'What are we doing?'

After the slaughter of innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, 10 years ago, I really, really, really thought we had a chance to nudge Congress over the tipping point and into some common sense gun control in this country.

Surely, the murder of 20 elementary school students – 5 and 6 year olds – in December of 2012 was heinous enough to dropkick our representatives into legislative action. Perhaps a ban on semiautomatic assault rifles. Maybe a ban on multi-round magazines. Or universal background checks. Or red flag laws, at the very least.

I felt the momentum building. It's what 80 percent of the nation wanted then...and still wants.

But there was both a hypocritical and an immoral resistance within nearly all of the Republican caucus, which eternally appears to be beholden to gun lobbyists as well as to the astonishingly corrupt National Rifle Association. So instead of legislation, we got crickets along with their thoughts and prayers.

Now, almost 10 years and 900 mass shootings later, there's Uvalde TX. Another elementary school. Nineteen dead third and fourth graders. Two teachers.

And, so far, the Republican crickets are still chirping. It's sickening.

I am so tired of this. According to The New York Times, there have been 101 mass shootings in this country (A mass shooting is usually defined by various agencies as at least four persons killed or wounded in a single episode) in the years between 1998 and 2019 among developed nations. The next country on the list, France, had eight mass shootings in that span. Eight mass shootings in 21 years. Eight.

That unbelievable disparity between the United States and the rest of the world automatically eliminates mental illness and first-person shooter video games as underlying causes for this carnage. Mental illness and video games clearly exist outside the borders of the United States, yet the slaughter does not. Mental illness is a bullshit Republican talking point and nothing more as the bodies of dead children pile up around those GOP feet.

Mental illness is not the problem. The ease of gun availability is. What do you think is going to happen when 330 million people are armed with 400 million guns? What do you think is going to happen when an 18-year-old can purchase an AR-15 and over a 1,000 rounds of ammunition?

Time and again gun control and gun safety legislation brought to the floor of Congress has been obstructed by Republicans. There is currently pending a bipartisan bill, HR8, that passed the House of Representatives in 2019 and again in 2021, that will expand background checks. It has yet to be voted upon by the Senate, which needs 60 votes – and perhaps at least 10 Republican senators – to pass. So what's the problem here, Mitch? Not enough dead kids yet? This is how you represent the will of 80 percent of the voters? Shame on you. Please explain your obstruction, because right now, this is rule by the minority as our democracy wobbles.

Another example is the Federal Assault Weapons ban, ratified in 1994 but which expired after 10 years in 2004 (because of a sunset clause) as attempts to renew or replace the bill never got out of committee. Consequently, mass shootings have increased threefold since it expired – a time span that includes Sandy Hook and Parkland. We had it in our hands, it worked, and we let it go.

You can also follow the money to help decipher this reluctance to save ourselves from semiautomatic weapons fire. Many politicians (think Republicans) don't want to jeopardize losing the millions of dollars in contributions they receive from the NRA, gun lobbyists and their constituents, so there's that.

And, in a capitalistic society, gun manufacturers don't want to jeopardize their incredible profit margins by supporting gun control measures. Gun purchases seem to increase after every mass shooting because gun buyers think (incorrectly) they will lose their Second Amendment right to bear arms (which is also a misinterpretation of the original intent of the Founders, who never envisioned semiautomatic weapons in the first place. If you can figure out why the words "well-regulated Militia" are in that 1791 Bill of Rights amendment, then you're on your way). You can thank the NRA for its powerful moves of misdirection to influence our continuing gun culture.

Meanwhile, crickets chirp and children die. The Uvalde tragedy is the eighth mass shooting in Texas alone since 2009. More than 550 children have been killed in school shootings nationwide since Columbine (1999). How hard is it to connect those dots?

I personally don't have an issue with the Second Amendment, but I don't understand the need for a civilian to own a military-style AR-15 semiautomatic rifle that has one purpose, and one purpose only: to kill human beings. The AR-15 was designed as a weapon of war.

I am just so tired of this. I'm tired of teachers having to use their bodies to shield students from the spray of high velocity bullets; I'm tired of kids calling 911 for help while their lives pass before them; I'm tired of children pretending they're shot by smearing the blood of their dead classmates on themselves to deceive the shooter in the room; I'm tired that we can't figure out our national catastrophe when common sense legislation is within our reach.

I'm tired of Republican excuses that don't seriously address the issue. Hardening our schools only turns them into prisons and fire traps; the NRA-inspired idea of good men with guns certainly didn't work out in Uvalde as those good men – those law enforcement officers – hesitated for 40 minutes at the point of breach while babies bled out; and the idea of arming teachers in the classroom is so obviously insane that it needs no comment.

I especially don't want to hear from pro-lifers screaming about abortion as children killed from gunfire lie bleeding on schoolroom floors. That argument just doesn't fly anymore. If Roe v. Wade is reversed in the next month or so, women's bodies will be more regulated than guns, and guns will have more protections than women – or children.

As Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) passionately asked his colleagues on the floor of the Senate on the day of the shootings, "What are we doing?"

Right now, I'm sensing a feeling in this country that most people are seriously pissed off and have had enough, especially as it comes just days after the racially-motivated mass shooting of grandmothers in a grocery store in Buffalo, NY. I sense a growing groundswell to the outrage, and I really, really, really think this time that we have a chance for passing sensible gun control.

Or not. We've been here before. We've been here too many times.

 

My Theory theory

When did conspiracy theories become so dominant in American political thought?

Whatever happened to reality? Whatever happened to the truth we saw before our very eyes?

I mean, right this minute, I'm trying to process the concept of the Great Replacement Theory, a white nationalist (read: supremacist) idea birthed decades ago in France, of all places. This theory more or less claims white people are being replaced in our politics – and society – by non-European immigrants.

This is almost laughable if it wasn't so perverted, considering that the "discovery" of this continent was made by white Europeans who almost immediately replaced the indigenous population with themselves. It was such an effective replacement policy that today, indigenous people make up only 2 percent of the total U.S. population. And it wasn't theory. It was practice. It might stand as the largest replacement of all.

Polling shows at least half of the Republican Party has accepted this concept of replacement. Holy crap. Maybe it's because current demographic studies are showing the population is becoming less white. My question is, so what? What are they afraid of?

Then there's critical race theory, which more or less states that any number of U.S. social institutions have racism embedded within their structure, such as the criminal justice system, the education system and the healthcare system, to name a few.

You only have to look at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, in the U.S. Constitution to find the Three-fifths Compromise of 1787. This is the infamous clause that counted three-fifths of a state's slave population toward that state's total population for the purpose of apportioning members to the House of Representatives. Slaves, of course, could not vote, multiplying the irony. The clause was eventually nullified by the 14th Amendment, but the three-fifths text remains in the Constitution to this day – just as a visual reminder to our original sin. Embedded racism, indeed.

White nationalists apparently cannot come to grips with the history that people of a color other than themselves (white grievance) have been discriminated against and that CRT should not be taught in public schools. Incredibly, this argument has filtered down into community public school systems to the point where it has disrupted school board meetings.

Well, CRT is not taught in public school systems. It began decades ago as a graduate course at Harvard. It has somehow become a white nationalist talking point, based on a convoluted history that CRT is now being taught to children. It's not, but even if that were true, so what?

Other theories abound: The moon landing was staged in a Hollywood studio; the Earth is flat and the moon isn't real (thus Hollywood, I guess); Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone – or he didn't; 5G causes cancer; and Muhammad Ali decked Sonny Liston with a phantom punch in 1965. The list is endless.

I'm waiting for the baby formula shortage theory. You know, the one where 192 Republican House members vote against funding $28 million to the Food and Drug Administration to inspect foreign manufacture of formulas and to prevent future supply chain shortages. Wait. Am I getting this right? As Republicans, we're gung ho to ban abortions, but we don't want to feed the babies that are subsequently born into forced motherhood?

My theory is that conspiracy theories exist not so much to present an alternative view as it is to present an alternative political agenda, then throw it against a wall to see what sticks.

These days, it seems, too much is sticking even in the face of facts and logic.

We actually might need more CTT (critical thinking theory) which, sadly, seems to suggest critical thinking is, indeed, mostly theory after all.

Abortions

Here's the thing about abortions:

There likely always have been abortions in human existence. Abortions took place in pre-modern times among the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians, just to list a few of those cultures. The first evidence of induced abortion, in fact, was recorded from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BCE. It's likely there were abortions before then.

That's 1550 years before Christ. Before single-issue Evangelicals.

Women, who apparently had more autonomy over their bodies back then than the United States Supreme Court is willing to give women now, could attempt any number of methods to abort an unwanted pregnancy, including the use of abortifacient herbs (such as rue, hellebore and pennyroyal, among many), strenuous physical activity (such as paddling, weightlifting or swimming), or more extreme measures such as the use of sharp instruments, bloodletting or hot water on the abdomen.

Because there almost always have been abortions in human culture, I think we can logically deduce that there always will be abortions, regardless of law, regardless of consequences.

Remember that point for the remainder of this discussion: There have always been abortions. There always will be abortions.

The significance of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision that constitutionally guaranteed women access to safe abortions, cannot be understated. The key word here is "safe." Women could go to clinics or hospitals for legal abortions without fear of personal injury or death in such procedures, which was not always the case prior to Roe.

Roe granted women protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution providing a fundamental right to privacy, thus protecting a woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

Thus, women were granted legal autonomy over their bodies, much as they seemingly possessed in ancient cultures. Keep in mind that Roe was approved just 53 years after women were granted the right to vote in this country. And the right to vote for women came 131 years after the Constitution – a document created by mostly old white guys – was ratified. It's been a tediously slow progress for women but a forward-moving progress nonetheless.

Less than two weeks ago, a draft opinion from the Supreme Court was leaked to the media, indicating that a majority of five of the nine Supreme Court justices are set to reverse Roe v. Wade, perhaps as early as June, even though it's been established law for nearly 50 years.

If that happens, it will be catastrophic.

Women will die.

And, for the first time in our nation's history, a Constitutional right will be revoked. That precedent will open the doors for the future revocation of rights. Are you ready for that? It's easier than you think, and it's happening faster than you realize.

Look at the restrictions already in place in many states affecting voting rights. What about privacy – not to mention due process – under the 14th Amendment? See ya?

The rush to make abortions illegal will essentially criminalize women's bodies. Some states are suggesting jail time for those women who are seeking abortions, as well as their providers. There can be no abortions for any reason, they say, not even for rape, incest or a possible unviable birth, much less for an unplanned pregnancy outside of or within a marriage.

That's outrageous, especially when you consider polling that shows at least two-thirds of the country are in favor of preserving Roe v. Wade. Consequently, revocation of Roe would take the dominantly conservative Supreme Court seriously out of step with the views of the majority of the nation. It would stand as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever – right up there with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the one declaring that people of African descent could not be American citizens.

It seems as if women (particularly women of lower income and resources) are being punished for an unwanted pregnancy. They are being punished primarily by lawmakers and politicians who are overwhelmingly male. Figures, doesn't it? It's obviously yet another way for men to control women's bodies by forcing motherhood – with no choice – upon a woman. That's the agenda.

While we're at it, let's take away birth control because, you know, it's a form of abortion, preventing the fertilization of an egg by a sperm in the moment of conception. Doesn't matter if this idea results in even more unwanted pregnancies. At least it keeps women in their place like in the days before Roe.

In an advanced civilization, this should be considered abhorrent. Or insane.

If abortions become illegal, then what happens to the men who got women pregnant in the first place? As far as I can tell, there are no consequences for men (unless the male is aiding in the procurement of an abortion). Aren't men half of this equation? Punish the woman, but not the man? That's second-class citizenry if ever we saw it.

What provisions will be in effect for the child of an unwanted pregnancy? Since the state will be forcing motherhood upon a woman, will the state subsequently provide child care? Health care? Education? Housing? Food?

Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

And we're not even talking about infant mortality in this country (5.8 deaths per 1,000 births, which ranks the U.S. 33rd out of 36 developed nations), or even maternal mortality (23.8 deaths per 100,000 births, which ranks the U.S. as the worst in the developed world).

To be certain, abortion is a deeply complicated issue.

But I recently heard Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) explain his stance: That he is personally pro-life, but politically pro-choice, and that both views can be true and held at the same time. I bet many folks feel this way.

It seems to me the decision to have an abortion ultimately comes down to the woman, her doctor and her partner. The government made its case with the 14th Amendment back in 1868 (which also corrected the Dred Scott decision). Now it just needs to back off.

Otherwise, women will die. They will die from self-induced abortions gone awry; they will die from untrained and unlicensed practitioners performing abortions; they will die from lengthy and unwarranted incarcerations; they will die from laws that discriminate. 

It's why Roe v. Wade needs to stand.

Mother-in-law

In-laws can be precarious entities in a marriage: they can frustrate; they can interfere; they can enhance; they can complement; they can surround you. They can overwhelm you or they can be invisible.

They can make you better.

The Easter Martin I knew (Easter, who was born on Easter, was her given name. It's a name she didn't particularly like) had one gear: she was perpetually welcoming to me, which is really something to say considering that I came into her life and took her only daughter away from her.

Welcoming. Kind. Thoughtful. Giving. Even though she no doubt could be other things, these particular descriptives all come from the same palette. They were the only colors I saw from her. Her colors were true.

It all could have gone sideways in a hurry. I was a Yankee from Pennsylvania, ready to steal the silverware along with her daughter's heart. In the wide scheme of things, Kim and I did not have a particularly long courtship, and an even shorter engagement: perhaps a little over a year between meeting and marriage. On top of everything else, I was nine years older than her daughter, which could have been a roadblock.

Anyway, there wasn't that much time for Easter to get to know me other than that guy who came by occasionally for Christmas, Thanksgiving and birthdays, eat their food (Man, could she cook. I'm always surrounding myself with women who can cook, it seems) and fall asleep on their sofa watching football games when I wasn't actually on the road covering games as a low paid sports writer for the local paper.

Wait, can he even support my daughter? Will he even be around?

I took Kim to Ohio with me to meet my parents, which is where my folks lived at the time. We were gone several days. I'm not sure how this trip fit into Easter's unspoken list of allowables, but I guess she trusted me, too.

So Kim and I got married, and Easter and her husband, Charles, and Kim's brother, Greg, were always supportive. She became an in-law and all that that implied.

But she was supportive of me and her daughter until the day she died, which happens to be today  – Mother's Day, of all days – back in 2009. It's a calendar anomaly that simply takes my breath away.

So in my heart, I'm taking a moment to whisper, "Thank you. Thank you for trusting me. Thank you for believing in me. Thank you for allowing me to love your little girl.

"Thank you for everything."

Refugees

One of the things that has captured my attention in Russia's unwarranted and illegal invasion of Ukraine (a sovereign nation) is the plight of the Ukrainian refugees.

Or, perhaps more precisely, how those war-ravaged civilians are desperately trying to escape the horrors of death, destruction and apparent mass murder.

And, perhaps more to my point, how neighboring Poland has selflessly accepted nearly three million Ukrainian refugees in the past nine weeks, people who are seeking nothing more than a place to take their next breath of air without the fear of being blown to bits.

It's a wondrous thing to behold: three million people is somewhere between the populations of Los Angeles and Chicago. Imagine the entire population of Chicago suddenly packing up and moving to Poland in the span of two months. Imagine being Poland when this happens.

This is a hard concept for me to wrap my mind around, especially when you consider the stress such a number of refugees puts on a country's social system. And, yet, Poland has opened its arms.

Because of this, I can't help but draw a parallel to the United States, and the difficulty it's having in its own hemisphere with asylum seekers. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, we're still building border walls and finding loopholes to immigration policies to keep people out.

I don't get it. The concept of aiding refugees and asylum seekers clearly follows the tenants of Christianity, and both Poland and the United States are avowed Christian nations. Why does it seem Poland is doing so much more to aid refugees?

There might be at least one reason for this: those seeking asylum at the southern border are primarily people of color, trying to gain entry to a country that hasn't come close to resolving its history of racism and bigotry (it's also a country where white people can chant "Jews will not replace us," but that's a different issue). I wonder if three million Caucasian Ukrainian refugees – who are both mostly white and mostly Christian – showed up at the southern border if the difficulty of entry would be as it is now?

Maybe. Three million whites might put a temporary dent in the current demographic indicating a decline in the white population of this country. Apparently, that bothers some people.

The United States has turned back refugees before. In 1939, just prior to the start of World War II, the MS St. Louis with 937 passengers – mostly Jews seeking asylum from Nazi Germany – was denied entry into Cuba, the United States and Canada before returning to Europe. Not a shining moment.

The United States is taking a leadership role in providing arms and financial assistance to the beleaguered Ukrainians as they fight for their existence.

I wonder if there's room to do even more?