Thursday, June 22, 2017
What Goes Around . . . .
What’s all the shootin’ for?
— George Michael Cohan, The Tavern
It was one of nine mass shootings that occurred that week. It might have surprised some people to see how much publicity it got. None of the others got even a fraction of that. It was, of course, noteworthy, since it involved members of Congress and members of their staff. It took place on June 14, 2017, on a ball field in Alexandria, Virginia, and was prominently featured in news stories around the country. No one was killed. Rep. Steve Scalise (R. La.) was seriously wounded. That same day there was another group shooting in the United States. (Although shootings with only a few victims are referred to as “mass” shootings, it seems to this writer that that word should be reserved for shootings like those at Newtown or Orlando.) That group shooting took place in San Francisco in a United Parcel Service facility and got almost no media coverage. Three of the workers in that facility were killed. The shooting was briefly noted in the Wall Street Journal. Names of the victims were not included in the description. They were not well known, except to their families. The day preceding the shooting in Alexandria, there were two group shootings in Baltimore. Two people were killed in one shooting and two others injured, and two people were injured in the second. There were many more “mass” or “group” shootings in June but none received the coverage given Rep. Scalise’s shooting. It attracted attention because of the prominence of its victims.
The Alexandria shooting was the 153d mass shooting in the first 165 days of 2017. Of all the victims of the shootings who were killed or seriously injured, only one of them was in a position to have done anything about it-Steve Scalise. Here’s what he had done.
In the 112th Congress that ended on January 2, 2013, Rep. Scalise introduced H.R. 58. It was called the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act and would have updated certain procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain Federal restriction on interstate firearms transactions. In that same session he cosponsored H.R. 645, a bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia, thus promoting the presence of guns in the District. On the Congressional website that lists “Legislation Sponsored or Co-sponsored by Steve Scalise,” he is listed as one of the sponsors or cosponsors of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Acts of 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013, none of which became law. Those bills would have ensured that a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon in his home state, could carry that weapon when travelling in other states that permitted concealed carry. On January 3, 2017, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 was introduced, and although Rep. Scalise is not listed as a sponsor, that may have been an oversight. (His office did not respond to a request for a reason for the non-sponsorship.) In addition to permitting a “qualified individual” to carry a concealed weapon into another state that permits “concealed carry,” it also specifies that “a qualified individual who lawfully carries or possesses a concealed handgun in another state: (1) is not subject to the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm in a school zone, and (2) may carry or possess the concealed handgun in federally owned lands that are open to the public.” I leave it to others to explain the reasons for (1) and (2) in the preceding sentence.
The man who shot Rep. Scalise and his colleagues came from Illinois. He was James T. Hodgkinson. On his trip from Illinois to Virginia he was accompanied by a rifle and a handgun. He had a valid firearms identification card issued by Illinois. He did not need a permit to bring his weapon from Illinois to Virginia. He had a history of violence and police encounters
Rep Scalise’s support for guns has garnered him an A+ from the National Rifle Association. He is a member of the Congressional Second Amendment Task Force. Commenting on the shooting his colleague, Rep. Tom Garrett (R. Va.) observed that had it not been for the presence of a member of the House leadership at the Alexandria event, there would have been no police present, and the shooting could have been far more disastrous. He has introduced legislation to eliminate the D.C. prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and to make it easier for residents and visitors to carry concealed firearms. Rep. Mo Brooks (R. Al.) said of the Alexandria shooting: “As with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people. And what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly.” Thus far in 2017, there have been 206 bad side effects, aka mass shootings, resulting in 290 deaths and 713 injuries. None of those occurred because of the prevalence of guns in our society. They all happened because a few people did not exercise their Second Amendment rights properly. What we obviously need is more instruction on the proper use of guns. At least that’s what Rep. Brooks would have us believe. Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com
What’s all the shootin’ for?
George Michael Cohan, The Tavern
It was one of nine mass shootings that occurred that week. It might have surprised some people to see how much publicity it got. None of the others got even a fraction of that. It was, of course, noteworthy, since it involved members of Congress and members of their staff. It took place on June 14, 2017, on a ball field in Alexandria, Virginia, and was prominently featured in news stories around the country. No one was killed. Rep. Steve Scalise (R. La.) was seriously wounded. That same day there was another group shooting in the United States. (Although shootings with only a few victims are referred to as “mass” shootings, it seems to this writer that that word should be reserved for shootings like those at Newtown or Orlando.) That group shooting took place in San Francisco in a United Parcel Service facility and got almost no media coverage. Three of the workers in that facility were killed. The shooting was briefly noted in the Wall Street Journal. Names of the victims were not included in the description. They were not well known, except to their families. The day preceding the shooting in Alexandria, there were two group shootings in Baltimore. Two people were killed in one shooting and two others injured, and two people were injured in the second. There were many more “mass” or “group” shootings in June but none received the coverage given Rep. Scalise’s shooting. It attracted attention because of the prominence of its victims.
The Alexandria shooting was the 153d mass shooting in the first 165 days of 2017. Of all the victims of the shootings who were killed or seriously injured, only one of them was in a position to have done anything about it-Steve Scalise. Here’s what he had done.
In the 112th Congress that ended on January 2, 2013, Rep. Scalise introduced H.R. 58. It was called the Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act and would have updated certain procedures applicable to commerce in firearms and remove certain Federal restriction on interstate firearms transactions. In that same session he cosponsored H.R. 645, a bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia, thus promoting the presence of guns in the District. On the Congressional website that lists “Legislation Sponsored or Co-sponsored by Steve Scalise,” he is listed as one of the sponsors or cosponsors of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Acts of 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013, none of which became law. Those bills would have ensured that a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon in his home state, could carry that weapon when travelling in other states that permitted concealed carry. On January 3, 2017, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 was introduced, and although Rep. Scalise is not listed as a sponsor, that may have been an oversight. (His office did not respond to a request for a reason for the non-sponsorship.) In addition to permitting a “qualified individual” to carry a concealed weapon into another state that permits “concealed carry,” it also specifies that “a qualified individual who lawfully carries or possesses a concealed handgun in another state: (1) is not subject to the federal prohibition on possessing a firearm in a school zone, and (2) may carry or possess the concealed handgun in federally owned lands that are open to the public.” I leave it to others to explain the reasons for (1) and (2) in the preceding sentence.
The man who shot Rep. Scalise and his colleagues came from Illinois. He was James T. Hodgkinson. On his trip from Illinois to Virginia he was accompanied by a rifle and a handgun. He had a valid firearms identification card issued by Illinois. He did not need a permit to bring his weapon from Illinois to Virginia. He had a history of violence and police encounters
Rep Scalise’s support for guns has garnered him an A+ from the National Rifle Association. He is a member of the Congressional Second Amendment Task Force. Commenting on the shooting his colleague, Rep. Tom Garrett (R. Va.) observed that had it not been for the presence of a member of the House leadership at the Alexandria event, there would have been no police present, and the shooting could have been far more disastrous. He has introduced legislation to eliminate the D.C. prohibition on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and to make it easier for residents and visitors to carry concealed firearms. Rep. Mo Brooks (R. Al.) said of the Alexandria shooting: “As with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people. And what we just saw here is one of the bad side effects of someone not exercising those rights properly.” Thus far in 2017, there have been 206 bad side effects, aka mass shootings, resulting in 290 deaths and 713 injuries. None of those occurred because of the prevalence of guns in our society. They all happened because a few people did not exercise their Second Amendment rights properly. What we obviously need is more instruction on the proper use of guns. At least that’s what Rep. Brooks would have us believe.
Thursday, June 15, 2017
Humpty Trumpty
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master-that’s all.’” — Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
It does not take a serious student of the English language to recognize the similarity between the discussion that Alice and Humpty Dumpty had about the meaning of words used by Humpty Dumpty, to recognize that as ill-educated and ill-read as Humpty TRUmpty obviously is, in all probability someone read Through the Looking Glass to him when he was a child, and the idea of using words to mean what he wanted them to mean, rather than what they are generally accepted to mean, appealed to him has become an effective means of communicating with many of his supporters. It has also made life easy for him because it is not necessary for him to clutter up his mind with the actual meaning of words, since he, like Humpty Dumpty, is their master. Examples abound, but a few suffice to make the point.
One of DJT’s favorite uses of words is to pick a word to describe a situation that has no relevance to the situation. Notwithstanding its irrelevance, he broadcasts it widely by tweet, so those not sophisticated conclude that it means what DJT would have it mean, rather than what it would mean if appropriately used. If it is a big word, it gets additional weight and redounds to the credit of DJT. An example of this was given following James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. That testimony neither supporters of DJT, nor his critics, would describe as revealing DJT in a favorable light. Nonetheless, at its conclusion, DJT tweeted: “Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication. . . and WOW, Comey is a leaker.” Whatever one thinks of Mr. Comey’s testimony, no one knowledgeable in the use of language would use the word “vindicate,” to describe its effect on DJT or his reputation.
Another use of the Humpty TRUmpty rule is to take a word out of a sentence used by a third party, and put it in a completely new sentence that has no relevance to the sentence from which it came and attribute the new sentence to the author of the original sentence. That occurred with something the Mayor of London said following the terrorist attack in London on June 2, 2016. Acknowledging the distress of the community, and wanting to reassure those in London that they would be safe, the mayor said that there would be a heavy police presence in the days ahead in London to protect the public, and that there was: “No need to be alarmed” because of their presence. DJT took the word “alarmed” from the mayor’s statement and put it in a tweet attacking the author of the statement, tweeting: “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed.’”
Another application of the Humpty TRUmpty rule is to take a word and apply it to a situation, simply because it feels good to say, it even though taken in the context in which it is placed by DJT, it is meaningless. When DJT is confronted with a news story of which he disapproves, he describes it as a “fake” news story, even though the word “fake” has no commonly accepted use that would make it meaningful in the situation being described, nor does any definition found in a dictionary suggest that that usage is correct.
When the media discovers things that DJT had hoped to keep secret, he has a ready response. He refers to the “Lying Media” even though there is nothing in a story that comports with the accepted definition of “lying.” When the New York Times comes up with a story that displeases Humpty Trumpty, he uses the word “failing” to describe the newspaper even though that paper’s circulation has increased greatly since DJT was elected, and by no accepted definition of the word, could “failing” properly be applied to describe the New York Times.
The foregoing are just a few of hundreds of examples of the misuse of the language by DJT. It makes us wish we could follow in Alice’s footsteps after her conversation with Humpty Dumpty drew to a close: “Alice waited a minute to see if he [Humpty Dumpty] would speak again, but as he never opened his eyes or took any further notice of her, she said ‘Good-bye!’ once more, and, getting no answer to this, she quietly walked away: but she couldn’t help saying to herself as she went, ‘Of all the unsatisfactory —’ (she repeated this aloud, as it was a great comfort to have such a long word to say) ‘of all the unsatisfactory people I ever met —’ She never finished the sentence, for at this moment a heavy crash shook the forest from end to end.” Humpty Dumpty had fallen from the wall. We should be so lucky.
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
Ethics? Trump?
Grub first: then ethics
— Bertolt Brecht, Three Penny Opera
It is a distinct pleasure to be the first columnist to disabuse a troubled American public of an easily understandable, but totally incorrect, belief in the meaning of a term that has entered the national conversation and caused consternation among political observers. The misunderstanding arises because of the use of the words “ethics,” and “Trump,” in the same sentence. That usage evokes, in the average citizen, a sense of disbelief that is difficult to set aside. Thus, it is not surprising that when there were headlines announcing the administration’s initial refusal to release dozens of “ethics waivers” for those serving in the administration, alarm bells were sounded by those who do not understand what is meant when an individual receives an “ethics waver.” The assumption made by those unfamiliar with the term, is that those who receive such waivers may, with impunity, act unethically whenever it suits them. That is, of course, not what such a waiver means, but the misunderstanding is understandable given the activities of the members of the Trump family since DJT assumed the throne. There are countless examples of DJT’s imperviousness to ethical matters and, citing the advice of his lawyers, he has consistently asserted that being president he can act unethically with complete impunity as well as immunity. Thus, as an example, DJT said that all profits received by his companies from foreign sources staying at his hotels, would be donated to charities so he would not profit from foreign governments patronizing his hotel. The Trump Organization has now said that for it to determine which guests’ payments would qualify as being from a foreign government would be impractical and violate the guests’ rights to privacy. As a result, DJT gets to keep the profits. With respect to DJT’s family, ethical questions are regularly posed by his daughter, Ivanka, and her husband, Jared Kushner, whose financial ties are of amazing complexity and pose all sorts of potential for conflicts of interest that, given their general insensitivity to such matters, are destined to remain in the news so long as they remain in the White House.
The important thing for readers to understand, is that an “ethical waiver” does not mean that those obtaining them are given license to behave in an unethical manner the way the Trump clan can. The use of the phrase must be understood in the context of the executive order that was signed by DJT on January 28, 2017, eight days after he assumed office. It was called “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees.” It is an impressive document that contains more than 3100 words. The first three paragraphs address exactly the same thing three different ways, which proves how terribly important the obligations imposed by those three paragraphs are. The first and third paragraphs say anyone appointed to an executive agency agrees to a 5-year restriction on lobbying activities when that individual’s employment in that agency ends. The second paragraph says the employee agrees to do the things agreed to in the other two paragraphs, thus making it extra enforceable.
With respect to those joining the administration, the appointee agrees that the appointee will not, for a period of 2 years from the date of the appointment, participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to a former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.
As important as the foregoing provisions are, none is more significant than the provision found in section 3. That provision might be called the “Allie allie outs in free” section of the executive order. Its formal designation is much simpler. It is simply entitled “waiver” and says in part: “(a) The President or his designee may grant to any person a waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such person. (b) A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the President or his designee.” A legal opinion issued in 2010 says ethics waivers cannot be made retroactive. Since DJT wanted some of the waivers to be retroactive because of the activities of some of his appointees following their appointment, and since the waivers cannot be made retroactive, DJT came up with a clever way of circumventing the rule. The waivers that were given to senior White House staff are undated and the administration has refused to say when they were issued. Thus, the white House has unethically managed to bless the actions of those receiving the waivers even though the waivers were not in force when the proscribed conduct took place.
Those reading about the foregoing and learning from headlines that more than two dozen ethics waivers were going to be released could be forgiven if they assumed that an ethics waiver meant that its recipient could, with impunity, and following in the footsteps of DJT and his Trump children and other family members, behave unethically. That is not, obviously, what use of those two words mean. All they mean is that an appointee is free to contact those that he or she could not have contacted without the waiver. It does not mean that any unethical behavior arising out of those contacts is sanctioned. That is why it differs from rules applying to the Trump family. Sad but not surprising. Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com