They Want it All, And They'll Take it From You

The oligarchs have more wealth than they can possibly use, and even if they never made another dime, they, their children, their grandchildren, and their great-grandchildren would still be incomprehensibly wealthy.

They can have anything they want or need: Big houses, big vacation houses, spare apartments in cities around the world, nice cars, designer clothes, the best food cooked by private chefs, whatever medical care they need at top hospitals with famous doctors, multiple yachts, private hunting ranches, hairdressers who travel with them on their private jets, secret bunkers (underground mansions) in case of nuclear war, their own private security force, private schools and top-notch universities for their kids, lawyers on retainer, ownership of TV stations, newspapers, and tech companies, and the hired help needed to acquire and maintain all their possessions. In summary, they have everything. ^@themrswest

Yet, somehow, that isn't enough. Not only do they constantly want more, they want to make sure that everyone else has nothing. They crave a world where they have absolutely everything, whether they need it or not: All the power, all the means of production, all the necessities, all the luxuries. And they want that world to be populated by impoverished serfs who have nothing and live short lives of sickness and pain. Why? I truly don't know why. It's very hard to get into a mindset where other people's misery is perceived as making your life better. But there it is.

Link: The Koch brothers' political activism and its damage to America - "The Kochs' Ayn Rand–inspired hellscape has yet to completely come to fruition, but the ideas the duo promoted are now part of the regular discourse—and have been for a while."

Link: While the Planet Burns: Billionaires Are Busy Hunkering Down for the Apocalypse - "Many of the wealthiest people in the world have decided that Earth is a Titanic heading for an iceberg. As a result, they have decided to create luxury lifeboats for themselves."

Link: The Koch Brothers Are Even Worse Than You Think - "Koch was found guilty of criminal conduct in many cases.... The workplace is becoming more dangerous under this constant pressure to produce profits."

Link: Robbing the poor to pay the rich - "Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor is increasingly popular as we leave the 20th century, especially in this country"

 

Rallies

There are people who think that holding rallies with enthusiastic crowds somehow proves that a candidate is great in some way. Yet we know that evil dictators throughout history have had big rallies. All kinds of charlatans, crooks, fraudsters, and destroyers started with rallies, tent meetings, well-attended lectures, and parades. It is obvious to mention Mussolini and Hitler, or even Jim Jones, well-known examples of people who used rallies and mass meetings to lure followers into belief systems that would prove disastrous.

A hundred years ago, Benito Mussolini used to travel across Italy, holding huge rallies for fans of his Fascist Party. In October 1922, speaking to a crowd of around 40,000, he urged his followers to march on Rome. Fascist militias began driving toward the capital.

Elected officials wanted to declare a state of emergency and defend the city. The poorly-trained militias probably would have lost any battle with the military, but the King refused to declare martial law. Government officials resigned in protest. The King decided to accept the Fascists, and made Mussolini prime minister.

Mussolini soon became a total dictator, rescinding civil rights, replacing the press with propaganda, and invading Corfu and Ethiopia. Mussolini's career inspired Adolf Hitler, and eventually Italy was aligned with Nazi Germany in World War II. At least 8,500 Italians were murdered in the Holocaust. ^@realrkwest

In 1943, the King, who had had enough, convinced Mussolini's close associates to turn against him, and he was arrested. He escaped and attempted to set up a new government, but in 1945 he realized that defeat was near, and tried to flee the country. He was recognized and shot. A crowd mutilated his corpse and hung it up in the public square. It was eventually buried in an unmarked grave.

 

Do We Need a Dictator to Just Step in and Fix Things?

Dictatorship does not lead to prosperity for the average citizen.

For example, under Mussolini (Italy 1925 - 1945), both imports and exports decreased, and unemployment increased.

Mussolini established bureaucracies and appointed many officials, but very little was ever accomplished. He was mostly concerned with making sure the newspapers reported what he wanted them to say. There were food shortages throughout the country. The national debt skyrocketed. Mussolini's spending on infrastructure and public works was extravagant. Banks and big corporations were given government support. Interest rates went up. In many cases, the rich got richer, but in the meantime, workers got poorer.

Italy was hit hard by the Great Depression of the 1930s. Eventually, the state took over ownership of the banks and most industries. Mussolini focused on increasing his own political power, rather than providing assistance to citizens.

Mussolini was eventually killed by an angry mob.

Nicolae Ceaușescu (Romania 1967-1989) used a secret police force for mass surveillance and suppression of civil rights. He controlled the media.

In an attempt to increase the population, he outlawed all abortions and contraception. This led to the proliferation of overcrowded, dirty orphanages; many neglected and abused children from these institutions had lifelong physical and mental health problems. Thousands of women died from illegal abortions.

Ceaușescu's policy of moving from an agricultural economy to an industrial economy seemed successful at first, but led to unemployment, food shortages, and an energy crisis. Without electricity, people died of the cold in their homes. Prices were high while wages were low. Ceaușescu spent money on big projects and personal luxuries while citizens were freezing and starving.

When anti-government protests began, he ordered the military to fire upon protesters, causing many injuries and deaths. Violent protests spread across the country, and the military defected. Ceaușescu and his wife tried to flee, but they were captured, tried, convicted, and executed. The country was left with a very weak economy that still has not recovered.

Under Hitler (Germany 1933-1945), hourly wages were very low, while most people worked more hours, creating the illusion that individual income had increased.

Germany increased military spending until it became the majority of the economy. Hitler believed that war was the best way for a country to make progress. Prisoners of war and inmates from concentration camps were used as slave labor to support corporations. By 1944, slave labor made up 1/4 of the work force. Even so, unemployment was low. The government used price controls to avoid inflation, and also introduced wage and rent controls.

The military buildup was financed largely through deficit spending. The national debt was enormous. Industries that had been state-owned were privatized, yet subjected to a great deal of government control. Business leaders were expected to fund the Nazi party, and in return, benefited from policies that froze wages and provided slave labor. Profits for big businesses increased, and tax policies were designed to benefit wealthy people. Real wages decreased substantially. Workers could not strike, and could not change jobs without the current employer's consent.

During World War II, imports were harder to get. Rationing was implemented. The government took the property of wealthy Jews and plundered whatever it could in the countries it invaded. Wartime destruction and the British blockade led to the collapse of supply chains. People in occupied territories were used as slave labor, and their children were killed. As the war progressed, Allied bombs destroyed factories and cities. There were catastrophic food and fuel shortages. As defeat loomed, Hitler committed suicide.

Is Miscarriage a Crime?

We know that many pregnancies end naturally in spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage, before the pregnancy is known or even suspected. A typical scenario: Your period is a week or two late (if you are normally irregular, you probably won't notice). Then when it finally comes, it may seem a little heavier than usual. The blood that is discharged will be disposed of on a tampon or pad. Even if you suspect this was a miscarriage (most women don't), you will likely not consider having a funeral for your tampon.

In another common scenario, you realize you are pregnant, and may have already received prenatal care. Then one day, you experience cramps, bleeding, and an urge to push (similar in feeling to a difficult bowel movement). Most women go into the bathroom at this point, where they are likely to bleed onto the floor, in the bathtub, or into the toilet. A few will save the bloody mess to be analyzed by a medical lab, but most will just clean it up, washing everything down the drain or flushing it down the toilet. In some cases, it may be necessary to have a "D&C" procedure to remove tissue that was not expelled. The flushed or removed material is not perceived as a "body" or a "corpse".

Many Republicans now want to arrest women for doing the normal thing during and after a miscarriage. Simply seeking medical help during a miscarriage is often viewed with suspicion, or treated as a potential crime. Medical providers report being afraid to treat women undergoing miscarriage, because state laws will lead to accusations of performing an illegal abortion. ^@realrkwest

• This woman is being prosecuted because she flushed blood and tissue: https://theblackwallsttimes.com/2023/12/08/miscarriage/

• In Alabama, women risk bleeding to death because doctors will not help them when they miscarry: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/roe-dobbs-abortion-ban-reproductive-medicine-alabama.html

• This woman spent 19 days having a miscarriage because doctors refused to help her: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/idaho-woman-shares-19-day-miscarriage-tiktok-states/story?id=96363578

• A woman with a cancerous condition was told to go sit in the parking lot and wait for a heart attack: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/04/25/1171851775/oklahoma-woman-abortion-ban-study-shows-confusion-at-hospitals

 

Free Speech

In London's Hyde Park, there is an area known as Speaker's Corner, where, by tradition and the law, people are free to make speeches and express themselves.

I have been there a few times. Speakers sometimes stand on boxes or ladders to make themselves more visible. The confident ones just stand on the ground. Some people want to preach religion; others talk politics. Some people try out their stand-up comedy. Some just talk randomly about whatever pops into their heads. Not everyone attracts an audience, and not every audience is respectful. The speakers have the right to speak; the hearers have the right to disagree or walk away.

And that is pretty much what free speech is and isn't. You can say whatever you like, and you can't compel anyone to pay attention to you, nor can you require those who do pay attention to agree with you.

 

Please Control Our Lives

Browsing through social media, it is alarming to see how many people want to give up voting rights and a representative government in favor of a dictatorship.

Like the people who supported Mussolini because "he made the trains run on time," many of these people seem to think dictators will provide them with amenities like cleaner streets, and these things are, in their minds, worth giving up basic freedoms. Other dictator fans imagine that the dictator will share their world view and religion, and will create a society that enforces those ideas on the entire population. They think it's a good idea that dissenters might be imprisoned, expelled from the country, or executed.

It never occurs to them that (a) the dictator will not actually do what they imagine, (b) historically, dictatorships do not create prosperity for average citizens, (c) someday, the tables will turn and the former in-group will become the out-group.

 

Should Religion Run the Government?

History shows us what happens when the church is allowed to direct the government. A Protestant government persecuted Catholics, a Catholic government persecuted Protestants. They all persecuted Jews. Then you've got all the churchy people who burned or hanged people for being "witches", often using torture to force false confessions from them. And all the religion-controlled governments today who treat women as slaves who can't even show their faces in public.

People who want religion to control government always imagine it will be their version of religion. They are genuinely surprised when it is turned against them, for not being orthodox enough, for being denounced by a neighbor, for using the wrong word, for being a bit eccentric, for being an unmarried woman with property someone would like to seize, for having the wrong ancestors, for laughing at the wrong time, etc.

Think about the ongoing problems with sexual abuse in churches, and how the church authorities protected the offenders and concealed the truth. Now imagine how that would play out if the churches controlled the government. We already see judges who give shockingly light sentences to preachers and youth pastors who committed terrible abuses against children and teens. If the churches were in charge, would they ever bother to prosecute their monsters?
 

Their Feelings Will Become Law

Abortion is such an emotional, polarizing issue that it's not surprising Republicans decided to use it as a wedge to open the door for them to just take over the country. They have a segment of the population that is so blinded by outrage over the issue, they will support anything that is done. Any violation of human rights is seen as justified in pursuit of what they believe is a righteous crusade.

The same people who screeched that asking about vaccinations violated medical privacy rights have no problem with scrutinizing the medical records of pregnant women, just in case they might contemplate an abortion. People who describe themselves as "pro life" really don't care if a woman's life is endangered - or ended - by an ectopic pregnancy or by complications of a miscarriage, as long as the doctors and nurses who refuse to help her are thoroughly intimidated by the threat of being accused of performing an abortion.

People who want the freedom to go anywhere in public with a rifle on their shoulder or a pistol in their pocket, don't object to laws that restrict the freedom of women to drive across town, just to make sure those women can't get abortions. Overwhelmed by powerful feelings, they see any kind of violation, restriction, or harm to women as completely justified by the massive importance of this one, all-consuming issue.

It never occurs to them that this sets a precedent. They don't foresee a time (coming sooner than we think) when other important issues will be the justification for violations and restrictions against everyone, including them. If we become indifferent to the oppression of women, how hard will it be to become indifferent to all oppression? If they can seize her medical records, why can't they seize yours? If they can prevent her from leaving town, just in case she might do something forbidden, why can't they prevent you from leaving town, just in case you might do some forbidden thing?

If they can refuse to abide by an election because of their opposition to abortion, why can't they refuse to abide by an election because of their opposition to gambling, or guns, or books?

These things matter! They are upsetting! Our strong feelings exempt us from obeying the law!

 

The Prosperity Gospel

When I was a child, I heard a version of the prosperity gospel that was a bit different from the way it's promoted today. The basic idea was that a good-hearted person who generously helped others was rewarded materially so that he could share his fortune, using his resources to lift others out of poverty.

The protagonist in the story was a man who had given his last $10 to help someone who was even worse off than he was. That act of self-sacrifice led to his getting a good job, where he rose through the ranks by working hard. Whenever he got an increase in salary, he used most of his money to feed, clothe and shelter unemployed and homeless people, no strings attached. As he got richer and richer, he gave away more and more money.

This was not a story about a man with multiple mansions and a private jet, whose conspicuous wealth was supposedly a sign that God considered him morally superior. It was a story about a man whom God trusted to help those with the greatest need.

It's sad how twisted that story has become. ^@themrswest

 

Ugh

This was something I wrote back in October 2016. It's old, but it still feels relevant.

Back when Donald Trump famously remarked that his followers were so "loyal" that even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, they'd still vote for him, I partly suspected that he had found a subtle way to marvel at how stupid his followers were. Of course, I soon came to realize that Trump is not, in any way, capable of subtlety.

This morning I watched an excerpt of a news program where a reporter was talking to Trump supporters. Most of these people were as un-subtle as it gets. They didn't admire Trump for his grasp of foreign policy (do they even know what that is?) or his knowledge of the Constitution and how government works (they don't know those things, either). They didn't admire him for his ability to build coalitions within the party, his honesty, his morality, his charm, or even his good looks and physical fitness. They admired him because he is "strong" - and by strong, they meant loud and aggressive. That's what they like. They like bullies.

All the people talking to the reporter (including the women) were loud talkers, the kind of people you don't want sitting near you in a restaurant.The men were particularly obnoxious. In one case I was a bit concerned that one of the men might physically attack the petite female reporter, as he began to try to intimidate her with his looming stance and aggressive comments. She moved away, keeping an eye on him just in case. (That's the kind of behavior Trump supporters see as good debate skills.)

Trump supporters don't care about his racism, his sexism, his hypocrisy, his dishonesty, his possible criminality, his disloyalty, his ignorance, his crudeness, his impossible ideas, his overall obnoxiousness. All they care about is his loud voice. That makes him "strong", and by golly you gotta be strong to be a leader. Ugh.

And while there are some people who finally, finally, are moving away from Trump because at long last they have seen that he has no redeeming qualities, there is a core group that actually admires and identifies with the very things that make him a monster. Those people will never change. If he actually does shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, they will still vote for him. I'd say, go ahead and vote for him, because if he wins you will get what you deserve. But the problem is that if he wins, it won't be only those who voted for him who pay the price. We will all suffer. I don't deserve that. The good people of America and the world don't deserve that.

 

Hoarding

My Mom, as a young married woman, noticed when visiting her Mother - my Grandma - that Grandma kept junk mail. Mom complained to Grandma, who denied that it was junk. When Grandma wasn't looking, Mom threw the junk mail away. But Grandma found it in the trash and retrieved it. So Mom sneakily took the junk mail and threw it away at her own house.

Forty years later, I realized that Mom was a hoarder. She kept old papers and useless junk that piled up all over her house and made it look like a garbage dump. I couldn't get her to part with anything. I complained, and she said she wasn't so bad compared to her own Mother, and then told me the story about the junk mail.

"But you save junk mail!" I protested. "No I don't," she claimed. I turned to a box on the floor and reached inside, exposing a handful of Grandma's ancient junk mail, carefully preserved along with dead relatives' bank statements from closed accounts at banks that no longer existed, postcards from the vacations of long-forgotten people with indecipherable handwriting, clothing still in the original packages, and the occasional spoon.

What Mom didn't know was that I had already developed the habit of taking her hoarded trash home wth me to throw out.

 

Will Real News Return?

News outlets have completely forgotten what news is, or how to find it and how to report it. They all became obsessed with trump in 2015. I believe it was Jeb Bush who said the coverage of trump in 2016 seemed to blot out the sun. Since then, whether they are allegedly conservative, allegedly liberal, or something else, they all report endlessly on 78-year-old trump's every move, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

If they aren't repeating something he said or did, they are quoting what other people said about him. If they report any story that isn't actually about trump, they find a way to slip his name into it. It's like being suffocated under an orange blanket.

Someday, the old geezer will be gone. They'll manage to keep reporting on him for a while - how he died, what others said about his death, the funeral plans, the actual funeral, the various facts that finally "come out" once he's dead, etc. And for a long time, they'll keep finding ways to relate other stories back to him. But gradually, the blanket will be lifted. A day will go by without that name being mentioned. Then two days, then a week, a month, a year.

Someday folks will realize that there are people in their 20s or 30s who don't remember trump, who don't even know who or what it was. Maybe then, the concepts of news and news reporting will be rediscovered. ^@themrskwest

 

Whose Nose Is It, Anyway?

Imagine a state government that decides to outlaw rhinoplasty and septoplasty. In other words - no nose jobs. They are under the influence of a small but vocal religious sect that opposes cosmetic surgery as being against God's will. "Your face is sacred," they insist.

Of course, it's not just about imposing one group's religious beliefs on the larger population. The government also sees changed noses as a way to evade facial recognition software and other surveillance/identification systems.

People who need nose surgery because they have breathing problems are dismissed as a tiny, meaningless minority. People whose noses are damaged in accidents or by violence are told that it's "God's will," and they should learn to love the new look.

Plastic surgeons, protesting against political interference in medical decisions, are vilified as money-grubbing demons who mutilate people for profit. People with crooked noses who travel to a state where rhinoplasty is still legal are reported to authorities and their medical records are seized. People with naturally small, straight noses are viewed with suspicion by religious zealots who harass them in public and send death threats to their homes. Protestors outside plastic surgeons' offices carry signs with graphic photos of bloody, swollen noses, and chant at everyone entering the office: "Don't break your nose! Don't break your nose!"

A couple of politicians get publicity for themselves by blocking state highway funding as a protest against government agencies that allow employees to use paid sick leave for nose surgery. The unrepaired roads contribute to an increase in traffic accidents - and more damaged noses. People who get out-of-state nose jobs are afraid to be seen with bandages on their faces, so they stay indoors or wear disguises.

People unhappy with their big, crooked noses are labeled as having "facial dysmorphic disorder" and are told they need counseling to accept themselves as they are. Parents who allow teenagers to get nose jobs are investigated by Child Protective Services. Some people go to underground practitioners who may or may not be safe. Some people become so desperate they try to fix their noses themselves, using steak knives and crochet hooks. Sometimes it works, but some people get permanent brain damage, and some bleed to death. Anyone with a nosebleed is suspected of having had an illegal nose job.

Celebrities who had nose jobs back when it was legal write books about their experiences; a few are invited to testify before Congress.

 

Privilege

It's easy to be privileged without realizing it.

When I was in high school, along with our required classes each term, we needed to choose electives. It was important to submit a request early, because they were supposedly assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. Popular choices like drama and creative writing filled up fast. I was lucky, though. Even when I submitted my requests at the last minute, I managed to get the classes I wanted. Whew!

Did I mention that my dad was a teacher at this school? No, he wasn't intervening on my behalf. It wasn't until 10 years later that it dawned on me that someone in the administration office was giving me special treatment just because I was a teacher's kid. (The son of the chemistry teacher also led a charmed life.) Seriously, I actually didn't realize I was privileged, but thought it was just the luck of the draw.

As an adult, I'm slightly less naïve. When people get defensive and claim they don't have white privilege or male privilege, or whatever special privilege they have, I wonder how they can still be as oblivious as a kid in school who thinks this is just the way life is.

 

Men in Dresses, Ladies in False Moustaches

People used to understand that dressing up in costume was just a way of being silly or entertaining. Children especially appreciate playacting and dress-up. Cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny were pictured in drag as part of humorous stories. The Three Stooges, a well-known and very popular comedy act, occasionally dressed in drag. Popular sitcoms over the decades have included story lines where characters appeared in drag. In many cases, drag performers do impersonations of entertainers they admire. Even politicians like Rudy Giuliani and donald trump have participated.

Are there drag performers whose shows include overtly sexualized material? Of course, there are some. You can examine any genre of entertainment, and find whatever it is you are looking for. There have been X-rated cartoons, but that didn't prompt a movement to criminalize all cartoons. John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer who worked as a clown, but his case didn't trigger an anti-clown movement. For decades, we have seen cases of churches providing cover for people who sexually abuse children, yet few people want to make it illegal to take a child to church.

Once again, we are seeing a loud subset of the population exercising disproportionate control over local legislation. The same people who demand that men in drag be classified as adults-only entertainment seem to have no objections to scantily-clad cheerleaders on televised sports shows. They aren't picketing church picnics to demand that priests wearing elaborate gowns be kept where innocent children can't see them. ^@themrskwest

Stand Your Ground

On the surface, the idea of "stand your ground" seems sensible. It seems right and natural to defend yourself from an attacker.

The problem is with people who defend themselves, not from an actual attacker, but from their own feelings. They say they were scared or "felt threatened". Those feelings are inside of the person who feels them, and are not the responsibility of someone else. Yet they are often used to justify killing a human being who was unarmed and behaving normally, a human being whose "threatening" behavior consisted of asking a question or getting out of a car or staying inside a car or running away or standing still.

All too often it seems that the threatening behavior consisted of having dark skin. I believe that some people do genuinely feel fear when they see a person with brown skin. Sometimes that fear becomes a terror so powerful it causes them to hallucinate. They "see" a weapon that isn't there, a threatening gesture that wasn't made. It's an irrational fear, like a phobia, and it is not reasonable to kill other people because we have phobias. ^@realrkwest

Teachers With Guns

I wrote this in 2015, but unfortunately, it's still about current events

Whenever there is a school shooting, many people suggest that lives would be saved if teachers were armed.

I'm a teacher on a college campus. I can imagine exactly what would happen if the school decided I should have a gun in the classroom.

First, I can easily pass a background check. I have no criminal record and no history of mental illness. Buying me a gun shouldn't present any problems. (But this may not be true for all teachers at all schools.)

Next, I'll just assume that the school pays to provide me with proper training, and that I do reasonably well in target practice. The cost of guns and training for all teachers, as well as the likely increase in insurance premiums, may be prohibitive for an already cash-strapped institution. But for this story, let's pretend that the school can afford this without having to cut back on books and supplies or fire some of the maintenance workers.

Now I have a gun at school. Where will I keep it? A locked cabinet would be a safe place, but it wouldn't do me much good if a gunman burst into the room. I can't keep the gun in a desk drawer or in my book bag, since it would be too easy for a mischievous or malevolent person to get it. So I guess I'll have to wear it in a holster on my hip. Will my new security-guard look support the comfortable, nurturing relationship I have with my students? Hard to say.

Next let's imagine that the worst happens and some sick loser decides to shoot up the school. If he bursts into my classroom, guns at the ready, it is unlikely I will have time to draw my weapon. He will get the first shot, and that will be that. In fact, this was the first objection my students raised when I asked them if they would feel safer if I had a gun. They pointed out that a killer who knew that teachers were armed would intentionally target me first. That wasn't a comforting thought for any of us.

In a slightly different scenario, the killer starts shooting in the classroom next to mine, and I'm aware of what is happening. I might try to help the occupants of that room by running over there with my gun. But I probably won't be very effective. I don't know exactly where the shooter is in the room -- and I don't want to accidentally shoot a student -- so I'll need at least a tiny bit of time to find my target and aim. At the same time, I'm coming through the doorway, which makes me a nicely framed target for a guy who already has his guns out and doesn't share my concern about collateral damage.

Maybe my students and I can just crouch behind our desks and wait. I'll aim my gun at the door, ready to take out the shooter as he enters. At this point, the question might be, do I have the heart to pull the trigger? I do. But I had better be a really good shot. I'll probably have just one chance to bring this guy down. I'll only have time for one shot. If I miss, that's it. My handgun against his semi-automatic rifle is no contest.

At this point, some people might suggest that having even more guns in the classroom would solve the problem. What if some, or all, of my students were armed? Couldn't they simply overwhelm the gunman with their collective firepower?

Maybe. And in that tiny classroom, in an atmosphere of terror and chaos, there will be any number of stray bullets, ricochets, and weapons pointed the wrong way. How many of us will be caught in the crossfire? I don't want to find out.

Don't forget, by now the police have been called and a SWAT team is in the building. If we are all waving guns around, how will the officers know the difference between good guys and bad guys? How likely is it that an innocent person who happens to be holding a gun (and is too terrified and excited to realize it's time to drop it) will be perceived as a threat and be shot by our rescuers?

In the meantime, think about those armed students. Most are between 17 and 24 years old. Science tells us that most of them have brains that have not yet fully matured, particularly in the areas which are needed for rational decision making. How helpful will they really be in an emergency? In the course of an ordinary school year, what will happen to all those guns? Some students will lose them, the same way they lose their cell phones and their textbooks. Some will occasionally leave the gun at home, sitting on an end table or perhaps cleverly hidden under the mattress, where their six-year-old siblings will find it. Some will show off their guns to each other at lunch time, and now and then someone will be accidentally shot.

And, while the overwhelming majority of my students are good-natured and peaceful, it is inevitable that there will be the occasional troubled soul among them. Someone who will experience road rage on the way to school. Someone who will be obsessed with jealousy and hatred for his romantic rival. Someone who will become depressed and suicidal. Someone who will go nuts because he failed his classes. Someone who will take advantage of the opportunity to become the next school shooter.
 

Danger!

If someone pointed a gun at me, I would probably feel threatened. It's likely most people would. Yet there are some people who feel threatened, not in the presence of a gun or other weapon, but simply because of the mere existence of another person. The color of a person's skin triggers a fear reaction in some people, so they believe they are justified in violently "defending" themselves from the threat. Police who shoot Black people often claim they thought the victim was holding a weapon. When they know their bodycams are running, why do they lie? I think it's possible the terror they feel at the sight of dark skin might actually make them hallucinate a weapon or threatening gesture. Would better training fix this? I don't know. But perhaps people who fear the sight of brown skin could use desensitization therapy, like phobia patients. Or perhaps they just shouldn't work in law enforcement. ^@themrswest

Dangerous Things

Certain politicians love guns and fear books. But here's the problem. My neighbor could walk out to his driveway carrying an AR-15, aim it across the street at my kitchen window, and even if he wasn't a very good shot, he could do a lot of damage to the building as well as to whoever was unlucky enough to be standing at the sink.

The same guy could come out of the house with a stack of books and start throwing them. Even if he's got a powerful arm, I doubt any of those books would make it over to my house. He might dent a passing car.

And then if the same guy stood in his driveway and started screaming pronouns: "He! She! Them! You! It!" I probably wouldn't even hear him clearly enough to feel threatened.

Potty Training

Hubby and I spent nearly a year traveling throughout Europe. During that time, we encountered a lot of public restrooms. It wasn't at all unusual to find a restroom that was intended to be used by both men and women. In many cases, there would be a row of stalls for women on one side, and a row of stalls for men on the other side. The sinks, used by both sexes, were in the middle. In some cases, there were stalls marked for men and stalls marked for women, intermingled, with a few unmarked stalls, too. In some cases, stalls weren't labeled, and you just took your turn, regardless of sex. As far as I could tell, nobody suffered any ill effects from this. I only felt uncomfortable once. That happened when I used a traditional women's restroom that had attendants. Oddly, the attendants were all male. (I don't remember what country I was in at the time.)

The restrooms that were available to both sexes could have been used by people who were transgender, and nobody would have noticed. For most people, restrooms aren't places we go to report on who else is there.

Once in a diner in the U.S. I walked into the ladies' room and saw a man standing there. He had come in with his baby to use the changing table. I didn't feel threatened, but just went ahead and entered a stall.

Even in the U.S., where some people are hyper-aware of sexual division in public facilities, it is generally legal for a disabled person who needs assistance to be accompanied by an opposite-sex companion. After my accident, I was in a wheelchair for a while, and needed help in the bathroom. My husband went with me. Sometimes we used the women's room, sometimes the men's. We just rolled into the handicap stall and closed the door. Nobody fainted, nobody called the cops, nobody died. We both survived without permanent emotional trauma.

 

Them Books is Dangerous

My mother, staunchly conservative and a lifelong Republican, taught me that the reason we support public education is that everyone benefits from having an educated population. Today's Republicans, after shutting down the libraries and banning factual education, will be very unhappy 15-20 years from now when there is no one capable of developing new technology, or even repairing old technology; when they can't get lifesaving medical treatments because there wasn't anyone qualified to go to medical school; when TV shows are unable to entertain them because no one can write well; when even people in seemingly menial jobs drive them crazy by not understanding how things work. ^@themrswest

Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

I wrote this five years ago, but in light of current events, it seems relevant again.

Maybe it's really time to to divide the United States into two different countries. We’ll call them Trumpistan and, um... America! People will have a grace period of a couple of years to move to whichever country they prefer before the new rules take effect.

Trumpistan will be located in the old Confederacy States. Trump will be Supreme Ruler for Life. Instead of a cabinet, he’ll have a Council of Oligarchs, who will manage the various departments. Because the departments won’t actually do much, the Oligarchs will have plenty of time for cosmetic surgery and yachting.

Of course, people will still be allowed to vote -- for any candidate they like from the country’s only party, the Trumpicans.

Those opting to move to Trumpistan will give up Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and other government programs relating to health and welfare. Naturally, people will be able to buy health insurance. It won’t cover contraception – or really, anything, because sooner or later everyone has a pre-existing condition. Most people will pay for medical care and drugs out of pocket.

There will be no public education. Those who can’t afford a fancy private school can choose between a church school (where the history class will teach that Noah took dinosaurs on the Ark), homeschooling (rare, because most couples will have at least two full time jobs in order to afford health care), or simple day care (which will consist mostly of chain link fences).

There will be little need for publicly-funded infrastructure projects, like roads and bridges, since few people will have the time or money to go anywhere. Most national parks will be converted to coal mines and oil wells. The others will become Royal Hunting Grounds where the Oligarchs enjoy canned hunts.

In the meantime, back in America, we'll continue to use the U.S. Constitution, with a few small amendments. Gerrymandering will be made illegal, and the electoral college will no longer exist. Health care will be Medicare for All. Congresspersons will receive a salary based on the average income of citizens, and upon retirement they'll get the same Social Security benefits as everyone else. One idea from the Trump days will finally be carried out – we'll build The Wall – along the border with Trumpistan. ^@realrkwest