Achieving armistice in the "Battle of the Sexes?"

Critical moment: 🤔
Almost daily we see announcements of male executives being fired, displaced and facing the end of their careers as a result of accusations of "inappropriate sexual conduct" usually but not always in relation to professional settings. The multitude of claims being brought forward attests to the pattern and practice of sexually predatory behaviors and intimidation employed in the business and professional world. The floodgates have been opened, and women [and men] previously too fearful of coming forward are now feeling empowered to tell of their experiences. At this time, there is an increasing disposition to consider such allegations seriously and as credible. That these stories are being told is an important cultural moment that exposes and illuminates power structures and imbalances that have impeded economic and professional progress for those exploited. On social media, there are multiple calls for an all out assault upon "men" and a calls for women to "take over" from a male dominated power structure. Apparently, this is the solution advocated for elimination and prevention of sexual exploitation in economic and professional contexts.

The problem with "revolution" is that, by definition, it almost always replaces one form of oppression with another. Patriarchal and gender based exploitation need to be dismantled, certainly. Sex and sexuality as surrogate for power MUST be called out, regardless of who holds power and against whom it is used. This is not an apologia for sexist behavior in any setting, for such conduct IS inappropriate, problematic and wrongful. Some careful and critical thought should be given, however, to how that problem might be addressed.

Thought should be given to the desired "end game." The current reckoning is understandable, and probably necessary, to dislodge power structures and mindsets. And perhaps we are not yet at a point where critical and thoughtful examination as to strategies can be entertained broadly. After a wave of justified indignation, retribution, vengeance, recrimination and bloodletting, what will stand? Will it be gender equality or a type of intractable conflict [e.g. Arab-Israeli]? If the former is a goal, how do we get there? I don't have the answer, but do believe that the question needs to be addressed.

As a person of color, the complexity of the constellation of problems is not a new phenomenon. How can race [as a social construct] and ethnic diversity or diversity of skin color and physical features exist without being employed as a "power tool" of exploitation and oppression? This is the simply stated, but chronically resistant problem to be resolved. In the race-related civil rights and social movements, we have seen in my lifetime several phases. There have been various calls to a public social conscience regarding discrimination and oppression, periods of open and public anger to both defend people of color against racial violence and to seek vengeance for racial injustice, movements for affirmative action to seek to redress systemic imbalance and promote an equalization of opportunity, and illusory claims of a "post-racial" society. The peaceful protests, change to claim dignity for people of color "by any means necessary," and the "kill whitey" exhortations have yielded some progress and also the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X. Even whites, including Bobby Kennedy, who resisted the racialized power structure were not safe. Yet we still see almost daily reports of continuing racially motivated violence and exploitation, much of it "official" and systemic, against people of color in the United States and elsewhere. So, the "me too" movement and the "down with men" calls might be seen as a phase in a much broader process of social transformation. As such, the question is not whether it should take place, but rather what will these phases achieve?

Without serious, rational and critical examination, these public outcries and outpourings are not likely to yield constructive progress or solutions. I doubt anyone really believes that ALL males who have ever engaged in "inappropriate" behavior in their lifetimes will be summarily removed from positions of power and responsibility. Also, to claim that an offensive remark or innuendo of a sexualized nature is the moral equivalent of a rape or physical sexual assault may be misguided. It is similar to equating a racial slur to a lynching. Both are wrongful and should lead to accountability, but failure to distinguish is unproductive and could undermine the moral force of the exposure. There ARE varied circumstances and contexts which should lead to varied outcomes toward elimination of exploitation and abuse of power. Change in power relations, not just vilification ought to be a goal. In the employment law context, I have seen careers destroyed and opportunities foreclosed for employees of color based upon racial animus and systemic discrimination. I have also seen instances in which tenuous race discrimination claims were asserted by persons of color to mask substandard performance or for vengeful motives. A just result and constructive outcome can rarely be achieved without critical examination of the distinctions.

If we are to reach any form of constructive solution or "armistice," there may also need to be a critical examination of the fact that the problem is "relational." In other words, the problem is not a unilateral process, like using a hammer to crush a rock. The problem is a product of interaction, a form of symbiosis. That is not to say victims should be blamed for the abuse of a power differential or exploitation. Yet calling out sexism and sexual impropriety should be thoughtful, evidence-based and reasonable to achieve credible progress. An environment that receives and listens to such concerns must be created and fostered. Another Anita Hill incident, in which her credible public stand against Clarence Thomas was dismissed as "female fantasies," should never again be allowed to take place. Had the mechanisms and environment for her to express those concerns at an earlier stage could have prevented recurrence and avoided the painful Senate hearing confrontation. Indeed, those conditions would have precluded the nomination of Thomas. Roy Moore should never have been allowed to hold an office of public trust, nor should he be allowed to advance for a variety of reasons, including misogyny. And comments by women suggesting reflection on ways that men AND women both contribute to a dysfunctional symbiotic relationship should not be dismissed by women, as were Anita Hill's arguments by men. In a heated argument, no amount of assigning blame for who started the conflict, or who is victim, will actually resolve the conflict. Both participants will have to change the dynamic of the interaction to achieve peace. Constructive solutions are unlikely to be achieved without change by ALL participants in the relational dynamic. Power will exist and be exercised in any context, but the balance and sharing of that power, along with effective prevention of abuse should be the goal. And the shift will not take place overnight. Reaching an armistice in the "Battle of the Sexes" will require a transformation, not a revolution.

Towards an asexual business culture??

The plethora of accusations coming forth in the media about women reporting a wide array of incidents deemed harassment or sexual assault or inappropriate sexually oriented behavior has sparked a one sided conversation that has illuminated the issues of sexual politics, abuse of power and empowerment of women to speak out. These accusations should not be lumped into a single basket, but the mainstream and social media trends toward the indiscriminate. Typically, one sided conversations are usually unproductive and fail to foster understanding or growth. At present, the frenzy of public scorn directed at men generally, and particularly those who have engaged in any questionable  sexually oriented encounter in the past, overshadows any critical or nuanced discussion directed toward better understanding.

To be sure, there are and have been sexual predators who are predominantly male, because of the male dominated culture of the working world. When power is wielded, it is usually the holder of power exploiting it. Since gender discrimination has created and maintained a power imbalance in favor of men, it is logical that the great majority of those exploiting such imbalance are men. Harvey Weinstein is a classic example. It is important to acknowledge distinctions, however. The focus here is not the rapist who attacks a woman either as a mugging assault or as date rape. The focal issue is the combination of sexually oriented interaction coupled with exploitation of power and position for intimidation and induced fear of reprisal that could damage career opportunities.

Examination of that issue requires dissecting the dynamics of power and such interactions as they have evolved. Men, having prospered from the privilege of power imbalance cannot be heard to complain that women seek to expose and address that privilege. Women, having adapted and having found ways to advance within the existing system must also accept some measure of responsibility for its perpetuation. This mutual accountability is apparently in short supply. When Mayim Bialek spoke out and noted that she chooses not to dress in sexually attractive wear for business contexts, a refusal to accede to the dominant expectations, she was attacked vociferously by women for allegedly "slut shaming." Her comments touched a nerve by exposing that women dress and present themselves in ways that are deliberately sexually distinctive in order to attract or access opportunities or to compete with other females for advancement. That the existing systems of power induce women to exploit sexuality for career and sustenance is wrong. To deny that such behaviors are prevalent denies accountability while demanding accountability from men, and is counterproductive.

The accusations against Al Franken, before he became a senator, provide a good case study, if we are allowed to look carefully, critically and closely. We do not know all the facts, but available evidence allows for exploration. There were two incidents, or parts to the story. Franken acknowledges his participation in both, a marked contrast from Roy Moore and the President who face more serious accusations involving many more women, but publicly deny their involvement. The first is the accusation of groping and kissing in connection with a skit performed during a USO event. The inclusion of a kissing scene was inappropriate for inclusion in the show - particularly if the female journalist or Franken was not comfortable and consenting. But the female journalist admits she agreed to do it. Was consent induced by fear that she would lose work opportunities. She is not an entertainer whose future career then comedian Franken could have impacted significantly. We next ask whether consent was genuine at the time, but retracted after the fact. In between these options is the possibility of faulty calibration. Suppose she consented to the kissing scene, but Franken's idea of what that entailed was different that what she expected or was comfortable with. If that were the case, Franken's acknowledgement of the event and the differing recollections of it are plausible. Did the journalist stop rehearsal and object? Was the scene pulled from the show on her objections? These might be helpful things to know if there is a desire to truly understand.

The second part of the story is a staged photograph in which the journalist appears to be asleep, dressed in field gear and a protective vest, with Franken reaching toward her breasts. Witnesses, including photographer, say that she was feigning sleep and was a willing participant in the "comedic" photo. She says she only saw the photo after the fact. Both statements can be truthful, but the media has seized upon the photo as evidence of past misconduct. Franken agrees in retrospect that the photo was in bad taste and was not "funny." The complicating factor in the debate may be whether the journalist was complicit in the photo. She was not touched, but was treated as a sex object in the photo setting. It is important that accusations of women coming forward be presumed credible if progress and change are to take place.  Yet if evidence is corroborated that she participated in staging the photo, and does not acknowledge this, her accusations will be criticized as false claims and may undermine credible claims of assault and abuse by other women.

A potentially troublesome, but possibly beneficial change on the horizon may be toward a totally  asexual business environment. That would be an end result unless there is more nuanced dialogue. One perspective opened by the Kevin Spacey accusations is that victimization is not exclusive to women. Men may be victimized in the workplace by male or female superiors, particularly with regard to claims of intimidation and humiliation. So the result is that women would not be allowed to wear any clothing that is reflective of sexuality. and men would similarly be required to dress in an androgynous fashion. A comment of "you look well" or "your dress is quite professional" would be permitted. However, no comment suggesting other the person "looks attractive" would be permitted. Every interaction would need to be recorded, and any one-on-one interaction that is cross-gender must be avoided.

While the current law would not support a claim of harassment or hostile work environment based upon a compliment, the current court of public media could destroy a career based solely upon any accusation. Any person with career position or aspirations would be well advised to avoid any fraternizing with any professional co-worker or acquaintance of the opposite sex [or same sex if any participant were gay]. The innocuous business lunch [involving no actual touching] could potentially come back to destroy a career, if recalled differently even years later. Such events would be extremely rare, and this assertion would inevitably be criticized as overreaction,but the point is that any encounter would entail unreasonable risk. Thus, avoidance would be prudent. The presumptive way to establish trust would be to preclude any interaction that could be interpreted as sexually inappropriate. We have seen dystopian movies reflecting such environments.

The human comedy is replete with stories and foibles about misunderstandings, misaligned expectations and other mishaps as couples attempt to establish relationships and navigate the arena of sexual politics. One suggestion would be to return to Victorian standards where touching is mostly forbidden. The problem with such regression is that there was sexual impropriety then as well. And current accusations of "feeling humiliated" do not require touching. At present, however, the best we may be able to do is to shift culture for any business related encounter that directly involves or might lead to employment opportunity to a totally asexual standard of behavior.

Speaking of irony instead of comedy, consider hostile attitudes displayed in this country toward Muslims and the traditional garb expected of its adherents. The burka or hijab worn to conceal indication of femininity is considered extreme. Yet adopting such a standard of dress, along with a requirement that men's bodies be fully clothed in robes at all times in the presence of women would begin to address the current crisis. Alternatives are also unpalatable. Recall that allegations of sexual misconduct toward Congressional pages led to elimination of that program, and the blanket loss of  opportunities for thousands of interns [male and female] over the subsequent years. Could the current discourse backfire by encouraging discrimination in hiring to limit potential for sex harassment claims in the work environment? [Think of "the old boys network" amplified] Clearly that is not what most people ultimately want to see. But unless there is a willingness for more critical engagement and discussion surrounding the role of sexuality in the workplace, including open and accountable talk from all perspectives, then draconian type measures may be the only resolution.

Profiles in Courage?- The President and the Gold Star Widow

The continuing public squabble between the White House on one side, and the Gold Star widow and Florida Congresswoman on the other is unseemly and could benefit from some perspective. This is not a "he said; she said" dispute, although it appears to have devolved to a playground style shouting match. . In reality, it does reflect, in my view, a test of character, a profile of the substance and quality of leadership of the Nation. PUTHOP ["Person Unfortunately and Technically Holding Office of President"] made a phone call to the wife of US soldier, Sgt. La David T. Johnson, killed in action as she awaited return of the soldier's body at the airport. With her in the car were Congresswoman Frederica Wilson and other relatives of the soldier. By the virtually identical accounts of PUTHOP's own words witnessed by others, because both ends of the call were on speaker phone, he was inept in handling a sensitive conversation. That he apparently did not even know the name of the slain soldier reflects a lack of preparation and command of detailed facts PUTHOP has consistently displayed. That he referred to the slain soldier as "your guy" instead of "your husband" when speaking to the widow showed lack of sensitivity. Nevertheless, PUTHOP did actually make a call, this is a difficult but "leadership" responsibility of the Commander in Chief.

Now for "perspective" and assessment of character. It is fair to argue that a man of substance and character has strength and courage to admit failings when brought to his attention. We all make mistakes, but character is displayed by owning our shortcomings, making apologies when called for, and committing to do better in the future. As we would say in my culture, "a grown a$$ man" would have acknowledged: "you know, I just am not good at empathy and offering condolences, but I AM sorry for your loss." [Even if he did not have such reflective talents, his Aides should have guided his response.] His ineptitude would likely have been given a pass because he made the effort, and the matter would have faded away. After all, a man who has cultivated fame based upon insensitivity by threatening and bullying people in a "reality TV" show could be expected to lack capacity for sincerity and empathy.

However, instead of showing humility, character and sincerity, PUTHOP chose to defensively "counter-punch" against criticism. Instead of seeking to downplay a very sensitive exchange involving a grieving widow, he opted to make himself the center of attention, needlessly and for all the wrong reasons. Unable to admit his shortcomings displayed in the call, he chose instead to publicly attack [yet again] a Gold Star family, and accuse the widow and the Congresswoman of fabricating the account of the communication. He even chose to drag Gen. Kelly into the fray, despite a well known desire by the General NOT to discuss or politicize the death of his son, also a US soldier killed in action. PUTHOP also claimed that prior Presidents did not make condolence communications with families of the fallen, a claim that was easily and almost immediately proven false. And the squabble has continued with further false attack claims made against the Congresswoman.

Gen Kelly does not get a pass on this either. Given the opportunity to display courage and leadership rather than boot-licking, he chose to try to defend PUTHOP's indefensible conduct [which he should have intervened,as Chief of Staff, to prevent]. In that "defense" he actually confirmed and validated the widow's version of the call's substance, and debated the interpretation of what PUTHOP "meant to convey." Again, if true, this explanation would have come more credibly from PUTHOP's own mouth rather than as "clean up" by one of his lackeys.

Ultimately what is media circus and underlying events have displayed is a person in a position of high office and great responsibility who lacks sensitivity, candor, courage and sound judgment required of that office. The treatment of Gold Star families is a serious and weighty responsibility for an Administration, and must be handled with greater skill and sensitivity. This was bungled, even under the most charitable description. In addition, however, the handling of a matter involving a soldier killed in action is poignant when it indicates the potential for rash, insensitive, ill-prepared, factually ungrounded and knee-jerk decision making that could cost many MORE lives of US military personnel and others. The test of character has been failed, and PUTHOP once again shown to be unfit for the office and duties of President. The profile of PUTHOP, through his own behavior and decisions, is one of incompetence that brings shame on himself and the Office of the Presidency.

A New Hundred Flowers Campaign

Reflecting on current anti-intellectual discourse in this country and the world, I am thrown back into lessons from the history of Modern Chinese intellectualism. The ever changing world calls us to meet continuing challenges with courage or fear.

In 1956 China, the first Hundred Flowers Campaign was launched. It was based upon a belief that critical exploration and debate could lead to advances in science and society. "Let one hundred flowers bloom, let the hundred schools of thought contend." That movement led to criticism of the governing regime, and was crushed in a backlash of anti-intellectual "cultural revolution."

Yet in 1986, resilience was shown as Zhu Houze called for a revived Hundred Flowers Campaign, stating: "Only through the comparison and contention of different viewpoints and ideas can people gradually arrive at truthful understanding...." By 1989, we witnessed Tiananmen Square and brutal response to the free and open debate the Hundred Flowers Movement called forth.

While the attacks on freedom of speech, intellectualism and open debate are somewhat less physically violent in the US (unless you happen to be a Black youth), the cudgel of the demagogue still seeks to beat down critical inquiry and debate. It is a hollow crusade by hollow men. As T.S. Eliot suggested, the world may end "not with a bang but a whimper." As Orwell predicted, the passing will occur without our even bothering to look up from our respective and isolated screens, telling us the "truth" we crave to believe.

Perhaps it is time to revive a Hundred Flowers Movement. Perhaps we need to roust ourselves from the comfort of our wired connections, in which we may speak our views, but often fail to truly listen to other points of view. If we are prepared to not only allow, but encourage the hundred schools of thought to be aired and debated, there may yet be hope for us all.

Continuing the cycle of repression, we have seen even if we refuse to accept, does not kill thought and sanity. It merely drives it underground. Wherefrom it awaits conditions of great need and sprouts forth. May we have the wisdom to let the flowers bloom!

"Be Careful Out there!"

I have just reviewed a number of video posts reflecting police attacks on Black folks who posed no viable threat and almost all of whom were unarmed. [Remember that many states have "concealed carry" laws that permit and protect possession of a registered firearm in public [unless, as a practical matter, you happen to be a person of color].

A gentle reminder to young Black folks from someone with a legal background and experience as a person of color. The SCOTUS and lower federal courts have affirmed that it is a Constitutional RIGHT to film police in public action, as long as one does not physically interfere with conduct of legally prescribed duties. Some police departments even have rules requiring the police to use dashcams or body cams to record police activity. Yet the number of times such devices "malfunction" or are not turned on is remarkable. While a person has the right to record evidence of police activity, including misconduct and apparent abuse of force and authority, that right will not physically protect you from harm. It MAY provide a basis for a claim of damages, if you survive.

If observing police action, it is understandable that one would want, as a civic duty, to record police actions. HOWEVER, a paper document of less than 30 pages [i.e., a copy of the Constitution] will not protect you against an unleashed and unrestrained police attack dog, or from a brutal and lawless police officer or a bullet fired by such an officer. Neither will an IPhone or a camera save your life. You have only to search YouTube for too many examples of videos of police harassment of Black folk, too many times resulting in death of the Black "suspect." Philando Castile's death is but one of a multitude. There are others in which white police officers are beating "suspects" who are on the ground, and not resisting. Often, the police will try to [illegally] confiscate the video device recording their actions, perhaps to destroy evidence of their misconduct.

The point here is not a general polemic against police. There ARE responsible and law abiding police officers. However, when an encounter with a person of color is involved, it may be foolhardy and possibly lethal to presume that an officer is law abiding. Even when not actively engaging in such misconduct, police culture almost demands that other officers act unlawfully to cover up misconduct of their colleagues. This helps explain why police officers, including those of color, can be seen cooperating or failing to intervene when a fellow police officer is engaging in misconduct. Only by exposing such conduct and culture might the police themselves make an effort to change. There is little incentive for renegades in police departments, and the culture that protects them, to change in an environment where the US Attorney General calls for review and suppression of consent orders and similar measures put in place to examine and reduce incidents of police misconduct, claiming that such inquiries and reforms hurt "police morale." The message is to be vigilant, but also be mindful and cautious.

The quoted phrase, "Be careful out there," comes from Phil, the desk sergeant from the TV series "Hill Street Blues." He gives the admonition to officers at the beginning of their shift to be mindful and cautious in performance of their duties. Today, that same admonition applies perhaps even more forcefully to members of the public of color if and when they may encounter any police officer.

Unjustifiable Attacks on Democracy

Let us be respectful, sober, sanguine and balanced. The attack this morning on members of the GOP caucus in Congress, which resulted in injury to a congressman, a Congressional aide and a lobbyist, is inexcusable. It also resulted in the injury to Capitol Police and death to the assailant. All needless loss; it was wrong, unjustifiable and unproductive in virtually any conceivable sense.

In a true democracy, and in a representative democracy, disputes and dissent should be resolved through reasoned debate, not physical violence as a way of silencing voices. The peaceful resolution of disputes and non-violent negotiation and transfer of power are the hallmarks of a functioning democracy. Gun violence is heinous and indefensible, as is the support of conditions that foster it.

What can be said, in fairness and critique, is that the actions of an extremist assailant in the attack are a symptom of the current sickness and degradation of our so called union. We must be mindful that it took the shooting injury - apparent assassination attempt - against a member of his party before the current President made the first statement calling for unity since his election. He has falsely claimed that some level of unity exists, typically proclaiming support for himself or his actions that objective facts do not support. But he has not actually taken any steps to bridge the divide he has been steadfast in creating and exacerbating.

In a similar vein, members of the House of Representatives who are saddened and claim to be aggrieved by the attack all live in a protective bubble that isolates and estranges them from the real consequences of their actions. Members of that body, particularly GOP members, bemoan and are shocked by the incursion of gun violence against their members during a leisurely recreational activity. Yet those same individuals would neither bat an eye nor think twice about adopting measures to send armed police into neighborhoods of color to shoot down and terrorize the inhabitants. They cheer and exhort gestapo tactics to terrorize Latino families and tear families apart. They have no sense of the violence and terror that accompanies actions to strip poor families of health care protections that they and their families enjoy as a matter of entitlement. They are eager to relieve restraints on companies that engage in predatory lending and other practices, as well as companies that pollute the environment to enhance profit. Such practices are "acceptable" primarily because none of the members of Congress bears the burden of the effect the practices have on average people they are supposed to represent. Democrats in elected positions are willing to abandon Constitutional duty and principles, in exchange for large campaign donations, by condoning and rationalizing such policies and acts of violence advanced by the majority party. When bandying about the term of what “the people” want, these elected officials have no sense of how alien those words sound when ringing in the ears of those who live outside their protective bubble.  It is nearly impossible to comprehend who they are referring to, for the recipients of the violence in their words and deeds.

Malcolm X attracted controversy when he made the astute observation that: “chickens come home to roost.”  We should not be shocked or surprised when violence perpetrated on the most vulnerable, accompanied by attempts to disenfranchise and suppress their voices in protest, results in a return of that violence in some form. The extreme use/abuse of power of elective office  to oppress, without willingness to listen to fact and reason or the protests of those affected by such actions fosters conditions for extreme responses. This is not stated in any way to condone such reprisals. Indeed the very point is that neither that which is sown nor that which is reaped is defensible or justified. Both are unjustifiable attacks on democracy.

If this horrible attack is to yield any lesson of value, it is that serious attempts must be made to heal and to bring back reasoned debate into our representative democracy. Those with power, regardless of party designation, must begin to think of the nation and all of its people FIRST. The principles of the Constitution must be read repeatedly and honored. The duty of elected officials is to preserve and defend the nation and the “common good.” Power of elective office is not a value unto itself or to preserve itself. It is of true value only to the extent that it can be exercised for the benefit of the common good, to raise the circumstances and opportunities for all. Those who use it otherwise, are not fit to hold or exercise it. 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/lawmaker-steve-scalise-injured-in-gop-baseball-shooting-suspect-james-t-hodgkinson-dies-after-shootout/ar-BBCFi8H?li=BBnb7Kz

The James Comey "Fire" - a Spark or Conflagration?

President Drumpf has surprised many by his action to fire FBI Director James Comey, based in part on a recommendation from Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. The reasons for the action, as with many actions by the sitting President are convoluted and contradictory. The Assistant Attorney General stated in a letter that the firing was justified by Comey's mishandling of the Clinton "E-mail Investigation" in which Russian agents hacked the email accounts of Clinton's campaign and released information. Specifically, the allegations point to his public discussion of the status of the FBI investigation, and an alleged "find" of thousands of e-mails for further inquiry. Oddly, at the time, this action was sharply criticized for multiple reasons. First, it violated FBI policy of not publicly commenting on investigations. Second, the announcement was made when the FBI had not even reviewed the e-mails to determine whether they were any different from those previously reviewed, and upon which a decision to close the investigation had been made. The timing of this "bombshell" about reopening the investigation indisputably affected the election, even if no one can say precisely to what degree. That conduct probably justified removal of Comey at the time, but President Obama chose not to do so, probably fearing further disruption and interference with the national electoral process. President Drumpf certainly had the opportunity to replace Comey immediately upon taking office, if he actually believed that Comey's removal was justified for that stated reason. Such a move would have provided positive political optics for Drumpf, claiming to root out bureaucratic misconduct (even if it helped him), but he was too busy being defensive about losing the popular vote to see the larger political landscape. Instead, Drumpf publicly praised Comey who, in both fact and perception, contributed to intentional disruption and influenced the election.

The  current "firestorm" is not really about whether Comey was justifiably removed from office. The controversy, instead, rests in the timing and related circumstances surrounding the firing. It is a fair question whether the termination was based upon a desire to slow down, if not sabotage, the FBI investigation into communications, ties and potential collusion between the Drumpf Campaign and Russian agents related to influencing the election or establishment of inappropriate connections with the Drumpf business organizations and Drumpf's Administration. That is a far more credible explanation than a termination for arbitrarily announcing an investigation on the eve of election, an announcement that helped Drumpf get elected. This gets complicated because the recommendation to discharge Comey was pressed by Sessions, who had to recuse himself because of dishonesty in failing to disclose his own dealings with Russian agents while an adviser to the Drumpf Campaign. The implicit motive for firing Comey is precisely the reason Sessions has to recuse himself. Moreover, it is very doubtful that any nominee to fill the FBI Director post, at this time, could establish or restore credibility that the FBI can conduct a thorough and objective investigation of Russian meddling in US elections.

Presently, because of an unfortunate choice by Democrats to remove the filibuster for most appointments, there is no significant obstacle to the President appointing anyone willing to do his bidding, or at least bend to his will (express or implied) regarding investigation into Russian interference. Pronouncements by GOP senators that any appointee will be "thoroughly vetted" is about as credible as the President's explanation for terminating Comey. It does not pass what some call the "snicker test." [When statement is made, can everyone in hearing range refrain from laughing]. Democrats have renewed calls for an independent investigation and prosecutor, but such calls are likely to be impotent because the GOP would seek to control the scope and pace of the investigation and tidy up after an uncontrollable and inept Drumpf Administration that continues with repeated and inexplicable gaffes. Thus, prospects for finding out the true extent of Russian interference and Drumpf Campaign collusion are likely to unfold only in history book recounts, if at all.

The closest analogy to this action would probably be the firing of Elliot Richardson by former President Nixon when he would not agree to sabotage the Watergate investigation. While some distinctions exist, they are not very substantial, particularly when evidence has surfaced about Russian connections with the election campaign related information hacking and release. There is a very substantial distinction between then and now, even though Drumpf is unpopular with many GOP in Congress as was Nixon.The resulting impeachment of Nixon was supported by GOP members of Congress who had the character and sense of responsibility to country and Constitution to stand up and refuse to allow Nixon to bully and intimidate the investigative process, to cover up his involvement in Watergate. The US public also had a higher respect for the nation and its citizens, and apparently believed that a standard of ethics should apply to holders of higher office. Those conditions may exist to some degree now, but their existence is not clearly manifest. Indeed, the number of citizens who would dissemble and rationalize the conduct of the current Administration, primarily because it holds power and not because its actions are logically or ethically defensible, is remarkable.

The Comey discharge is currently at best a spark, a potential catalyst. Whether that spark can become a flame that puts heat on the current Administration and ultimately sheds light on Russian directed or sponsored meddling in US elections. remains to be seen.