There Is No Such Thing as Gunplay

 One of the weirder things about guns is the colorful vocabulary that accompanies them. Among these, the word gunplay is actually a misnomer. There is nothing playful about a gun. Merriam-Webster defines gunplay as "the shooting of small arms with intent to scare or kill." You tell me, is that playful? Nonetheless, each year children find their parents' or siblings' firearms lying about and horrible things either happen to them or to their family members. For instance, this weekend in Dolton, Illinois, a three-year-old got ahold of a firearm and while playing with it, accidentally shot and killed his 22-year-old mother from the back seat of their van in a parking lot of a grocery store. In Nashville, another toddler shot himself in the head with his mother's handgun he got out her purse. Fortunately, that toddler lived. Similarly, a sibling shot another sibling in Louisiana while playing with a gun.

Guns are deadly and are intended to be that. They are not toys. Can we at least recognize that treatin them as anything less than the instruments of death that they are is making them that much more lethal in the hands of those they should never be in--kids. Kids should be able to play and play safely. They can't be held accountable for the laxness of their family members who are playing with the devil by not securing their firearms. Anyone who is as careless as to leave their gun unsecured is a person who really ought not to have one. Like all rights we have, we do risk losing them by acting in less than responsible and, I would add, criminal ways. Can we agree that the 2nd amendment does have one important limit, people who are not responsible or lack the mental capacity to take care of securing their guns should not be given a pass when someone ends up dead due to their irresponsibility.

Standing with Ukraine While the World Stands Watching

 

It is a terrible time to be a human being on this planet unless you are a despot or oligarch with the world or regional domination on your mind. If you are a decent human being, you would never choose to unleash military might on your neighbor. And if you aren't one, you'd not do so unless it was for the sole purpose to bend them to your will. As I and many of us watched in disbelief as the Russian army began its assault on Ukraine a few days ago, I was happy to see the Russian people in the streets protesting their nation's siege -- something that these people do at great peril given their government's totalitarian and punitive nature. At the same time, I admire the tenacity of the Ukrainian leadership as they defend themselves against this assault with support mostly through economic sanctions by observing nations, support for their infrastructure, and armaments provided by the same. 

Certainly, this is a difficult situation. Russia has made overtures before, but with it threatening to use its nuclear capabilities, what sane leader is going to escalate that threat? While the US and its NATO allies are lending support and placing troops in neighboring countries, the Russian regime is banking on them letting Russia decimate Ukraine to achieve their goal of regime change and perhaps, reunifying another piece of the former Soviet Union. 

Thankfully, the leadership of Ukraine is not kowtowing to that sentiment and neither are its people. They are engaged in a war they did not choose, but they are engaged to show the world and Russia that they will not be stepped on so a madman can seize power. And they are doing this risking it all. Lives hang in the balance and it doesn't help to know that there is no cavalry coming. One might even say this is so Ukrainian. 

Perhaps, this is something that free nations should keep in mind. Even in a fractured place like the US, I hope we still believe that freedom is only possible with true democracy. Nationalistic tendencies are categorically ill-advised, except in the rejection of imposed other-nation pressure. We are only as good as what we are willing to defend. So far what we are willing to defend is having the US and its NATO partners being pulled into a war that would likely be like a Molotov cocktail, an incendiary device where world peace is concerned.

Conventional Wisdom

 Last evening, Iowa Republicans and Democrats got together for their annual caucuses leading up to county and later, state conventions. In my county, I understand 270 Democrats met on Zoom to deliberate about the fate of the party and use Zoom filters. I am not a fan of caucuses of any size, but understand that conventions are important to the loyal faithful. At one time, you couldn't get elected dogcatcher without the convention nominating you. 

I have been to a handful of these convention gatherings in the past, and like religious organizations, found them happy to see new blood (if for only that the longer-in-tooth could get off of a never-ending committee assignment). I mention this because I worry about the future of political parties if conventions are their go-to for sparking interest in the more youthful.

In my college job, I witness the younger generation up close. They are an interesting lot and they do seem to like to travel in packs. You'd think that would be a draw for convention going. Also, they like to feel important, again good for political gatherings. Finally, they seem to enjoy the sound of their own voices--it would seem that political convention would be like hitting the trifecta for these youngsters. But alas, you'd be so wrong. Because they also don't care much for conflict or gravitating too far from campus, and unless there is a keg or keto, they aren't coming.

No, party conventions are largely an older person's thing, especially the countywide ones. Sure a stray college student who is part of the campus party student org and a handful of others may try it out as a lark, but they aren't coming back next year (probably because they are graduating and moving back home or to the closest large city out of state).

So for those of us who think the future belongs to the young, we better think of a better way to engage the young. Kounty Kegger and Keto Konvention, anybody? 

Protecting the First Amendment, Kind Of

 As a public employee, I received a note from my employer stating that I would need to comply with their command that I understand the limits of free speech at my job and complete a training module to that end. Given that I work at a post-secondary institution, I do not have a problem with additional learning and set aside the required 15-20 minutes to complete the module so that I will be "in compliance" of whatever I am in compliance of--basic knowledge of the US consitution's Bill of Rights, I suppose. While it makes sense to me to meet the legal compliances that are required of me, like complying with FERPA so I'm not data mining student information or completing anti-harassment training to do my part to keep the workplace less creepy, I do object to the idea that my employer's boss is afraid that we are not doing free speech right and that we all have to take a crash course to keep ourselves operationally efficient in that respect.

For the record, I am fond of the 1st Amendment and exercise it frequently. I am not a constitutional scholar but have not yelled "fire" in a theater ever in my life. I know that my free speech has limitations. Apparently, one of the limits is that I have to be tested on my understanding and certify that I do understand. Comically, I also had to take a quiz consisting of 3 questions and needed to have a score of at least 80% to be in compliance. I am not a mathematician, but I do know that a 3 item quiz cannot bear a score of at least 80% unless you answer all the items correctly.  But, somehow, I don't think that was the point--and from an assessment vantage point, we are going to look really good and overperforming in our compliance as most, I expect will score 100%.

I completed the training in 15 minutes. I'm not sure how my taxpaying neighbors will feel about me being a newly minted expert on the 1st Amendment. I'm pretty sure that they will be counting the cost of me and my public employee counterparts who took it and wonder why they had to foot the bill for something that most of us already studied in middle school or high school social studies. Rightfully, they may feel duped by lawmakers and bureaucrats who score political points by double charging them for such things. 

Welcome to the suck of Neo-Progressivism

 Did you know that progressivism is, like, so dead? Yes, we are so beyond  AOC, Ilhan Omar and Green New Deals. We have progressed beyond this thanks to Neo Pros. Who or what is a Neo Pro, buckle up buckaroo and I'll fill you in. The brainchild of Lawrence Lessig has been around since at least 2012, Neo Pros are like you, but without all the unpleasantness. According to the not so great design of The NeoPro website: 

The Neopro  approach is not that much different than the old progressive method, where it comes to the goals that need to be achieved. It is shares similar concerns and policy goals concerning the environment, human rights, animal protection and gender equality, among many others, yet the path to achieve those goals is completely different.

The Neopro philosophy takes a more entrepreneurial and strategic approach to achieving these goals. It is a philosophy that provides a better path to solving cultural and political problems. Neoprogressivism understands that issues evolve and that the approach to finding lasting solutions needs to be continuously revamped and improved, just as successful businesses adapt to changing market conditions. Consequently, the people most qualified to lead this movement are people with entrepreneurial and business backgrounds. Real-world experience in dealing with the economic markets and the marketplace of ideas combined with the traditional progressive motivation to work toward the greater good are the hallmarks of Neopro leadership.

So, in other words, it is Capitalists masquerading as Socialsts. And probably, for some, it is an appealing proposition. Trade-in your Green New Deal for a Harvard MBA Strat Plan and let's make some money on green energy! 

Not so fast my reactionary leftie, the NeoPros are on to you. The Neo Pros know you: "We call them reactionaries because the (sic) react to any cause they are told to oppose instead of taking a proactive approach to improve the political situation, a characteristic more commonly associated with Neoprogressives. Most progressives are not part of the reactionary left, but unfortunately the reactionary left is currently the most vocal part of the left. The truth is that all progressives have some reactionary in them, and our goal is change that and turn all good-hearted people into more productive progressives."

Yes, productive, strategic work shall set you free, my Chomsky-loving friend. Certainly, you don't want to offend anyone or gore their ox when you can simply outmaneuver them with slick framing and unwavering belief that the market solves everything for the better. Yes, if we were only a little more, what is the word--cooperative (and stayed on the same page).

But even the Neo Progs are not all on board. Some of them have said that this so-called entrepreneurial approach worked until the 1990's but now believe we have to get behind changing the constitution so that we can really get the job done. Thomas J. Main writes:

So the mechanism that is most amenable to non-incremental change would be a realigning election that ushers in a period of unified government. We can call this the presidential/majoritarian model. And we might well see it as the last arrow in America’s constitutional quiver for producing big change.

And if a Democratic landslide did produce a moment of institutional unity? What should be done with it? I would argue that we should focus our energies on improving the capacity of our political institutions for collective action through constitutional reform.

There is a long list of proposed constitutional amendments waiting for their chance, ranging from the elimination of the Electoral College to an amendment that would allow the president to submit a legislative agenda directly to Congress, which would be required promptly to vote the entire package up or down, without amendments, on a strict majoritarian basis.

But if we’re going to go the difficult route of amending the Constitution, the change ought to be even more fundamental: an amendment which changes the amendment process itself.

This idea has, in various ways, already been incorporated into most state constitutions and therefore received ample road testing. The Article V process for amending the Constitution is notoriously daunting, and far more difficult than the amendment process of any other liberal democracy. Why do we assume that this is the optimal design?

State constitutions are vastly more malleable than the federal Constitution. Our federal Constitution has been amended only 27 times—the first 10 being immediately passed as the Bill of Rights—yet only 19 of the states still have their original constitutions. Most states have adopted three or more constitutions. In total, the states have held over 230 constitutional conventions, adopted 146 constitutions, and added over 5,000 amendments.

If this feels at all what the Republicans are proposing or the Libertarians before them, it is because all the power ideas are pretty much the same. Control the laws, control the agenda. Control the process of making laws, power to the people--who are holding it.

It is fair to say that left-leaning people like myself are looking for ideas that support life on this planet for people on this planet. Before I dismiss the above ideology completely, note they may be on to a fundamental problem of leanings--being less flexible about how we get stuff done. It is like the story of the middling anti-war protestor who replied to "What do we want?": Peace. "When want it?": "Now, but if that is not possible, tomorrow or the next day." We could stand to be a trifle more patient, I suppose. The other problem is methodology. It sure would be a whole lot easier for equity to occur if the Constitution were clearer about it. Sure, but you throw a party, you never are completely sure who will show up--and the best ideas don't always win--talking to you 2nd Amendment.

We may need to wade through more suckage before we find a way to manage to have policies that actually put people and planet first, Neo Pros are the latest in a line of hats we try on until we find one that fits.

Malls: It's Personal

 

For a third of my professional and pre-professional life, I worked in shopping malls. At one time, these gleaming mausoleums to the American Dream have dissipated into fortresses seemingly short-staffed guarding against the e-commerce hordes. This past weekend, my wife and I succumbed to cabin fever and we made the trek to one of the last-remaining-healthy-shopping-malls in our part of Iowa to shop for an area rug and some books. As a former retail worker, what we witnessed reminds me why I still have PSMSD (Post-shopping Mall Stress Disorder). Even stepping foot in a mall these days makes me anxious because of the noise and traffic.

In the so-called glory days of shopping malls, the huddled masses yearning to buy stuff were always a challenge. As a shoe store manager, I often would have to grin and bear it as an unhappy customer wanted a refund on a beaten up pair of sandals that clearly she'd gotten when she boarded the ark with Noah or being screamed at by a customer who was being inconvenienced by the line of customers that was ahead of him. Yes, the marketplace of America brought out the good, the bad, and the very ugly. And while I attribute a lot of the ugly to the idiot who said, "the customer is always right" (I recently learned it was credited to the Chicago retailer Marshall Field),  I also blame greedy and desperate people who both had their reasons for wanting to hoodwink store employees and/or outright steal from our companies. In fairness, these companies, in their ways, were complicit in creating the environment that brought "Black Friday" and lobbied to have states with "Blue Laws" open up for business on Sundays and eventually brought on the era of non-stop, 24/7 shopping.

However, these same malls served as places for teens to hang out, people to meet with or run into their friends and neighbors, even as places for persons with disabilities to be seen and older folks to get in some exercise. I remember a young man named Eddie who would spend his entire day at the mall because his mother was a cashier at Woolworth's. Eddie would push his wheelchair in reverse with his  one good leg through the mall and many of the regular customers came to know him by name and to be a friend to him and help him when he needed a hand. Sadly, when his mom got ill and died, Eddie's community shrunk as he became a ward of the state and stopped coming to the mall.

On this particular Saturday, we visited four different stores and experienced the following. Huge stores with various policies about masking. From Tuesday Morning that "Recommend Highly" the wearing of masks to Homestore that had no posted policy and was crowded with people in both masks and many more without. The Barnes and Noble bookstore had plenty of masked customers and masked employees, but the feel of the place was perhaps like a Marakesh outdoor market, kind of desperate and super-crowded. Many of the customers were typical Iowa folks some of whom were in town for a state-wide wrestling meet and others were likely local new Iowans who speak in Spanish, Arabic, Russian and other dialects I am not familiar with. Blending together in this retail soup are likely political extremes joined together in that most American of all pursuits--shopping and spending!

The commingling of adrenalized expectation and exercise of freedom was palpable in the pushing and shoving of people eying potential purchases that other people had a front-row seat to viewing first. The mass of cars and trucks in the parking lot (quite visible from the highway) indicated that this was a place to still be. The shopping mall as a destination may be on the ropes in many areas, but in the flyover zone, it is a reminder of a "simpler time" when you could meet at the mall and shop or hang or catch a flick or just walk--no matter who you were, you were a part of the melting pot grabbing at
the brass ring.*

*Unless you were a person of color and the store or mall security followed you around, like you were a criminal.

As my wife and I left the center with a purchase of three books and deflated expectations, we mourned what we had known as veterans of the retailing profession. We also realized that people are desperate, but not for connection with each other, so much as to possess more and more stuff. The one thing that has changed over the years is that malls are no longer "community centers" as they historically have been and are now solely transactional resource centers soon to be of a bygone era.

It is personal to me, that I spent many of my formative years in that environment. I learned a lot about helping people in distress through my work which I regularly use in my career today. I genuinely loved helping people, as a salesperson my paycheck depended on being as helpful as I could be, but also encouraging people to part with their money--I am not proud of that or the shortcuts that I and my fellow salespeople took to make our commissions. However, I was knowledgeable about what we sold and did much more good than profited from customers, many of whom I was quite friendly. Most of my understanding of people came from the wide swath of customers I assisted. If I am open-minded about most people, it is because I served them in my job. If I am critical of people, it is also because of what I observed. I used to think that every generation is better than the previous one because we know more. However, I think that either willful ignorance has taken over this generation or merely a lack of social skills and we will likely suffer mightily for it. 

Kris Kristofferson probably was right when he wrote "Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." More on point, freedom is just a word that people use to say "Fuck you/ya'll. I'm going to do what I want." It is hard to imagine a future for "united states" if that is the sentiment of its people. From me to you, we are losing it. Not our freedom but our ever-loving minds. No amount of shopping is going to fill the void of being an empty, self-centered society. Shopping malls may be thought of as a canary in a coal mine, a harbinger of things to come.

Lessons from January 6, 2021

 Yesterday,  a lot of people spent the day reflecting on the events that occurred on 1/6/21. But, what have we learned? One of the biggest takeaways has got to be that while the Republican party is still embracing the former president, they are also trying to rewrite history or, as in the case of my state's Senator Charles Grassley, are trying to move on from it by calling for unity. So, let me be clear, you can't be for both unity and anarchy unless you want us to unify for anarchy. We also have learned that Republicans were hellbent on gaming the voting system in 19 states toward their direction by adding no less than 34 new laws to the books to make it harder to vote in 2021. Believing that the best way to win is to eliminate pesky voters (and particularly those who usually vote against you), the Republicans are pre-stealing the vote so their supporters don't have to work so hard. What else have we learned? We've learned that Republicans are subjective in supporting the police. Police who are arresting BLM protestors in Portland and Seattle are good, but police who are arresting violent looters of the Capitol in DC are fine to pound into the dirt.

We have also learned that Trump and his minions are trying to control the narrative by backdating it to Election Day 2021, even though the evidence that there was voter fraud is less than threadbare (though in Florida at least 4 persons, all Republicans, were convicted of voter fraud by voting in two different states). Suffice to say that the idea is to make the case that the rage was justified because these "Patriots" were not being heard (although over 60 court cases filed suggest that their interests were well represented). These folks would like us to think that they are the real victims of a system intended to silence them. So the other thing we've learned is when a system that is working the way it was designed to work doesn't lead to the outcome you expect, the system is the problem, not you. If this lesson bears out, democracy has been lost to mob rule and that would be the hardest lesson to accept.

(Photo Credit: Associated Press 1/6/21)