
Vote by House Republicans to cut funding to support citizenship rights of children of illegal immigrants
Attacks upon Labor and the right to collective bargaining
The defeat of the common-sense Toomey-Manchin Amendment, and all other gun violence prevention legislation, in spite of the fact that gun violence is a major cause of death for children and young people

These are just some of the real scandals in Washington, DC. There are many more disgraceful acts of Republican lawmakers about which we will comment in future.  For now, it is enough to remind ourselves that another scandal is about to hit:  the Congress will adjourn for the “umpteenth” time, in keeping with its intended schedule of just 126 work days during 2013!  Don’t you wish you could get that much time off, not have much to show for when you did work, and get the pay and benefits that Congress members get? 

The so-called “Scandals” in the Executive Branch pale in comparison to the clearly defined scandals being created everyday by a discredited Republican-controlled, do-nothing Congress!

Open Letter to Congressman Richard Hanna

June 1, 2013

Dear Congressman Hanna,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply of May 23, 2013.  I have been unable to answer until now and beg your pardon for such a delay.

Although I am not a gun owner, I am a descendant of many who were gunsmiths in their day: a great-grandfather who independently made locking mechanisms for gun-makers in Birmingham, England; a great-granduncle who was a gunsmith in the Gun Quarter of Birmingham England; a grandfather who came to Woodstock, Ontario to join his brother, a superintendent at Tobin Arms (which was transplanted from Norwich, Connecticut), in the trade; two granduncles who immigrated to this country from Birmingham, England to continue their work in the gun manufacturing business, and who worked for such companies as L.C. Smith in Syracuse, Hunter Arms in Fulton, Westinghouse Arms in Springfield, MA, Tobin Arms and Hopkins & Allen Arms in Norwich, Ct. One granduncle ended up in Ithaca, NY as a superintendent at the Ithaca Gun Company and one of my father’s brothers spent his whole career employed with that particular manufacturer, also ending up as a superintendent.  A cousin still works for the remnant of Ithaca Gun at King Ferry, NY. 

I say all this only to make sure you know that I have paternal blood coursing through my veins that impels me toward sympathy with the rights of gun owners: a right to the possession of firearms for the purposes of hunting and target-shooting and competition, and whatever sporting use, such as skeet shooting, can be found for them.  Certainly, as you do, I want to protect the legitimate rights of citizens to own guns and to use them in ways that are legitimate.  However, as you succinctly state, “it is clear that we need to keep maniacs and known criminals from owning guns.”  While I would not use the word “maniac” to describe those with mental illness (most of whom do not engage in violent behavior), I do agree that we need “a broad national dialogue on how we keep firearms out of the hands of disturbed individuals” and from those with aberrant behavior that could, at any time, be turned on innocent bystanders.

Actually, dialogue and discussion have been taking place for some time now, but continuous talk is “cheap” and actions must begin in order to set new standards, directions, and guidelines, just as we did when a “smoking is good for you” attitude prevailed although it was killing people left and right.  Now we must approach a culture steeped in a violence that is harmful to our health, and especially to the well-being of children and young people.  Mental aberrations are a contributing factor, video games another, wild west attitudes are another, and gangs willing to shoot rivals are another.  There are a multitude of factors that must be addressed in order to change a prevailing acceptance of a culture of violence. I agree with you that a place to begin is to work toward finding practical ways to prevent firearms getting into the wrong hands.  One of those practical ways, supported by over 90% of citizens in several polls, is to expand gun background checks from where such checks stand now under the Brady Act (covering only federally licensed dealers) to where most gun sales will be covered.

This is not the be-all, end-all of preventing gun violence.  It will not prevent all innocent individuals from being harmed by guns; it will not prevent all persons with aberrant behavior from acting out with guns; it will not prevent all criminals from owning guns.  It occurs to me that there is very little legislation designed to wipe out all the bad things that legislation often tries to address.  Legislation like this can only make a dent; a start; a needed new direction.  The best such legislation can do is to provide the police with a new law that can be enforced; to provide a law that will begin to change attitudes about gun violence; to provide a new atmosphere by which we can advance the cause of the importance of human life and the imperatives we are under to protect innocent life as much as we possibly can.  To do nothing is to allow the existence of a cancerous cultural norm of violence that is as harmful to our health as was smoking.    Yes, we must talk and debate; but, at the same time, we must act.

I commend you for acting as you already did, by voting for increased funding for NICS in the FY 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriation Act.  But as we both know, that particular Act passed the House, but not the Senate.  Therefore, while that vote was one I applaud, it failed (through no fault of yours) to “help to save lives and protect innocent Americans from harm by ensuring that firearms stay out of the hands of those prohibited to purchase them” because it did not pass.  Secondly, it was inadequate because it targeted the NICS which only federally licensed gun dealers are required to utilize, and it failed to close gun show loopholes or attempt to address other gun sales (such as online sales).  For this reason, along with many petition-signers from across your district, I encourage you to move ahead from a lost opportunity to one with more promise.  We have asked that you become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1565, the bipartisan bill on expanded background checks proposed by Peter King and Mike Thompson.

It appears that many of your colleagues have already moved beyond conversation regarding this issue.  The last time I checked, 178 had signed up to cosponsor this bill.  We call on you to do the same.  This issue will not go away, and you are not that far away from a positive position regarding this matter.  We again urge you to make the decision (a courageous one indeed) to cosponsor the King-Thompson legislation.  Thank you for listening.

 

While I have limited expectations regarding this request, I fervently hope that others will write similar letters to their congressmen, requesting similar action.  The point being, that further debate on the functionality of this particular issue – expanded background checks for gun sales – is unnecessary, and results in nothing more than a delaying tactic.  Join me, if you care to, in addressing YOUR congressman on this one facet of the gun violence debate.  Action and concrete results are long overdue – Publius