MLK, BHO, and Non-Violence in the 21st Century

Barack Obama was officially sworn in for his second term in a low key ceremony at the White House on Sunday.  His victory in 2008 and here again in 2012 is a testimony to the efficacy of the work of the civil rights workers of 50 years ago.  On Monday as President Obama was more publicly sworn in, the nation celebrated the most famous of those mid-twentieth century heroes, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.   King’s legacy is one of non-violent resistance that was instrumental in ending the institutionalized racism of those days.  Opposition to war goes hand-in-hand with nonviolence and towards the end of his life, MLK became more and more outspoken an opponent to the Vietnam War.  In an ultimate irony, his death, his assassination, came as a result of violence, specifically gun violence - once again in the news these days.   

Effective as non-violent resistance was in the twentieth century in Gandhi’s India, in pre-Civil Rights America, and in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, it is unfortunately not much in vogue as a tactic or as a strategy today.  Admittedly, there are a few recent examples where non-violence has been effective.  The Arab Spring is one such example.  The Occupy Movement has the potential to be another.  What all the great non-violent movements of the past had in common was their ability to appeal to the public’s moral sense, to the innate sense of justice of the majority, to the sense of human decency of those who held power.  

Basic to the effectiveness of non-violence is a common respect for life and for justice.  If the public audience or the holders of power lack this basic sense, then the task of the non-violent protester becomes more difficult. 

So where does non-violence stand today in the value scheme of the 21^st century human?   Sadly, things have not progressed much in this regard from 50 years ago.  Non-violence is not the tactic of choice, say, of the Islamic extremists who took over the natural gas plant in Algeria – ultimately resulting in the deaths of 37 hostages and 29 militants.  Nor is it the preferred tactic of today’s American “hawks” – the neocons who are pushing for a more militant stance against Iran.  Witness their attempt to derail Chuck Hagel from his nomination as Defense Secretary because he dared point out the obvious – that a war with Iran would have serious consequences for the region.  These are the same band of neocons who led (or more appropriately, misled) us into war with Iraq in their attempt to implement their Project for a New American Century.  We saw how well that turned out.  Unbelievably these neocons still get attention, they have not gone away.  You would have thought that their arrogant, jingoistic approach to international relations would have longed ceased to merit any consideration whatsoever.

At least Obama is the President for the next four years and perhaps he can resist the drumbeat towards a war with Iran that will, sooner or later, be emanating from the lunatic fringe on the right.  Within American society today, there exists a tendency to favor the violent solution over the nonviolent – we have by far the highest rate of gun ownership and gun deaths among developed industrialized nations; our military expenditures exceed those of the next 13 (almost 14) highest defense budgets combined; the US public, unlike those in almost every other nation on Earth, still overwhelmingly supports capital punishment.  “A recent Gallup Poll measured Americans' abstract support for the death penalty at 63%, the second-lowest level of support for capital punishment since 1978, and a significant decline from 1994, when 80% of respondents were in favor of the death penalty.” [My emphasis added; quote is from the Death Penalty Information Center web page]

John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated by a gun man 50 years ago this coming November, said “war will cease to exist when conscientious objectors to enjoy the same prestige as warriors.”  That day has yet to come. 

Both MLK and JFK were renowned for their speeches.  On Monday, Barack Obama gave a rousing speech that rivals some of theirs.  He emphasized equality, fairness, and opportunity.  He promised to respond to climate change and mentioned our need to come together as a people to meet our challenges.  There was even a nod toward diplomacy as the primary means of managing international relations.  After the obligatory mention of our “strength of arms”, he said, “We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”  Not exactly Nobel Peace Prize winner quality but on balance better than war-and fear-mongering.

A few of the more memorable passages from his speech:

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.

… we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.

…we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

The President laid out a progressive vision for our nation – whether he will be able to fulfill the vision is another matter.  The opposition is gearing for a fight.

Links

Algerian HostageCrisis [CNN]

Neocons’ Project for A New American Century [Global Research’s Centre for Research onGlobalization]

Death Penalty Information Center

Comic relief: Mitch McConnell’s “They’re coming for your guns” email…just in case you thought there would be any cooperation from Republicans [Huffington Post]

A Good Start On Gun Violence

President Obama unveiled the recommendations from the Joe Biden-led commission formed to reduce gun violence in the wake of the massacre in Newton, Connecticut.  In what has been called "the biggest gun control push in decades", the President urged Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban, tighten up and close loopholes in background checks, and pass a new Federal gun-trafficking law.  In addition, he announced "23 steps he intends to take immediately without congressional approval. These include improving the existing system for background checks, lifting the ban on federal research on gun violence, putting more counselors...in schools and better access to mental health services." [Reuters]  I didn't even know there was a ban on federal research on gun violence.  It is a really sad statement on the power of the gun lobby and arms dealers in our political process.

The proposals are a good start but will need to be pushed against the fierce opposition of the NRA and their supporters in Congress.  As a sign of things to come, the NRA, in one of its most despicable ads in years, attacked Obama for proposing gun control legislation while his daughters were being protected by the Secret Service.  The legislative proposals will also soon be competing for legislative attention with the debt ceiling negotiations and the automatic budget cut discussions ("the sequester"). 

The rabid reaction of the pro-gun wing of the American public to these modest proposals gives one cause to fervently hope that the laws are enacted with all due haste.  Anyone who can react so bizarrely should probably not have access to assault rifles and armor-penetratrating ammunition.  In fact there is no reason on earth why any Joe Average Citizen should own high capacity weapons.  But such is the level of fear stoked by the gun lobby and the fear-and-hate-mongering crowd that those I would consider normally sane people argue that there should not be an assault weapons ban in the United States.  The fact that we are having a debate on this at all is shameful.  No other developed country would even consider allowing such armaments in the hands of ordinary (and sometimes deranged) citizens.  Then again no other developed nation has a death penalty.  But that's for another time.

Will Congress pass the required legislation including the much-needed assault weapons ban? (I'm talking to you, House of Representatives majority, filibuster-abusing Senate Republicans, and gutless pro-gun Democrats.)   Or will we let the deaths of innocents again be in vain?  We'll need to keep the pressure up over the next weeks and months if there is to be any chance at all for comprehensive reform.

I wish I could agree with former Republican Congessman/now MSNBC political commentator Joe Scarborough that either Republicans get in touch with reality on this issue or they will lose control of the House.  On Andrea Mitchell Reports today, Scarborough "laid out what he saw as the GOP's two choices in the House of Representatives. 'They can either pass a comprehensive gun control package right now and shape it under Speaker Boehner, or they can wait two years when they lose the majority and have Nancy Pelosi write that bill...there are no other choices.' " [Huffington Post]  Unfortunately, with the post-2010 gerrymandered Congressional districts providing a majority of safe districts for Republicans, Scarborough's projection appears to be unrealistic. 

So convinced are they of the "safety" of  their Congressional districts, some Republican strategists are proposing changes to the way Electoral College votes are counted.  Several Republican-controlled swing states that voted for Obama in 2012 are considering proposals that would award an electoral vote to the winner of  the Congressional district. The primary objective is to allow a Republican to win the Presidency in 2016.  Perhaps because they think they waited too long with their voter suppression laws (the "strategy" for 2012), they are getting an early start for 2016.   [Mother Jones]

Kudos to the State of New York for passing the toughest gun control legislation in the country this week.  But state laws can only do so much - it's a short hop down I-95 to areas where guns can be purchased more easily. 

As for the Second Amendment, if the Supreme Court cannot figure out how to parse subordinate clauses (as in "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"), maybe it's time to repeal this albatross from the eighteenth century.  Let's just hope the right wing bozos on the Court don't overturn New York's tough new gun law before then. 

Baseball Cards

Two of the more interesting stories of recent days were about baseball cards. 

A man found an 1865 baseball card in a photo album that he bought at a yard sale in the small town of Biddeford, Maine.  According to Saco River Auction Co., which is handling the find, "six figure bids are expected."  The rare card is a team photo of the amateur baseball club, the Brooklyn Atlantics.  It shows nine players and their manager.  Not your typical baseball card but a wonderful peak at an earlier era.  The only other known copy of the card is in the Library of Congress, which designated it as the "earliest dated baseball card." I'll say - 1865 was the year the American Civil War ended!  It's easy to forget that long before it became the national pastime, baseball was a team sport played by amateurs solely for the love of the game.

Well I thought that was a pretty amazing amount of money until I read of the top-grade 1909 Honus Wagner card going up for auction.  That could bring in near 3 million dollars when it is auctioned in February by Goldin Auctions.  Here's a picture of the card just in case you run across it in your attic.

Image is from Wikimedia Commons

Honus Wagner was a superstar of his era but why is his 1909 card so much more valuable than anything else out there?  Well, for one thing it's pretty rare.  About-dot-com explains it this way:  "The earliest baseball cards were produced and distributed by tobacco companies, and according to legend, the Honus Wagner card was pulled from the American Tobacco Company's 1909 set due to Wagner's objection to the use of his image for the promotion of tobacco products. It is estimated that only 50 to 100 of these cards exist today."  The other part of the equation is that there are people willing to pay the price - i.e., there must be some great (and rich) Pittsburgh Pirate fans out there,

Most of us have stories of our mother's throwing out or "garage sale"-ing the baseball cards of our youth once we'd left home.  I don't think I had any worth anywhere near that kind of money but I did have some pretty good ones.  Maybe my 1955 Topps Willie Mays card would have brought in some money.  Hmmm, about $380 according to the Free Baseball Card Prices website.  Not enough to finance a college education (even back then) but a good investment, nevertheless, when you consider you got six cards plus a piece of bubble gum for a nickel. 

Back in the days of black and white TV, before video games and the internet, when baseball was still the king of the professional sports, baseball cards meant a lot.  You could invent games scaling or flipping them (actually a form of youth gambling since you could win the other kid's cards or lose your own), you could trade your "doubles" ("got it, got it, don't got it, got it"), you could memorize the stats on the back of the card and impress your uncles.  I can remember at least two players from my first pack of cards bought in 1954 - Bill Taylor, a utility outfielder for the New York Giants and Joey Jay, a pitcher for the Milwaukee Braves and the first Little Leaguer to make it to the major leagues.  One of our friends, when asked what he would do if a fire broke out in his house, said he would run and get his baseball cards. Okay he was maybe nine or ten at the time but if he had several Willie Mays's or, in his case, Mickey Mantle's, it may have been worth it. 

On a day when the Hall of Fame selection committee deemed none of those eligible to be worthy of the honor (one of the sports magazines called it a "slap at the steroid era"), it's good to think back to a time when baseball was, and life seemed, a lot simpler.

Other Links

ESPN/AP story on the 1865 Brooklyn Atlantics card

Pittsburgh Business Times article on the Honus Wagner card

NYTimes article on Hall of Fame vote

The Fiscal Cliff (and other) Follies

The markets reacted positively yesterday (Dow up 300 points) when the so-called fiscal cliff was finally averted. The dreaded fiscal cliff was and continues to be a self-imposed crisis. It's closely related to last year's Republican-manufactured “debt ceiling crisis” that briefly threw the markets into a downward spin. The centrists who control the Democratic Party today have apparently swallowed the Republican nonsense that the most important problem facing America is the national debt. It's not. The most important economic problem facing America today is the continuing high unemployment and underemployment.

The fiscal compromise was finally approved by the Republican-controlled House. The Senate shamed them into it by overwhelmingly approving it. The compromise raises revenues by discontinuing the income tax break for people earning more than $450k/yr (almost double Obama's going in position). It basically kicks the can down the road two months – when additional battles on the sequestering of funds will take place. If the Republican foot dragging on the compromise is any indication, you can bet the military-industrial-political complex will fight the defense cuts that are in play. And if the lack of cooperation in the fiscal cliff negotiations shown by Republicans is any indication, you can bet that the debt ceiling will again become another ridiculous fiasco at about the same time. Geithner's special steps on the debt run out about then. In any case, we'll get an early indication of how much the Republicans intend to obstruct progress on things beneficial to the average American when Biden's task force on gun violence presents its recommendations to Congress. It will be particularly interesting to see what they do on the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. 

It took Republican Governor Christie of New Jersey to call out House Republicans, and in particular John Boehner for failing to call for a vote on the $60 billion relief bill for Sandy victims already approved by the Senate. As ABC reported, "Do your job and come through for the people of this country," Christie pointedly said about Boehner. The bill "could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority," Christie said. It had the desired effect – Republicans scrambled to reassure voters that they would vote on $9 billion within days and consider the remaining $51 billion by mid January.

President Obama also has a lot to answer for. As reported in the Huffington Post: “President Barack Obama signed the [$633 billion] National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 on Wednesday, despite his own threat to veto it over prohibitions on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp....Civil liberties advocates had roundly criticized the bill over Guantanamo and a separate section that could allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens on suspicions of supporting terrorism. “ There was no way Congress would have overridden his veto. They would have revoted on the ridiculously overbloated military budget without those provisions. Maybe Obama was just worn down by the fiscal cliff negotiations but this does not bode well for his second term.

Finally just a word about what may be one of the bigger threats to our democracy – gerrymandering (aka redistricting) of House Congressional districts. Talk about the will of the people. With a Congressional approval rating barely registering in double digits for much of 2012, 94% of House incumbents were reelected to office in the 2012 elections – and Republicans, because they are now better at gerrymandering  than Democrats, retained firm control of the House.  From  the Think Progress website: “Based on current tallies, Democrats now lead Republicans 59,343,447 to 58,178,393 in total votes cast for their House candidates — meaning that the American people preferred Democrats over Republicans by nearly a full percentage point of the total vote. Yet, despite clearly losing the popular vote, Republicans will control nearly 54 percent of the seats in the House in the 113th Congress.”  The scary thing is that there is no end in sight to Republican control of the House and their "safe" districts.  Unless the average Republican voter wakes up to what is happening (or more accurately not happening) because of this, we are in for more of the same until the next census in 2020.