
The Dalai Lama might have said it with more eloquence, but it was Rocky Balboa, in the movie Creed, who said it best: “You can’t learn anything when you’re talking.” That bit of wisdom should be inscribed on a large plaque at the entrance to every hearing room in the United States Capitol.
According to the website GovInfo.gov, a congressional hearing is a meeting of a special committee to obtain information. Yet, when it comes to public hearings where cameras are rolling, obtaining information takes a back seat to political grandstanding. Instead of asking concise questions designed to elicit information, most congressmen and senators use their allotted time to make speeches and badger witnesses. Last week, Ken Cuccinelli, President Trump’s acting director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, was summoned to Congress for a hearing about the administration’s policy of denying illegal immigrants with serious medical conditions the ability to remain in the United States for treatment. Cuccinelli, the former Republican attorney general of Virginia, is known for his homophobic views and blind loyalty to the GOP, but no one should be subjected to the kinds of attacks he endured at the hands of Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Schultz, you recall, is the woman who came under fire for using her position at the DNC to give Hillary an unfair advantage over Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries. Here’s an excerpt from her exchange with Cuccinelli.
DWS: You and Mr. Trump don’t want anyone who looks or talks differently from Caucasians, to be allowed into this country.
KC: That’s false.
DWS: Please don’t interrupt…you will pursue this heinous, white supremacist ideology at all cost.
KC: That’s defamatory.
DWS: There’s nothing defamatory about it.
Again, I’m no fan of the narrow-minded Cuccinelli, but Schultz’s calling him a xenophobe and a white supremacist was inappropriate. Unfortunately, this kind of grandstanding by Schultz is all too common, and both political parties are guilty. The website OneCitizenSpeaking.com refers to these made for TV hearings as “Kabuki Theatre, a stage-managed chance for members of Congress to play to their constituent audience and sound articulate, tough, or compassionate depending on the political climate. This is the primary reason why most hearings feature long and complicated questions that are more like miniature campaign speeches and a regurgitation of the party’s talking points.”
We’ve seen this “Kabuki Theatre” play out time and again over the past ten years, including with Republican hypocrites like Mike Pompeo grilling Hillary at the Benghazi hearings, and Lindsay Graham screaming at other members while attempting to discredit Christine Blasey Ford at the Kavanaugh hearings. And then there’s wild man Jim Jordan, who went off on Michael Cohen during the Mueller hearings. It is sad that our elected officials are allowed to lie about, defame, and accuse witnesses without fear of retribution or legal consequence. Not so for us regular folks. If we lie at a congressional hearing, it’s a federal crime, that could land us in jail alongside Felicity Huffman and Aunt Becky. Not only that, but neither a witness nor a committee member can even call out another member for lying. It’s a pretty good double standard for congressmen, kind of like when the government shuts down and elected officials still get paid while common civil servants are SOL.
But perhaps the worst part of these televised hearings, is that when congressmen spew unfounded and false information (what Kellyanne Conway calls “alternative facts”), millions of people accept their lies as the truth, and that can lead to an uninformed and misinformed electorate. Or, as playwrite George Bernard Shaw put it, “Beware of false knowledge: it is more dangerous than ignorance.”
Republican congressmen have been complaining of late that the House impeachment hearings are unfair because they have been held in private, which is yet another “alternative fact”, because Republicans have been included in every hearing. Ironically that hollow complaint and the grandstanding that goes on during televised hearings, do nothing but strengthen the case for closed-door hearings, where members of congress actually ask questions instead of making political speeches. It bears repeating: “You can’t learn anything when you’re talking.”




























Posted November 12, 2019 By Triad TodayNorth Carolina Should Adopt California Fur Ban
Although many of us East-Coasters like to make jokes about the “Left Coast”, and its liberal tree huggers, the fact is that California is a forward-thinking trendsetter when it comes to taking a stand on social and environmental issues. In the past 20 years alone, the Golden State was the first to oppose federal restrictions on stem cell research, the first to pass a restrictive law on greenhouse gas emissions, the first State to mandate prescription drug discounts, and the first to de-criminalize the recreational use of marijuana. Earlier this fall, Governor Gavin Newsom pushed through legislation that will allow college athletes to be compensated for the use of their name and image, a move which prompted the NCAA to follow suit. And last month, California became the first state in the nation to ban the sale of animal fur products.
According to CNN, the bill, which goes into effect on January 1, 2023, will make it illegal to sell, donate, or manufacture new fur products, and that will apply to “all new clothing, handbags, shoes, and other items made with fur.” In addition to signing the fur bill (#AB44), Newsom also signed into law several other bills designed to prevent animal cruelty. Those laws will include a ban on the use of elephants and tigers by any circus that does business in the state. It also protects horses from slaughter, and bans the trapping and killing of bobcats. However, depending upon your point of view, the recent legislation isn’t exactly comprehensive. For example, according to the Associated Press, the new laws do not apply to “products used for religious or tribal purposes…and they exclude the sale of leather, cowhides, deer, sheep and goat skin, and anything preserved by taxidermy.” Despite those perplexing loopholes, the new protections are a welcome sight to those of us who abhor mistreatment of animals.
Not surprisingly, companies that make products from animals, are furious. According to the Fur Information Council, the retail fur industry brought in $1.5 billion dollars in sales in 2014. FIC spokesperson Keith Kaplan told the Associated Press, “The ban is part of a radical vegan agenda using fur as the first step to other bans on what we wear and eat.” In contrast, a number of design houses including Versace, Gucci, and Giorgio Armani, are fine with the new laws, and according to Recordnet.com, say they have either already stopped, or plan to stop using fur. And in somewhat of a surprise move, even Queen Elizabeth got into the spirit of things, coincidentally announcing last week that she will no longer wear fur.
Obviously people disagree about what should and shouldn’t be banned, but we cannot ignore the disturbing facts. According to the Humane Society of the United States, every year, over 40 million animals are killed for fur worldwide, 30 million of which are raised on fur farms, then slaughtered. The other 10 million are trapped and killed in the wild. However, a group called Last Chance for Animals puts the numbers even higher. According to their website, more than one billion animals are killed for their pelts each year. So kudos to Governor Newsom and the California legislature for recognizing a wrong, and then righting it. I just wish our North Carolina lawmakers would follow California’s example. After all, Berger and company should at least be more concerned with protecting animals than they are with protecting gerrymandered districts.