Chick-fil-A

Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-a could have ducked and weaved his way around questions about his support of “Biblical” definitions of marriage.  But, instead he chose to stand his ground saying he doesn’t support gay marriage.  Well, good for him.  At least he has the guts to support his convictions.

Many around the web are now asking for a boycott of the Chick-fil-A restaurants across the nation.  There are a few locations in Michigan.  The response has been polarizing as you can imagine.  Others say that Cathy should be supported because he stands his ground and doesn’t hide in public relations no man’s land.  To boycott the restaurant is to be against free speech. 

But, Cathy made it an issue.  Those that will boycott the restaurant would perhaps have never known about the support provided to anti-gay groups either by the company or Cathy himself.  Their hard earned dollars would have continued to be spent at the restaurant so that some of those dollars could work against them.  It is almost like buying the gun that will shoot you.

But, the great issue here has nothing to do with Cathy’s support of anything.  It has everything to do with the political PACs that spend billions of dollars in political races throwing around a lot trash talk that isn’t supported. 

How is it that I can make that connection?  This seems a long ways away from keeping your name or your company’s name out of the political arena but spending lots of money to influence elections that will benefit you.  Can you see the connection now?

If the name of every person and company was known who donated to a political PAC, it would place a target on their company sales.  People who have a pet political agenda would boycott the companies because of its support of an opposing agenda.  But, companies can give money and other material support to organizations that are not required to provide a list of where the money comes from.  Unlike Cathy, many hide behind this wall of silence.

This is all the result of Supreme Court rulings.  It struck down campaign laws on the federal level and recently struck down laws on the state level that required full disclosure.  Even arguably the most conservative justice on the court disagreed with the ruling.  Anthony Scalia as recently as today during an interview with National Public Radio said that to understand political speech you must know who is speaking. 

In a community, an open discussion of the issues is important.  To have some that are involved in the discussion to be unknown is in violation of the political process.  We all condemned the “decisions made in smoked filled rooms behind closed doors” of many years ago.  Well, by not knowing who the supporters are of any speech means we are right back there. 

I am glad that Cathy has the guts to support his convictions.  I will have the guts also to not visit my local Chick-Fil-A for lunch, just because of his public announcements.  This is the way the process is suppose to work.

Where is the nation debate on guns?

The NRA has accomplished one of its goals, to keep guns “free” while squashing the freedom of speech.

Over the last week, the news has been filled with the shootings in Colorado.  A man was able to purchase four guns including two assault rifles that have only one mission: to kill as many people as possible.  He also purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition on line.  This same man was denied entrance or membership to a shooting range, because the manager could hear something in his voice. We can all assume that the manager that denied the shooter access is a pro-gun kind of guy. Twelve people were killed; scores wounded and even more lives traumatized forever.

What should happen after an event like this is a national discussion about guns and weapons designed to kill people.  But, there is has been near silence on the topic.  The NRA has worked so hard in the past with their campaigns of fear to their brotherhood of gun totters and spread their cash around to politicians like whiskey in a cowboy saloon that no one wants to start the debate.  If someone did, the advertising and campaigns about “freedom” would rage with their slanted view.

The freedom to bear arms has its place.  Even if you think that arms are guaranteed in the United States Constitution to support militias, that still makes it a right in our country.  Even lacking a Constitution that vaguely supports the right to bear arms, a Responsible Community should allow the ownership of guns.

With that in mind, there is no argument that can be made that the authors of the Constitution and those that supported its adoption ever thought that reasonable controls could not be placed on any of the rights, including the right to bear arms.  There are restrictions on speech, publishing, religion and other rights.  Can we not work at finding the balance between guaranteeing the freedom of arms and the safety of the community?

One argument that would arise, if the NRA’s strong arm tactics didn’t clamp down on speech, is that even absolute restriction would not have stopped the gunman in Colorado.  He would have found a way to get the guns anyway.  Perhaps that is true.  But, it would have taken longer.  This may have been enough time for those that would protect the lives and safety of people in the community to respond.  It may have also allowed enough time for the gunman, who was sane enough to make the purchases and develop a detailed plan to come to his senses.

Maybe enough time would have past to keep just this one event from happening.  The 12 people that died and the scores of others that were shot by him could have just enjoyed the movie.

The Chief Justice to the rescue

In the midst of a very strongly contested Presidential election, partisan politics running at its deepest and arguments over the role of government taking on new passion not seen since the 60’s, a true leader arises.  The leader isn’t from any elected office, not a president or legislature, but an appointed official, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Thought of as a conservative and nominated by a conservative president, Chief Justice John Roberts was not seen by anyone as being a swing vote to support a “liberal” cause.  But, Roberts was the vote that allowed the health care act to survive.  Even more to his credit, Roberts’ argument in support of the health care law was that congress has the right to tax – taxes not being a favorable thing on the conservative side of the aisle.

Roberts did not side with those that said the act was allowed under the commerce clause of the Constitution.  That clause grants the power to congress to control commerce among the several states.  But, controlling commerce that voluntary takes place and commerce that is forced are two different things in Roberts’ view.  To force people to purchase something, in this case health care, is not what the clause is about, according to Roberts.

Instead, Roberts went off the reservation held by the other conservatives on the court that passionately disagreed with him. (Passionately being a polite word given the degree of anger expressed in the dissenting opinion.)  He applied the clause in the Constitution that grants the power of the congress to tax.  The penalty you pay if you don’t purchase health insurance is not a fine, but a tax according to Roberts and those that support the health care bil.  Therefore, congress can write that into legislation.

Think about it for a moment, in a twist not thought of before Roberts’ opinion.  There are other things that I pay dearly for if I don’t do something.   If I don’t purchase a house with a mortgage, I pay a penalty.  There is a higher tax liability because I don’t have interest payments to deduct.  If I don’t give to charity, I pay a penalty because I don’t have a deduction.  In a twist on this twist, I don’t pay an additional tax when I don’t buy cigarettes.

Roberts reasoning is sound, but that isn’t the point of this blog post.  To his real credit is that he stood up to follow conservatives on the court and faced down conservatives across the spectrum that did not share his opinion.  (Roberts even stood firm on his opinion of not allowing cameras in the court.  A group of Republicans had requested filming of the opinion a few weeks ago.  Roberts turned down the request, avoiding the dragging of the Supreme Court into the morass that is our political landscape right now.)

In a time when leadership is lacking, when the two parties can’t figure out a way to get things down, a leader arises.  Roberts placed politics aside and provided a well-reasoned opinion.

Thank you Chief Justice John Roberts.

Let's jail owners of abandon property

If it has never happen to you and your neighbors, imagine for a moment.  You have a great house in what you thought was a good neighborhood.  Then, the owners of two houses on the block stop making repairs to their homes.  Maybe there were rental properties that went vacant because of the leaky roof or the electrical problems that haven’t been repaired.  Brush piles up, the pool in the back yard fills with swampy water creating a hazard for kids in the area, not to mention the mosquitoes.

After many violation tickets and years of issues, the property still doesn’t get fixed. 

According to a study by the University of Michigan, in Flint and other areas around the state, the value of a home in a neighborhood drops by 10% for every blighted house.  Not just on your block, but in a two block radius. 

A law proposed by Senator Virgil Smith that is getting some attention in Lansing would help with that problem.  Property owners that don’t care of their property could be jailed for a second offense.  It could be a year in the slammer for a third offense.   It would also speed up the process of placing liens on properties and prevent land owners with liens of obtaining building permits on other property.

People have the right to own property.  But, with any right, there comes responsibility.  When any right is exercised, as in purchasing property, the responsibility takes effect.  Property owners that don’t take care of their property, endanger the safety of people in the community and have a detrimental effect on the value of other property need to eventually lose their right to own property. 

This is a bigger problem than someone losing their job and not being able to take care of their property.  There are solutions to issues like that.  This issue is focused on properties owners that own multi properties and are abusing their right.  This is focused on banks that take over foreclosed property and don’t maintain them.

These bills in Lansing need the support of the community.  If we are to maintain our living environment, everyone needs to live up to their responsibility.  If not, they lose their rights. 
-----

Occupy needs to go home and vote

The protesters in Chicago will be leaving town soon because the NATO summit is over.  The protesters will plan their next campaign, perhaps an Occupy somewhere, maybe a protest in a city that hosts another national or international summit or conference.  The end result will be the same as before they took to the streets, nobody took much notice beyond the inconvenience they caused to the residents that just wanted to get back and forth to work.

That is unless they make some changes.

The Tea Party did the same thing a few years ago.  Remember the protests at the health care public comment meetings.  They were yelling and screaming at elected officials that voted for the law.  Images of angry people with veins bulging in their necks flashed on the front pages of newspapers around the country.  Two years later instead of continuing to yell and scream they are having a real effect on the outcome of elections.

What is the Tea party doing that is so different then what Occupy and other protest groups on the other extreme doing?  They organized, stayed local and motivated their base.  The establishment noticed because the Tea party people and their supporters showed up to vote.

Individuals and groups can have the very deepest and sincere passions about making changes, but unless they channel the passion, it will go unnoticed by elected officials.  People that are elected to office pay close attention to those that got them elected.  It may be the money people that provided the funds to run an expensive campaign.  It may be the unions that provide a natural organization to motivate.  Or, as we as seeing now, it is the Tea Party that is getting their supporters to the polls.

A politician told me a long time ago about his strategy for keeping his seat in the house.  By his telephone, he kept a voter registration list.  When someone called to make a comment about something, while politely listening he looked for their name on the list.  If it wasn’t there, he got off the phone as soon as he could and moved on.  If the name was there, he made sure he followed up on the issue.

As a community organizer for many years, I paid close attention to those that supported the positions I worked for and that were registered voters.  At the beginning of conversations about the issues I tried to find out the last time they voted and how they stood on the issues.  If they didn’t vote, I moved on to spend my time finding people that did vote.

It matters little that some may think that the system is rigged to help the incumbents.  You can design the very best representative government and somewhere along the process, someone has to vote to support an issue or a candidate.  The issue or the candidate will fail if there aren’t enough votes.  As the old expression goes, victory goes to those that show up.

Much of what Occupy and other groups say would be good for the community.  Any responsible community should support their positions because they will make improvements that are needed.  But, unless they go home and vote after the protesting is done, nothing will change.
-----

Domestic violence needs to be stopped

From a distance it can be difficult to understand what the current status is of a bill working its way through congress.  It can also be difficult to have a good understanding of the provisions of a bill and its impact on the issue.  Compromise, research, lobbying, the Constitution and many other things can all play a part in the final outcome.  What you can do is define the overriding issue and ask that the legislation address the issue in a clear way that is fair to all parties.

The Violence against Women Act is up for renewal, as it is every two years.  The Senate expanded the definition of those that could qualify for assistance to adjust to the change in domestic living arrangements in American society.  The House version doesn’t adjust and maintains the status quo.    

The Senate’s expansion in coverage recognizes that there are more same sex domestic partners in America.  It has been discovered that they are beginning to experience the same kind of problems that duel sex families face.  One of the members in the family can be an abuser and make life a living hell for the other.  The abused in same sex relationships can be just as trapped as others.  The Senate bill would allow the abused, no matter the legal relationship as long as they are domestic partners, to receive support to get out of the relationship while receiving protection from the abuser.  The House bill, as written at this moment, would not recognize the domestic arrangement.  The victim in same sex relationships would not be afforded assistance or protection.

There is a lot of pressure on the House Republicans, the party that is responsible for the wording of the current house bill, to change their opinion and broaden the definition of domestic relationships.  Let’s hope they recognize the importance of an inclusive bill before it gets to the house floor for a vote.

Think for a moment, if two people are being assaulted on the street, the cops that come to stop the violence don’t first ask the gender preference of the victims to know which one to help.  The cops stop the assault on both, arrest the abusers and protect the victims from further violence.  But, in domestic violence, the cops ask the gender preference, they then only help the straight victim while allowing the assault to continue on the gay victim.  Why is it different if it is a domestic relationship when both are of the same sex?  This is a relatively possible outcome of the law.  The victim from the duel sex marriage receives financial support to get out of the household, has protection provide by law enforcement and the local community has help in prosecuting the abuser.  None of that help is available to the same sex victim.  The current House bill would only help one kind of person, apparently the kind the House Republicans like, and not the other kind of person, apparently the kind the House Republicans don’t like.

People are people and deserve the community’s help regardless of their living arrangements.  House Republicans need to change their position on the current legislation and provide support to all domestic partners, not just those that are married.
-----

Gay marriage and dire predictions

Barack Obama has become the first President of the United States that supports gay marriage.  In an interview broadcast on the Today show, President Obama said he personally supports same sex marriage.  It ends a long weekend of speculation after Vice-President Biden said he was comfortable with it.  It also ends a long period of time when the President said he was conflicted about the issue.

There are now statements claiming that America is falling off a cliff and moving quickly down the road of moral degradation.  Similar claims were made when Abraham Lincoln ended slavery.  When Woodrow Wilson came out in support of giving the right to vote to women, more dire prediction where made.  In 1968 when the Supreme Court struck down keeping the races from marriage, it was said to be the end of civilization as we knew it.  But, the world didn’t end and debate soon dried up because of the terrible logic of those supporting the status quo. 

Now the national debate can happen again.  People will have to make choices about perhaps one the nation’s last codified discrimination policies.  There are two arguments over the last couple of days that have come to front and center on the issue. 

First, it is a moral issue.  Many religions think of marriage as only between a man and a woman.  The push to get amendments written into states’ constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman is based on moralists trying to use a community’s laws to up hold their own moral code.  This is not the purpose of law or community.  The purpose of any community is shared responsibility and to build a safe environment.  Communities should address issues that prevent activity that endangers the safety of an individual.  If the community has no compelling reason other than morality to prevent an activity, then it should not be prevented.  Marriage equity doesn’t harm anyone, so it should not be prevented. 

The other is a more fundamental reason for the fear and loathing about same sex marriage, children.  While not often talked about because of its stealth nature, it is now beginning to rise to the surface.  After Obama’s statement, religious leaders on TV talk shows mentioned the issue to grab the fear of people that are undecided about the issue.  Moralists are concerned that by allowing same sex marriage, the couple will adopt children and advance the “gay cause” by increasing the amount of gay people.  They believe that by a gay couple living the lifestyle it will teach others how to be gay.  Besides the fact that there is no evidence that being gay is a choice, children will not be harmed.  They will find themselves in a situation just like their friends that have duel sex marriage.  That as long as the children know they are loved, they are safe and they are expected to succeed, they will be just fine. 

On a final point, how can the community prevent something that is legal (and doesn’t harm anyone as mentioned above)?  If it were illegal to participate in a same sex relationship, it might be argued that same sex marriage should be illegal.  A ruling by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v Texas judged that laws prohibiting sex between consenting same sex couples is in violation of the Fourteenth amendment.  So, it is not illegal activity.

The President did the right thing to come out in support of gay marriage.  Like all the other times that we have broken with tradition, when we move pass this storm, we will find that no great harm will come to past. 

Our country is enjoying a little bit more freedom today.  Let’s allow it to grow. 
-----