It's only words...

It's only words...

So Mother Jones has reported that the EEOC has "paused" investigating complaints from workers who were targeted based on their gender identity or sexual orientation.

Georgetown law professor Brian Wolfman is quoted in the article as calling the move "troubling."

Okay, besides the obvious offense of the action itself, I have two real issues here.

First off, we must stop referring to such orders as a "pause." That's a damned official lie. A "pause" without a time frame or a context for a resumption is not a "pause." It's a total stop. They are putting an absolute end to enforcing protections against workplace discrimination against LGBTQ+ people and we should not by our language let them get away with even hinting otherwise.

Well, yes, okay, if you're actually quoting an official statement, use "pause" - but put it in quotes followed immediately by noting that it is a lie.

The more important point, however, comes from Prof. Wolfman's quote.

Because NO, DAMMIT, NO! Stop using terms like "troubling" or "concerning" or "worrisome."

This order and its ilk are legally, ethically, morally, outrageous, not just "troubling." They are based on and are despicable lies, not just "concerning." They are the words and actions of scum-sucking, bottom-feeding bigots swimming in a noxious swill of hatred, fear, ignorance, and self-loathing, not merely "worrisome."

We should never, ever, let the bigots, bozos, and bosses determine the terms of the "debate" - which I shouldn't even call that because it implies two sides each trying to present honest arguments and there is only one such side here and it sure as hell ain't them and I only use it for the lack of a decent alternative - and that includes acquiescing to transparently vapid terms and outright lies like "pause."

Another example of how we screw this up is when we report on Tweetie-pie's executive orders with phrases saying he "ordered" this or "suspended" that or "fired" (or "removed") the other - many of which actions he had no authority to do. We usually know he doesn't have the power, we even say he doesn't have the power. So why in hell do we headline it as if he did? And why do we tolerate media expressing it that way? Headlines frame the issue and so the discussion. So it should always be he "tried to" or "moved to" or, better, "falsely claimed the authority to."

Why do I go on about this? Because the words we use matter! Not just what we say, but how we say what we say matters!

This is not a new notion. The older among us may recall Newt Gingrich's 1990 GOPer memo called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control," in which he listed specific words to be used by GOPper candidates to describe themselves (such as "opportunity," "truth," and "success") and others to describe their opponents ("decay," "failure," and "corruption" being three).¹

Those with somewhat shorter memories may recall all the buzz around linguist George Lakoff's 2004 essay "Framing 101: How to Take Back Public Discourse," which brought the concept "framing" into the mainstream of lefty thought, though it seems and sadly, more as a fad than an on-going practice. (Unlike the reactionaries, who appear to still be using the Newtwit's list.)

Even now there is continuing research into framing as a psychological concept (see here and here, for example), exploring how the way something is phrased, how it is presented, affects how it is perceived, research (and advertising practice) of which we seem to take no notice. There was a time - and here I'm harkening back to Gene Debs - when the left clearly knew how to speak in the cadences and language of those we addressed; the workers, the oppressed, the outsiders, all those denied justice. Somehow, over the decades, that faded away and while there are still those who have that skill, either naturally or by training, too many prefer the cool tones of dignified exchange to the moving power of emotive words and I cringe hearing Chuck Schumer or Hakeem Jeffries delivering the latest Democratic Party statement with the passion and urgency of a high-school debate.²

We are not talking about plunging into raging fury here; we're not discussing shouting, screaming, and screeching. We are talking about language, about passion in words to express "the fierce urgency of now." Maybe Schumer and Jeffries can't do it; maybe they feel it is "unbefitting their position." In that case, they should find someone who can do it and put that person before the cameras or at least join them on stage to follow up what they say.

Because how we say what we say matters! It always did, but perhaps now more than ever. Because, contrary to what we have heard and been told, we are not "on the precipice" of a Constitutional crisis, we are in one. Thia is not a time for temperance in tone or equanimity in expression.

This concern with language is not a new one for me; it goes at least as far back as the early '70s, when in a newsletter I edited for a local peace group (I called it "Lotus," of course) I wrote an essay on the topic in which I expressed what is still my bottom-line rule of effective communication: "What you say is not as important as what the other person hears."

In the early '80s, I ran for public office on a third-party ticket three times. Afterwards, I gave a talk on "Lessons Learned," among which was the observation that while the major parties could rely on a commonality of understanding to make their empty slogans sound like detailed programs, the left too often piled our language with references and phrases with meanings clear to those already convinced but like an alien - like UFO alien - language to others, and so made our detailed programs sound like empty or even incomprehensible slogans. That lead me to giving the advice to "Avoid buzzwords!" I tried to make the point by recalling the occasion when I learned after a debate that someone in the audience had said I had the ability "to make the most radical proposals sound like a voice of sweet moderation." It was clear what I said, but how I said it mattered.

I note this not to pat myself on the back - okay, maybe a little - but to make the point that this has been a topic of concern across the years from a variety of people and we still still still keep making the same mistakes of addressing issues by accepting the right-wing terms of debate.

We have to stop. We have to stop. We have to stop thinking that if we just quietly explain the facts with charts and numbers and graphs and court briefs but without the instant impact of art and the poetic passion of words that we will somehow take back what is being taken from us, much less make actual gains. We need to re-learn the message that, as I have written many times in some form, this one from 1991,

[t]he movement for peace and social justice in this country has been at its strongest and most influential when we have spoken the truth without giving a flying damn if anyone was "offended" or not. We didn't build a movement against the Indochina War by harping on "the shortcomings of both sides" but by blasting it for what it was, a monstrously immoral and evil enterprise which should be halted immediately. We didn't built movements for civil rights, women's equality, or a cleaner environment by worrying about how we'd be received by the bigots, sexists, or greedy corporate bosses - or how we'd "look" or who we'd "turn off" if we labeled the discriminators and despoilers for what they were.

I’ve gone on too long. So I’ll wrap up by saying that, in sum:

Words matter.
How we say what we say matters.
Never let your opponent frame the debate.
Passion and substance are not mutually exclusive - but while substance informs, it takes passion to make a movement.
Speak the truth.

And carry it on.

¹ There are various similar forms of the list. Two others are here and here. Remember that "turnabout is fair play."

² I still say one of the mistakes the Harris campaign made is that it started with a message of hope for and enthusiasm about the future only to fall back into the arms of the party establishment with its thudding, unmoving, message of "We're not Trump."

Issues and Emotions

Issues and Emotions

It’s hard to know why certain issues just strike you more than others. Why does issue A move you to tears or frustration or rage or pain or (often) all four while issue B just does not have the same effect, even as you know it really is just as important, impacts just as many people just as deeply?

Even as I write that, I find myself supposing it’s in a way a good thing: Caring about every issue, every problem, every reality, that deserves care to the degree such care is deserved would, I suspect, be emotionally paralyzing or worse. So we each need to devote most of our available energy to the issues that move us and trust in others to take up the slack on what parts of the rest move them.

My inability to do that lead me to a place where I couldn’t function politically. Every call to action was as urgent as every other call, every cry for aid was as important as every other cry for aid, every plea for my attention and time was as important as every other plea, and I suspect you know where this is going: I burned out. Totally. After I burned out of political action - twice, in fact, with the recovery from the second still in progress - I committed myself to the idea (which I now advise to others) that what matters is not how much you are doing, but are you doing what you can.

And yet I remain a little ashamed of my failure to do more on the causes I believe in. My whole purpose in being here is to try to accomplish at least a little of that “doing.”

Which is a very roundabout introduction to the rest of this blathering.

My housemate and I were on our way to have Christmas dinner with her family. They are MAGA, not so deep red that we can’t maintain family contact, but still, yeah. So there’s always a little bit of tension for us in such events. Usually, I think, more for me, in that I’m more intensely political than she is and she is so devoted to family that she can forgive almost anything. She can be angry, frustrated, irritated, and feel sorry for them - but still, in the end, forgiving.

But after a major and I expect rupturing blowout with a brother (who would not be at the dinner) who called me a “terrorist-loving anti-semite” for daring to suggest that Gaza was more complicated than his view of evil Palestinians all of who want to murder all Jews on the one side and thoroughly good Israelis on the other - with the label extended to her when she tried to express what I said even more gently than I already had - I’m sure her radar for conflict was already on high alert.

Anyway, on the way there I told her that for the sake of family peace I could let a lot of stuff go, including the anticipated gloating over the election, but there were two issues I could not, would not, let pass: the slaughter in Gaza and transgender rights.

So as it turned out, dinner went well with no gloating to speak of, it was about 9pm, people were chilling out, that somehow-a-classic Christmas movie “Die Hard” was on the TV, and someone said something about trans people. It (somewhat surprisingly) wasn’t hostile, but knowing how rapidly MAGA conversations can spin into wilder and wilder territory, my companion took advantage of the time to say “It’s getting late. We should get going.” Crisis averted, but I did have a real sense of relief when we got to her car.

Which just brings me around again to the start: Why those two issues? What makes them more important to me than other ones? Why did I know I couldn’t let either pass even at the cost of a family disruption? Why do they move me more than other issues, other crises?

After all, what about abortion rights? The rise of Christian nationalism? Poverty and economic inequality? Voter suppression? What about the fact that as of the day I write this, 16 wars are going on in the world which together have killed about 150,000 people since the start of 2024 - not including another 17 "low-intensity" conflicts with an additional nearly 10,000 killed.*

And, I mean, seriously, you could make a case that the single most important issue facing the world today is climate change. Unless emergency action is taken, climate change - global warming, whichever, it’s the same thing, to-may-to, to-mah-to as the old song has it - will cause deeper, longer-lasting, and more widespread damage to more people than anything else except for nuclear war, and while that’s an ever-present risk, short of a major, major, major miscalculation on Ukraine, the likelihood appears for now on the low side.

Meanwhile, climate change is real, is now, is every day and worsening and we face a clearly possible future of floods and fires, droughts and deluges, famines, more intense storms, areas becoming literally too hot for human survival, resource wars, unknowable numbers of climate refugees, rising seas, dramatically altered weather patterns, and more, all impacting literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of people.

I know all that. I can talk on an at least reasonably well-informed level on the science involved and in fact have in previous years on other forums posted a good number of times about just that. So it’s neither a matter of being unaware or unconcerned.

Butt it doesn’t bring me to tears. Trans rights does.** Gaza does. Why, I don’t know. I can come up with reasons they are important in general and important to me in particular, sure - but that doesn’t answer the question at hand. Being reminded of the Christmas dinner prompted me to wonder about that “why” to, frankly, no useful end and ultimately I had to say, well, they just do because that’s the way people are: different things touch us differently.

What matters now is that I find them so emotionally overwhelming that I have found it almost impossible to write about them here. Admittedly, I’ve not been particularly regular in posting, but even so, I don’t think I’ve posted about Gaza in just about a year and I think my only post about trans rights was as part of the “LGBTQ+ People Are Not Going Back” effort in early December.

And that lack violates why I’m even here at all.

In the first half of the ‘90s, I published a little newsletter consciously modeled on I. F. Stone’s Weekly (which by the time I became aware of it had become the Bi-Weekly and if you don’t know who Izzy Stone was, damn well look him up). In the first issue of my newsletter, which was called Lotus (of course it was), I tried to explain my intent by starting with a story of a friend who said she envied my comfort at giving speeches, to which I responded by saying I envied her gregariousness, which gave her skills at door-to-door petitioning. “I don’t think she believed me,” I wrote.

But, I noted, I meant it. We all have skills we can use in movements for justice and none are greater or “more important” than others and the issue isn’t what skills you have but are you using them.

Some, like my friend, are good at petitioning. I'm not. Some are good at fundraising. I'm not. I lack both the focused concentration necessary for large-scale organizing and the patience for phone-banking. The list of my inadequacies is embarrassingly long.

My strength happens to be words. Advocacy. Writing. Giving speeches. And like that. So doing this is, simply, something I think I can contribute. My dream for Lotus is that it can be a voice of conscience and a tool in an on-going movement, something of use to the many who keep on keepin' on, something of value to those whose skills in other areas so greatly exceed mine. Something that helps.

Not long after, I received what was intended as a friendly critique saying I was limiting my audience by being so upfront with my opinions and, let it be said, judgments. I replied by saying that Lotus was built on advocacy.

Its audience is indeed those who in a broad and general way agree with its point of view. Its aim is to rouse and inspire, to provide background and analysis intended to put a context to ethical judgments and thereby spur action. In other words, “something that helps.”

That has always been my goal in every forum in which I’ve engaged, whether blogging, YouTube, the platform formerly known as Twitter, public access TV, of late including Substack, or wherever else: to be of use to the overall struggle for justice.

And I perpetually wonder if I’m doing any good.

And at this point I don’t even know if there was a through-line, a coherent thread, in this meandering mess. I just know I have trouble forgiving myself for having contributed so little over this past year-plus to the causes that now mean the most to me and have to figure out how best to correct that. One possibility is to reframe my vision for what I publish from essay-length commentary with multiple data links (which I used to turn out on a reasonably-regular basis) back how it started, with a greater number of short but informational news items. We’ll see.

Because caring less is not an option.

*"Killed" here means "battle-related deaths (military and civilian) as well as civilians intentionally targeted" and so does not include deaths from such causes as lack of food or clean water or health care, which often account for three times (or more) as many dead as direct combat - meaning that 150,000 killed could be more like 600,000 (unless those others are somehow less dead) and maybe another 40,000 dead in those “low-intensity” wars.

**Do? Does? I think of it as a singular, as a group noun, so, yeah, “does.”

Happy 28th?

Happy 28th?

[I posted this on another platform (Substack) on January 21 and I was supposed to post it here but, well, I forgot. I think it is still worth a look, even if the issue, at least as far as media is concerned, vanished as fast as it arose.]

There has been justified and exuberant celebration over the statement (of course deleted post-inauguration) from Joe Biden that as far as he's concerned, the Equal Rights Amendment is part of the Constitution, with one example exulting "Woohoo! They can fight it but it’s done! Great news for human rights!" (Sorry for no credit; I misplaced the link.)

Yeah, well, hang on. It’s not quite over. In fact, delete “quite.”

For one thing, Biden said much the same thing three years ago (again deleted) and you see how far that has gotten us. This one is stronger because that time he called on Congress to ratify the ERA and this time he says, screw it, it’s already ratified. Well, good, but still, that doesn’t wrap things up.

On a practical, legal level this will simply be ignored until someone claims some law or rule is unconstitutional because it violates the ERA. That is, nothing will happen until someone forces the issue. And when that happens, I guarantee it will be accompanied by multiple arguments and suits trying to undo this historic achievement.

There will be suits about states having rescinded approval, which I think (hope?) will more likely than not fail because of (among other things) the can of worms it would open about the potential for states to pull an Emily Latella and rescind approval of amendments already enacted. (Can states secede by saying “We changed our mind, we don’t approve the Constitution?” Was the Confederacy thus properly constituted?) If I understand correctly (correct me if I’m wrong), but I think the technical term here is “no take-backs.”

Some efforts will claim that the amendment is not in force because US Archivist Colleen Shogan hasn’t published it. Those should fail - “should” because these days with this SCOTUS nothing is certain - on the grounds that an archivist is by definition a record-keeper, not a decision-maker and her role is ministerial. That is, she has no more authority to block the amendment than then-VP Mike NotWorthAFarthing had to refuse to certify the electoral count in January 2021.

And there will be suits about having exceeded the imposed and quite arbitrary time limit, which could rise to a “Well…” In a 1921 case (Dillon v. Gloss), SCOTUS found that Article V of the Constitution “implies” that proposed amendments “must be ratified, if at all, within some reasonable time after their proposal.” However, a later case (Coleman v. Miller, 1939) suggests that while Congress can set a “reasonable” deadline, what constitutes “reasonable” may be open to challenge. Further, later commentators have argued that this dicta is incorrect because the Constitution gives no such role to Congress (see Note 7 here). Which together would seem to make it difficult for our originalist and “plain text” intoners to argue straight-faced that such a time limit was “what the Founders intended” - not that they’ve never before ignored their own principles when it suited them. (This again relates to the federal archivist, of which more presently.)

Finally and perhaps most importantly, don’t be surprised if, regardless of the merits of the case at hand, some district court judge somewhere issues an injunction barring the amendment from taking effect anywhere in the country while any suits on any of those or other related issues proceed. Because I again guarantee you there are some who will do it on command.

In the meantime, however, we should all do as some are already doing and just declare “It’s over! We won!” over and over and over again. Make it an assumption under which the law should operate; treat it as a done deal, not a request or “someone do something.” I mean, at the very least it provides a basis for filing for injunctions against enforcement of anti-LGBTQ+ laws until any legal issues get resolved - which easily could take years.

However, what hasn’t taken years or even days is for the media to react to Biden’s statement with tut-tuts and tsk-tsks in dismissive tones ringing with “look at the old guy trying to look important” vibes.

For example, Politico called it “little more than an expression of [Biden’s] opinion” and a “long-shot gambit” while Faux News declared it’s “unlikely that Biden’s support will have any impact.” Slate dismissed it in a headline saying it “does nothing.” Meanwhile, AP called it "symbolic,” adding that "presidents have no role in the constitutional process" while emphasizing it "stirred aggravation among some allies" who had wanted it done sooner.

Others were no better and the all-but universal reaction came down to “But - but - the archivist!” They took it as unquestionable fact that the archivist refusing, on her own authority, to print it up and publish it is an absolute Constitutional bar to the amendment’s being part of the document. Which strikes me as much the same as saying that the Congressional Record could block any law by refusing to include it in its publication or the GPO could block any regulation by refusing to print it for distribution. She says she is relying on legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel that the time limit is enforceable, but the point is, that’s not her decision to make.

(Sidebar: It seems odd to me that with everyone agreeing that the president has no role to play in the amendment process, an opinion of the OLC - which is, again, an advisory opinion, not a determinative ruling - should be thought binding on the archivist, when they are all part of the Executive Branch.)

When the OFR [Office of the Federal Register] verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents

from state legislatures, her job is to issue a formal declaration

to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

It should, must, be left to others to make the claim that the ratifications were somehow improper or without force. She is, bluntly, a clerk - not a legislature, not even a legislator, and not a judge.

And neither is the press. I used to read The Daily Howler, by this guy named Bob Somerby. I stopped because I came to see him as a obnoxious twerp forever looking to prove himself the purest, most superior “liberal” ever to work a keyboard - but I still credit him with developing one of the best tools for media analysis I’ve come across: the concept of “the script,” the idea that the media will rapidly coalesce on a way of viewing a certain issue, after which all future coverage has to be in line with that interpretation in order to be taken as “serious.”

The frame, the script, here has become “the archivist says,” and therefore the question is resolved and isn’t Biden just so cute trying to burnish his legacy with his useless opinion. That is, members of the media here are eager to just dismiss the whole thing as a one-day story not worth pursuing - as opposed to, for example, the pulsatingly exciting and important issues of “Is Tweetie-pie going to invade Greenland” (he won't) and “Will Pete Hegseth get confirmed” (he will).

Admittedly, not all the coverage ignored the open questions here and acknowledged that ultimately there are issues to be resolved by Congress or the courts (or both). But still, it seems overwhelmingly on the sake of “BFD, who cares about that old stuff when the machinations, manipulations, and madcap malevolence of The Great Orange One are just so exciting and so much fun to cover! (The absence of the word "important" is deliberate.)

There will be legal and legislative battles ahead and I have to admit that overall, the outlook isn’t good. Yes, the challenges should fail by logic and justice but a victory by the fascistic racist xenomisiacs* on a single point on any one of them could spell doom for the whole idea. I’d say our best move is to, as I said, use Biden’s statement to treat adoption of the ERA as the 28th amendment as a done deal and use it aggressively as an organizing focus.

Specifically, since everyone appears to agree that Congress could at any point say “forget the deadline, there isn’t one anymore,” thus removing Shogun’s excuse for inaction, Dems in both Houses of Congress should introduce measures to do just that. Put the xenomisiacs and other opponents of human rights in the position of having to vote against a move to approve the amendment. I would fully expect that there is no way in hell the GOPpers would allow it to come to a vote, but that very refusal should then be a point of attack.

The one thing we must not do on this or indeed anything else for the foreseeable future, is engage in preemptive capitulation, surrendering even before the battle is joined (such as can be seen here). King Lear had it right: That way madness (and despair) lies.

*The suffix “phobia” refers to fear; “misia” refers to hatred. These creatures are not afraid of foreigners, trans folks, of “the other,” they hate them. I’ve come to regularly use it whenever it applies. I got it from someone in a post about transmisiacs, but I can’t remember who, which is unfortunate because I’d really like to give them credit.

Teenagers with handguns! Woo-hoo!

Teenagers with handguns! Woo-hoo!

The bizarre, brain-dead, corporate-adoring, human-hating decisions from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, our most reactionary federal court (yes, even worse than SCOTUS), continue apace.

The latest exercise in egregiousness came on January 30 when this cabal of judicial Death Eaters overturned a district court decision and declared that preventing teenagers from buying handguns is unconstitutional.

The decision upended a nearly 67-year-old federal law, part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which banned federally-licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21.

Circuit Judge Edith Jones wrote the limits were "unconstitutional in light of our Nation's historic tradition of firearm regulation" and "the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among 'the people' whose right to keep and bear arms is protected."

Indeed, this latest decision served to emphasize just how deep into history the devotion to "historical" goes, claiming that the DOJ, which defended the ban, provided "scant" evidence of similar limits during "the founding era" and that the government's "19th century evidence 'cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.'" In other words, we are permanently trapped in the thinking of the 1790s and nothing, no law, practice, or evidence from any time after 1799 can (if you'll pardon the lame pun) pass muster.

It came as the result of suit filed by some 18-20 year-olds with support - that is, money and lawyers - from the "More guns! Guns good!" groups the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition. And indeed, one of sickest reactions came from Brandon Combs, president of the latter group, who called the ruling a victory against "an immoral and unconstitutional age-based gun ban." It's not just unconstitutional, it's downright immoral to keep 18-20 year-olds from walking around with loaded handguns. And hooray for freedom!*

The ruling was based on, of course, the blood-thirsty 2022 decision of the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which it found - invented, really - the concept that limitations of the Second Amendment could only apply to restrictions that were "consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation," such "historical tradition" apparently meaning the time of the "founding," i.e. the period of the revolution and the adoption of the Constitution - a time when the most common weapons were predominantly muzzle-loading weapons firing single balls.

A few examples of multi-shot or "rapid fire" weapons existed or were proposed but their use was rare and certainly not common until well into 19th century. Note that "rapid fire" here means eight to nine rounds per minute as opposed to two or three; a semi-automatic AR-15 can do 45-60 rpm and a fully automatic one 800-900.

Anyway, the Bruen decision was in turn based on an even earlier one, the notorious District of Columbia v. Heller, which created entirely out of thin air the doctrine that the Second Amendment provided for an individual right to possess guns.** (The previous standard, set out in US v. Miller (1939), was that the reference was to a collective right of self-defense and the right of the states to maintain militias.)

Heller and its follow-on McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which incorporated the 2nd Amendment (meaning it applied to state and local governments as well as at the federal level), produced numerous lawsuits challenging gun laws on every level. Courts developed a two-step analysis for judgement: First, does the law in question actually involve the Second Amendment and two, what is the public interest involved in the law - in this case limiting gun violence and death - and is that interest significant enough and narrowly-tailored enough to justify the limit on the freedom involved. (Note well: This balancing of rights against the public interest is standard in questions of Constitutional challenges.)

As a result of applying that test, judges upheld nearly every law challenged.

Which wasn't enough for the gun nuts and their collaborators on SCOTUS, so in Bruen, the Court declared, in the words of decision author Clarence Thomas, that analysis took "one step too many." To put that bluntly, when it comes to guns, the public interest is irrelevant along with the difference between a muzzle-loading flintlock and an AR-15 firing 60 rounds a minute from a 100-round drum.

What's more and maybe worse, the Bruen decision also declared, again for the first time and again based on "proof by blatant assertion," an individual right to carry a loaded gun in public - despite the fact that there was no general right to carry arms in public when the Second Amendment was adopted; the idea arose in the antebellum South decades later in significant part to maintain control of slaves.

In fact it is an entirely modern - like 1970s modern - invention of the "guns are good" crowd and so much for the importance of history.

But then again, history was never a strong point for the gun nuts.

And so here we are. Expect this decision to be appealed and do not be the least little tiny bit surprised if it's not both accepted by SCOTUS and ultimately upheld.

Despite -

the facts that the US has the highest firearm homicide rate in the industrialized world, one 18 times the average rate in 35 other developed countries, and saw 30 mass murders*** (about one every twelve days) and 503 mass killings (more than nine per week) in 2024;

the facts we know that more guns equals more crime and that there is a direct relationship between the strength of a state's gun laws and the lowness of its gun crime rate;

the facts that handguns were used in 62% of the nation’s gun murders in 2019 and in 90% of all cases of firearms violence;

and the fact that guns are now the leading cause of death for children;

we are now looking at allowing more teenagers more access to more handguns - while the gun makers and their paid-for legal shills sit in their clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, drinking their wine and toasting their victory for the "freedom" of the grave.

As if the sheer indifference to the suffering of others we already - wait, that’s wrong; it’s not indifference, it would be better if it was; it’s the sheer glee at the suffering of others we already see around us, as if that wasn’t depressing enough.

*Not having read the entire opinion, I'm assuming here that the reference to "eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals" means the decision is limited to the class of which the plaintiffs are part. Otherwise, it means that in the states in the 5th Circuit - Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas - there is now no age limit to buying handguns.

**For some of my own thoughts on Heller, see the What's Left Special Report: Guns, starting about half-way down.

***"Mass murder" is defined as at least four people killed in one incident, not counting the shooter; "mass shooting" as at least four people shot, not necessarily killed, in one incident, again not counting the shooter.