February 14

 *******************************14***********************************

I woke up this morning to a news story which hit a bit too close. About 25 years ago I spent a month during two successive summers on the Michigan State University doing research at the library. It was a bit disconcerting to hear that another mass shooting (the 67th so far this year) has taken the lives of three more people and left five more with life threatening wounds. If we had a sane, responsible, compassionate society and political leadership we would have done something a long time ago. One of the commentators this morning recounted an encounter with a Republican leader after an earlier mass shooting who was asked what they were planning to do. Answer: nothing, because, he said, if they take any meaningful action "the country would become something no one would recognize." Well, I thought, whether you do something or do nothing, the country will become something we would not recognize any more. Interestingly, the moderator said the same thing barely thirty seconds later.

Robert Reich has a post this morning which is related to that theme. There was a time when a witness before the House UnAmerican Activities Committee could end a previous political bully's career (Joseph McCarthy) by asking "Have you no shame?" But looking at all too many of the politicians, especially Republicans, I don't think that would work. They have no shame and their shameless antics are what their voters want. Those voters mistakenly equate that behavior with "fighting for me," or "telling it like it is," or "owning the libs," when it isn't any such thing. It is performance empty of meaning.

I found this by way of Naked Capitalism. I probably wouldn't have seen this book and author and I probably wouldn't have thought to read it. The subject is tangentially related to my own interests: history. However, I have adopted a policy of reading books that are banned, one way or another, by both the right (1619 Project and Between the World and Me) or, as in this case, the left. The arguments over books, or statues commemorating people, the naming of military bases or college buildings, etc., tends to provide a lot of heat but no cogent arguments. We need to get back to politely debating these things.

Tomdispatch.com has another post dealing with the debacle around the failed littoral combat ships program which the Navy wanted to curtail by mothballing five of the nine ships and cancelling any more. As read this story again, since other authors have also written on it, a memory intruded. Back in the 1980, I think, a big controversy arose over plans to reduce the number of bases within the U.S. After a lot of wrangling, a blue ribbon committee was appointed with the authority to make the decision. None of the politicians could come to a consensus when assailed by the interests within their states demanding their installations be spared the ax. A similar pattern appears in this controversy. Once the decision was made, other interests started howling; a business that got a multibillion dollar contract to repair the defective ships, workers whose jobs were on the line, companies deeply involved in the production of the weapons systems, and the states those companies call home. Perhaps we need a commission to vet new weapons systems for cost and effectiveness. 

Several years ago I read about a legislator in Missouri who proposed a roll back on child labor laws. It didn't go anywhere. I wasn't too impressed with his arguments which centered on the supposed benefit children would get by holding down a job. As I thought then: maybe---maybe not. The devil is definitely in the details here. I wasn't surprised to see this post on Crooks & Liars. I have complained for a long time about the waste of time in schools. It seemed that a lot of material learned in the previous year was repeated in the next. Perhaps apprenticeships during the last two years? Or paid internships?