(1) It starts with the family.

*1980: 77% of children lived with married parents; today, it is less than 60%. Some 25% of children live in a one-parent home; this is a higher percentage than any country with relevant data.

It is difficult to detect anything positive from these data.

*62% of white children living in poverty areas have fathers mostly present; 4% of black children are in a similar situation.

It is easy to claim racism and end the discussion; the broader view would talk about drug laws, housing regulations, highway construction, childcare and family formation.

(2) How do young people spend their time and the results thereof.

*54 minutes per day on TikTok, 49 on YouTube, 33 on Instagram, 31 on Facebook.

This seemingly ties to anxiety, to low readership, to disappointing educational outcomes.

*If not proficient in reading by grade three, six times less likely to finish high school. Approximately one-third of students up to and including high schoolers are proficient.

*In 2010, 37% of 6-17 year-olds read for pleasure; today the number is 28% (46% for 6-8 year-olds, 18% for 12-17 year-olds).

*White adults spend 0.29 hours per day reading, more than double that of blacks and Hispanics. 38% of white teenagers are constantly on-line; 54% of blacks, 55% of HIspanics.

It is hard to discern anything positive in these trends. (Ironically, a recent uptick in digital reading is attributed to TikTok.)

*ACT scores in 2022 were 19.5 out of 36, with declines in every section; this is a 30-year low.

All standardized tests produce a similar conclusion. P.S. K-12 attendance currently is down, test scores are as noted, yet GPAs are up. Coddling anyone?

*Of 100 college enrollees, 60 will graduate; 20 will be chronically underemployed.

*42% say college is worth it, 56% say no; a reversal from the 2017 response.

The data connect to a series of factors, beginning with the absurd cost of college and the attendant debt.

(3) Where do people get their news.

*TikTok is around 30% for those 18-29; 3% for those over 65.

*The number of newsroom employees, all categories, was down 57% in 2020 (versus 2004), probably worse today..

Instant news gratification is predominantly, shallow, non-nuanced.

 

 

In the January to June 2024 timeframe, I collected a series of data points from articles and op ed pieces published in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and USA Facts. Being in somewhat of a negative frame of mind these days, it is not surprising that the resulting observations matched my mood. The format for what will be a string of blogs is as follows: an overall heading pertinent to the connected data points, the data points, and an observation.

I would welcome an analogous set of data points that could be lumped under the heading of positive trends; sorry, the stock market rise does not count unless you are willing to deeply analyze its positives and negatives.

Not here, but in the ensuing blogs, there is an implicit (and unanswered) on-going question: which factors are foundational, which are consequences; how do you separate causation and correlation. You may properly ask how often is the country’s racial history embedded in the data point. If you eventually believe that change is necessary for any of the data point factors, you may ask where does the necessary motivation come from.

 

 

For a really long period, Green has looked down on Orange, kicking it out of town whenever it needed somebody to blame for whatever was troubling Green. Orange would move to wherever, only to find the seemingly nice Green neighbor down the road required little provocation, none actually, to become un-nice.

But time passed and it seemed that maybe things would be almost okay. Unfortunately, when Orange and Green thought they were about to collaborate on progress toward real peace, someone would intervene, aggressively, and Orange and Green would be forced to return to their respective tribes without any resolution.

Eventually, Orange had this idea that maybe it would be good to have a place that was basically all Orange in terms of governance structure. They got in the ear of some Green personnel who had experience in drawing lines on maps for different countries, all of them a great distance away from where the decision-makers were having tea.

It’s true of course, for Orange to have its own abode, the land would have to be removed from ownership by Green. Whatever. Orange’s long and deep sense of its own history identified the appropriate spot, and with the support of enough Greens to do the transaction, it was done.

Unsurprisingly, those within the overall Green universe who were similar in their taste for tea but otherwise unmoved by the case for an independent Orange, were somewhat irritated.

Over the years since the creation of a home for Orange, there have been a bunch of attempts to hold hands and sing “We are the World,” but history has repeated itself: somebody would fire away and then it was back to the “us vs. them” dilemma which has plagued civilization, especially Green and Orange. The latter had the better of it when it came to physical interaction, even adding to the geographical scope of Orange, ticking off Green even more.

It has not helped matters that some in the Green community have been open, even in their textbooks, in advocating for the complete elimination of Orange, a strategy previously attempted elsewhere at great cost and with mixed results.

So it is fair to describe the Green-Orange relationship as somewhat on the tense side.

Finally it happened: some extreme Greens decided to act out, in rather obscene fashion I might add, with Orange of course being the target. In response, Orange’s leadership flipped, figuratively repeating the famous movie line: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any longer.”

Orange went after Green big-time. In the eyes of some, ultimately they did not appear overly concerned with collateral damage if Green persisted in putting its bad guys, women and children in the same location that Orange wanted to erase.

Alas, it would appear that the wounds are now so deep, the identification of moral high ground so tenuous, the ability to remember atrocities so ingrained that it will be a very long time, if ever, before Green and Orange will be able to sit and have a conversation steeped in mutual trust and good tea.

P.S. At various points in the saga of Green and Orange, but not recently (she has passed away), a certain Ms. Henrietta Szold was involved.

She was an interesting blend: bright; multilingual; a traditionalist –in her mind, but not in actuality –as to the role of a woman; a pragmatist: able to size up situations as to what needed to be done and how to make it happen; a poor public speaker yet able to speak effectively to an audience of those interested in the direction she was proposing; a disappointed non-Mother: her one chance at marriage and abiding love, in her mind anyway, thwarted by a professor who in retrospect regarded her as only an intelligent friend, finding his happiness in the arms of a much younger female.

Szold’s adherence to one branch of Orange, albeit an extremely important one, led her to believe that the language unique to Orange should be required of all those in leadership positions. She was fearful of a slippery slope, that those who differed with her philosophy would ultimately lose the sense of what made them Orange.

If she were alive to comment on the current horror show between Green and Orange, she might say, with tears falling down her cheek, that her early dream of bi-nationalism was no longer even worth mentioning. And she would be rallying nurses, doctors, and anybody else who could provide help for those injured in the latest chapter of the Green-Orange relationship.

 

 

Ice Cream, Basketball, and Parking: Components of a Diet

Barnes & Noble has shelves which carry approximately three dozen varieties of diet programs, none of which are sustainable. It does not yet have a copy of the ICBP book which provides the detail behind this unique diet.

It’s probably only a rumor that Amazon is so annoyed at not having ICBP on its shopping list that it has sent spies to every relevant place in the country. As is its common business practice, it then would copy the dietary approach and offer it under the Amazon label. Jeff needs the money.

While there is no special logic behind the different components of this diet, here are guidelines in various categories for the prospective weight-loser to consider.

Note it is incumbent on the individual to expand the entries next to each descriptor.

Never:                                                  bacon, French fries, soft drinks

Not available at home:                 cakes, pies, cookies

Almost never:                                   bread, beer (Friday/Saturday night exemptions) pancakes, rice

Okay away from home:                wine, especially on special occasions

50-50 situations (you know, a touch of discipline): dark chocolate bars, chicken, crackers, peanut butter, nuts, cottage cheese, beef, coffee

Always:                                                fruits, vegetables, plain yogurt, granola (not the sugary kind), salmon, water, green (or some other color) tea

**

I know the suspense is killing you! You want a bit of elucidation about the ground rules, the logic behind ICBP, or at least the operative reasoning, or at least the detail. After all, adhering to ICBP in a three-month period resulted in the loss of five pounds, accomplished without any use of drugs.

The ice cream is consumed before 6pm; the quantity is three teaspoons, no more. Pile on any variety of fruits and nuts to make it even more delicious and nutritious. Why the ice cream – it brings fun and a change of mouth feel to what can be a dullish eating regimen, assuming you follow the above menu that is.

The basketball commitment is a weekly dictate: two mornings per week, two hours each. It is good for the soul, for the body, for an outlook on life – and it makes you more likely to follow a diet: you want to be ready for that next run with the guys.

Distant parking will irritate everybody in your car, so be ready for some bitching and moaning when you pass up numerous open spots to ensure yourself of a lengthy walk to your destination. Check the obesity rate in Europe, where walking is a more normal activity, engaged in on a regular basis.

**

Ah yes, there is an analytical question: which factor on the ICBP menu is a cause of something happening and which is simply a correlation. I have no idea, which means still another subject to be left to high-priced experts, whether they be trim or possessing of a soft belly.

When your doctor lights up a cigarette or that heart organization representative orders a cheeseburger and soft drink for lunch or your dinner guest proclaims his allegiance to a diet while munching on his French fries, what’s a layman to think!

Might as well try the ICBP diet. P.S. it’s free, as least until it goes viral.

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
Data are the percentage of responses in each quartile.

From left to right, the quartiles are 0-25%, 26-50%, 51-75%, and over 75%.

Comments are by the survey’s author, Bob.

What % believe that if any person works hard, they can move ahead in life? 0 30 35 35
Comment: Responses were more optimistic than other polls.
What % of billionaires would fund non-profit, healthy food market in public housing project? 70 25 0 5
Comment: Responses were appropriately cynical.
What % of people will buy the newest iPhone? 10 35 45 10
Comment: The name and the product are hard to resist.
If Trump is elected, what are the chances that there is an increase in violent deaths? 30 40 20 10
Comment: Responses mirror widespread nervousness compared with a normal election.
If zoning laws okay, what % of homeowners would invite homeless to build tiny house there? 95 5 0 0
Comment: An appropriate recognition of hypocrisy.
In a gated community, what % of residents would vote in favor of greater ethnic diversity? 70 25 0 5
Comment: Self-selection in the polling group might be at work here.
What % of contributors to environmental groups are owners of multiple residences and cars? 15 15 50 20
Comment: An appropriate recognition of hypocrisy.
What % think that racial tensions are declining? 60 35 5 0
Comment: Major changes in society are needed.
What % of people are upset about income equality? 10 30 35 25
Comment: Appropriate recognition that this is a real issue.
What % of NY Times Board would invite border crosser to live in their home until legal? 95 0 5 0
Comment: Appropriate recognition of hypocrisy.
If Biden is elected, what are the chances that there is an increase in violent deaths? 50 25 15 10
Comment: Slightly less fear than if Trump is elected, but still apparent nervousness.
What % of music executives would reject a song full of obscenities? 75 15 0 10
Comment: The drive for profits beats other considerations.
What % of adults are comfortable talking about mental health issues? 50 40 5 5
Comment: Surprised at the distribution; trend seems more in the direction of open discussion.
What % of voters believe the upcoming Presidential election is the worst match-up ever? 5 10 35 50
Comment: Maybe only historians believe it should be the right hand boxl
What % of Hollywood exes would reject a violent movie because they favor of gun reform? 95 5 0 0
Comment: The drive for profits beats other considerations.
What % of people change their minds after learning more about the facts of a subject? 35 55 10 0
Comment: The responses seem accurate, and they are quite disturbing.
What % or college graduates are in jobs consistent with their degree/major? 30 65 5 0
Comment: This brings additional fuel to the debate about higher education.
What % of adults believe the American medical system must be drastically changed? 15 35 20 30
Comment: Surprised at the distribution; the trend is toward a belief that change is mandatory.
What % of parents of school-age children would advocate for higher teacher salaries? 15 30 35 20
Comment: This should be a box four, with the proviso that teachers be held accountable.
What % of adults believe the planet will look completely different in 50 years? 15 35 15 35
Comment: Reading the standard futuristic book would suggest too much optimism in this distribution.

Data on Respondents: Age Under 30: 25% 30-50: 35% Over 50: 40%
Highest education degree attained: Associates: 5% Bachelor’s: 65% Master’s: 20% PhD: 10%
Married? Yes: 50% No: 50% Children? Yes: 45% No: 55%

A SUCCINCT GUIDE? TO UNDERSTANDING? THE CAMPUS PROTESTS

To stay sane (it’s a relative concept), I needed to write something. So I slipped on my sarcasm shirt (given me by a friend) and let loose.

To say that I am thoroughly depressed  — by the absence of civil debate, by the boisterous few (another relative description) spurred on, but only in part, by outsiders to college campuses who were trained in professional activism – is an understatement.

But no kvetching about a coddled generation ignorant of history and gleaning their thimble full of news from TikTok. Nothing about affluent young people wrought with anxiety about the economic system which brought them their unearned comfortability, their inbred sense of entitlement that shields them against any negative consequences from throwing into the air (without their names attached) words devoid of any serious thought.

Moving right along, here is the guide:

*It is always appropriate for those with less to be against those with more. This is true even if you actually have more; it’s the identification that counts.

*It is always acceptable for representative non-white leaders and their followers to be against whites. Cancel culture: chapter one, paragraph one, sentence one.

*For a couple thousand years, being against Jews has been common. Nothing new there. Those urging the destruction of all Jews are protected under the principles of free speech.

*As a slight digression, stimulated by that free speech comment, only bona fide African Americans can use the n-word with impunity. Anyone else muttering this word has committed a hate crime.

*Mob psychology has not changed: people act in a way they would not if solo.

*If “hostility is just its own waving flag of wanting to be seen,” mission accomplished. After much dithering, Biden finally spoke, tapping protestors on the wrist and, more or less simultaneously, cancelling another bunch of student debt and proving his bona fides as a friend of the young by endorsing marijuana. Jeez, in the old days, you simply bought votes with cash and jobs; now politicians have to make policy statements.

Speaking of Biden, It would be fascinating to hear him address the parents of young people for whom getting to college was not a given, where their education has been, shall we say, tampered with, whose graduation from a brand name school (in the past anyway) has been sullied.

**

Reconstructionists of the left want to re-do American society along racial and economic redistribution lines. Campus protests come straight out of the playbook in this regard. The fact that certain ethnicities do not have standing in this re-do is of no consequence.

Reconstructionists of the right have no forward thought process, no cohesive plan, no practicality or substance to their policy proclamations. Basically they want to roll back the clock to their fantasy of yesteryear, when nobody questioned the superiority of white males. Guess they missed the memo about changing dynamics and demographics.

**

Sooooooooooooooooo — how can there not be aggressive conflict and conduct.

Can it be comforting that on average, each of us owns a gun.

Will the civil war unfolding in the United States be fought with an AR-15 or will the combatants leave their weaponry at home and convene for strenuous debate, agreeing that violence in the political process (haven’t there already been multiple court cases emanating from the insurrection) is the nuclear threat, the third rail, not to be employed or touched.

What does this have to do with the protests? Everything I think.

 

This essay has three components.

The first is a list of gun reform suggestions from the best article I have read on the subject.

The second is an extended discussion about legal liability. The latter includes both commentary on specific gun decisions and the growth in liability decisions elsewhere that are establishing new legal ground or have the potential to do so. My conceptualization is that the constitutional protection afforded gun ownership is increasingly a uniquely isolated phenomenon in the world of liability. More later.

The third and final component is my own responses to my recent Gun Survey.

A. “A Smarter Way to Reduce Gun Deaths,” by Nicholas Kristof; “New York Times” 1/29/2023

This is the most insightful article that I have read on gun reform. Kristof’s premise is that guns will never be banned, but, analogous to the set of policies surrounding cigarettes, alcohol, and cars, there are harmful public health implications to the ownership of guns which should be addressed. The article has exhaustive data on guns, their owners, and the wide variety of relevant laws throughout the USA.

As he points out, public health initiatives typically involve a bunch of “little” things that add up to an important overall impact. His suggestions are consistent with having such a list. These are representative of Kristof’s thoughts:

• No guns to those under 21 or to those who have a record of violent misdemeanors, alcohol abuse, or domestic violence. Moreover, no guns to those where a red flag exists (including stalking) that indicates they may be a threat to themselves or others.
• Background checks are an obvious essential with respect to the above policy, which would apply to the purchase of ammunition as well.
• If you need a license to drive a car, which is a dangerous product, you should need a license to acquire and own a gun.
• There should be restrictions on the type of guns available for purchase.
• Just as warning labels have proven to have an admittedly undefined impact on the purchase of cigarettes, they should be applied to guns as well.
• Raising prices through heavy taxes can play a role. As could an insurance requirement.

Kristof notes that since his graduation from high school in 1977, more Americans have died from guns than in all the wars in American history. He concludes that a harm reduction model could reduce gun mortality by one-third, which is approximately 15,000 lives per year. Can anybody argue that such a saving is not worth the multi-prong effort involved?

B.The Legal Liability Ledger

 It is my thought that the concept of legal liability, which is spreading to encompass a myriad of relatively new situations, ultimately could be more of a stimulus to gun reform than changes resulting from legislation, whether at the state or federal level. Judges will be faced with a different set of factors, major amounts of money will be involved, and gun reform will slowly inch forward. And, in complementary fashion, if parents and responsible educators are oblivious to what their offspring or students are doing and suffer criminal convictions as a result, more attention will turn to the issue of legislated gun reform, irrespective of the financial implications of liability.

The argument by those accused in many of the liability cases described below is that they have no control over the ultimate use of their product. However, awareness of misuse, especially when it touches frequency and severity buttons, is becoming a powerful offsetting factor. Marketing messages that cross the line from acceptable hyperbole to a linkage to socially destructive behavior create liability for those who are responsible for the message.

Caveat One of course is the constitution and the differing interpretations of its malleability. Learned minds tackle that thorny topic elsewhere. My financial point above might be phrased this way; if gun dealers are found liable for the disastrous misuse of the product they sell, they will be hit in the pocketbook and react, with no need for constitutional change.

Caveat Two is the work needed on reconciling HIPPA privacy mandates with responsibility to the community. For example, reflecting a public belief that the NYC subway system is not safe, Mayor Adams has added police, the National Guard, and gun-detecting technology to the system. On closer examination, it has been found that the majority of assailants have mental health issues, suggesting policy changes in that area could have a greater impact.

Caveat Three is the need for a bit of common sense to be injected into the legal conversation. For example, in New York City, the police picked up a guy whom they had seen putting a gun in his pants pocket prior to jumping in a van that was recognized as being one used by gang members. They checked his record, which showed a sex trafficking conviction, which meant he was ineligible to own a gun. The judge tossed the case out: “there was no probable cause to apprehend this individual, no knowledge that he was going to use his gun for an illegal purpose.”

Meanwhile, it is ironic that an on-going argument of the gun lobby – people need a way to protect themselves – may become more relevant with the outcome of the pending presidential election. It is frightening to envision fanatics of both sides running to their legally purchased weaponry.

Guns: Background Comments and a Bit of Psychology

It is reasonable to state that the United States was born in violence and has experienced few prolonged periods of peace. Historically, as the country grew, it simply pushed out those who resisted the expansion of its borders, and if it wanted land owned by a neighboring country, it took that as well. Guns, not pens, were the agents of enforcement.

To look at World War II and claim an undiluted good guy label for the USA, one must be careful – there are multiple twists and turns in that saga. For one, returning minority veterans faced the same racism that previously had been evident. Secondly, the country’s laudable accomplishment in saving lives emboldened it to pursue escapades which might have been appropriately anti-the growth of Communism were it not for the attendant destruction of good relationships throughout Central and South America. Fundamentally, as it appeared so-called domestic boundary lines had become fixed, the USA had basically redefined the term “boundary” to include non-proximate nations which were not abiding by the American view of how they should manage their affairs.

This boundary mentality is evident today, and it has little to do with people crossing into the country without securing legal status or having a path to do so. It has to do with an existential crisis in the American psyche, the gun representing psychological displacement, a way to shoot away all the myriad ills and dissatisfactions residing in one’s head.

“I used to know who I was, who we were – the ones with that good guy hat. Now I have no idea – the onslaught of change is overwhelming: social media, gender identity, cancel culture, technology, the future of the planet, an open border. Yipes, I could go on. My church is no longer a source of mental refreshment and grounding in values. My neighbors are anonymous. My job is not secure. My wife is depressed. Our kids are gone, scattered throughout the country. Like everybody, we buy stuff from a multi-billionaire with a half-billion dollar yacht, and he gets it from a Communist country.

Hello, is there any wonder that I do not know which end is up, that the clarity of suicide moves from “I would never consider such a thing” to a thought process.

But wait, my home is my castle and my gun is my birthright. The physical structure, and the ideas embodied in my concept of family and correct values – this combination is now my boundary and my gun is my means of enforcement. Step across my threshold, tell me my values are destructive to the alleged aspirations of my country – I can blow you away and call it self-defense.

And it’s not just me in this fight between my ears, my wife just bought her first gun. We’ll be ready.”

Analogously, in South Africa, the white community was fearful that the end of apartheid would mean a bloodbath, freed blacks wreaking revenge. When this did not happen, there was a troubling realization within the white head, “you mean, those negatives we used to say about blacks were inaccurate — which means my concept of self is destroyed  – which means I was the bad guy!”

Is the American fear problem, the one which leads to everybody having a gun, more what is between our ears than documentable reality?

On the other hand, what is incontrovertible is that the USA is second to Yemen in the category of mass killings (defined as four deaths or more).  As a frame of comparison, when Serbia, a country one might associate with periodic troubles in Eastern Europe, had two mass shootings last year, they were its first such events in seven years. To get a gun there, you must be over 18, have a reason, take a training course, and have a background check that includes a medical exam and interviews with neighbors and relatives. Police visit the house to see that safe storage is available. A history of crime, mental disorders, or substance abuse disqualifies an applicant.

Since unfortunately we are a long way from having Serbian-type requirements, it should be good news that Vice-President Kamala Harris has announced the creation of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center to assist in the implementation of much-needed Red Flag laws.

Of more immediate impact is that under a recently passed rule, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will require any business that sells guns for profit to register as a federally licensed firearms dealer. It is estimated this could add 23,000 federal dealers to the 80,000 already regulated. Before, unlicensed gun dealers were able to sell at gun shows without any of the background checks associated with a federal license.

New Liability Ground for Guns

*Both the father (James Crumbley) and the mother (Jennifer Crumbley) of the 15 year-old gunman (Ethan Crumbley) who killed four people and injured seven others at a high school in Oxford, Michigan were found guilty of unintentional manslaughter and sentenced to 10-15 years in prison.

The father had bought a gun for Ethan, then “failed to secure it or tell schools officials about it the day of the shooting after their son made troubling drawings on a math sheet.” Those drawings included his early Christmas present, a 9mm handgun; the words “blood everywhere,” “the thoughts won’t stop,” and “help me.” The school suggested mental health services be sought; it gave them 48 hours to do so. The boy left the meeting and began firing. He is now in prison without the possibility of parole.

The mother had claimed she was unaware of their son’s problems and had made a statement on the stand that she “wouldn’t do anything differently as a parent.”

This case broke new legal ground in its use of a manslaughter charge. Previous, somewhat analogous situations had resulted in reckless conduct charges, minor time in jail and a couple of years on probation. The non-profit organization named Brady: United against Gun Violence has filed suit against the dealer, Arms Shooting Goods, who sold the gun used in this case. The parents of the victims have filed suit against the school and Arms.

Extended liability exposure for those not directly involved in an incident is at the core of this legal situation, as is true of multiple non-gun cases to be delineated below.

Note: Michigan now has a law requiring gun owners to lock their firearms when a minor is likely to be on the premises, and it requires guns involved in buyback programs to be physically destroyed; heretofore, they were not, and the parts thereof reappeared, ready to be reassembled into guns.

*In Virginia, a former school principal has been indicted on “eight felony counts of child abuse and neglect” that led to a six year-old boy shooting his teacher in 2023. The allegation is that the principal ignored repeated complaints from teachers about the boy, including a request for action when a classmate that day indicated the boy had a gun. The mother of the boy already had been sentenced to two years in prison for felony child neglect. The wounded teacher is suing the school.

*In Lewiston, Maine, the mass shooting of 18 people on October 25, 2023 has resulted in a variety of findings, including that law enforcement should have moved to take the gunman into custody prior to the shooting based on his “increasingly erratic and paranoid behavior,” his prior need for mental health evaluation, and his ownership of guns. Complicating this analysis is the discovery of brain damage to the gunman resulting from his years as a grenade instructor in the Army.

In contrast to Michigan, where there was a clear line for prosecutors to follow in making their manslaughter case, it appears that in Maine the culpable parties are the proverbial “all of the above.” However, not only will it be interesting to see if specific changes regarding gun reform are implemented, the phrase “law enforcement should have moved ….” is an invitation to a lawsuit.

*“I want to emphasize that this was a senseless act of violence perpetrated on purely innocent people,” (Ottawa, Canada police chief Eric) Stubbs said. “I know our whole community is shocked and mourning this event.” In the USA, we use the same verbiage. What is unusual is that this was the area’s worst mass killing in over thirty years; the individual stabbed to death a mother and her four children plus one other individual. Whether there is legal liability should be tracked, given that Canada’s homicide rate is 2.3 per 100,000 people, one-third that of the USA.

Following the verdicts in Michigan and Virginia and the new indictment in Virginia, it will be informative to analyze, and chronicle, the depth of culpability in each of the mass shooting incidents (and other criminal acts involving guns as well). The ground has been broken for liability – pertinent to a person or persons or company not directly involved — to be assessed, without touching the constitutional third rail.

P.S. Tennessee will permit teachers to carry a concealed gun if they have 40 hours of training, a background check, and a psychological evaluation. Is this the best “reform” we can do? Insane!

Ground-breaking Liability Excluding Guns

The world of liability is seeing new entrants. The algorithm goes from existing business practice to liability to monetary damages to a change in business practice. This is the world within which the unique position of gun ownership exists. Can its constitutional heritage and protection continue in an environment where extended liability is being attached to a lengthening list of transgressions.

*CVS and other drug retailers did not know whether those pills they dispense were being used for a legitimate medical reason; nonetheless they had to be aware that oxycontin was being overprescribed, including on stolen scrip pads. The companies were found liable for their role in the country’s drug addiction problem and had to pay large fines.

Relatedly, in an attempt to disrupt the illicit drug supply chain, especially for the lethal fentanyl, the DEA is going after on-line retailers who sell $4,000 presses that can produce 5,000 pills an hour which look like legitimate drugs. The first settlement involved eBay, which paid $59 million. It is estimated that 70% of the 100,000 drug deaths in 2023 involved fentanyl.

*Heretofore, the NCAA made a boatload of money from college sports. The athletes got nothing except a free college education. Now these performers are getting paid, through NIL relationships, often funded by wealthy alumni. The next step is that of unionization. The Dartmouth basketball team, none of whom are on athletic scholarships (not allowed in the Ivy League) has voted to join SEIU Local 560. Graduate students and library workers at other institutions have opted for unions.

With unionization in non-traditional areas comes legal activity; admittedly the liability exposure is less clear unless blatantly illegal practices are deployed by those resisting the union.

*In another heretofore situation, legacy admissions to universities have been an accepted, and highly lucrative, business practice. Now, a few states have banned said policy. One can envision a lawyer putting together a class action suit on behalf of students denied admission because legacy applicants had been accepted to a point that all the theoretically open seats had been filled.

*It took decades but finally it happened: the National Association of Realtors, under intense pressure, settled a lawsuit that accused it of conspiracy to fix prices, aka the c.6% commission-splitting structure which had long been in place. Inclusive of payments made by individual real estate firms, the total is reportedly over $940 million. Given the liability attendant to the prior years of millions of people overpaying because of the price-fixing, additional lawsuits are underway.

*The bartender does not keep count of how many drinks a person imbibes, nor does he calculate the customer’s absorption rate based on their height and weight.  But his sense of whether a boozer has had too many is now subject to legal exposure, liability for subsequent actions by the customer.

Speculative Liability Situations

*Everybody knows that data are being collected on them from every piece of technology in their possession. What they don’t know in many cases is with whom that information is shared. The catch-all phrase on the paperwork signed by the customer, “information may be shared with third parties,” covers the waterfront, simultaneously saying something and saying nothing. An individual named Romeo Chicco recently pursued a violation of privacy action against General Motors; its app on Chicco’s car captured micro information about the driver, not simply about the operation of the car. This information was shared by GM with a data broker who sold the information to Chicco’s auto insurance company.

After disclosure that this was a widespread company policy earning GM millions, it opted to terminate its relationship with the data broker. Perhaps it will be liability from privacy infringement elsewhere in the transactional world that will bring change in the collection and use of data.

*A group of nuns has purchased stock in the gun maker, Smith and Wesson. Using their newfound voice, they have charged the company with putting its value at risk by an over-the-top macho marketing approach which basically implies that you are not a man if you do not own a gun. They are trying to get Smith and Wesson to change its ways and forestall possible liability exposure.

*In the area of franchise relationships, there is an attempt by the National Labor Relations Board to make big franchisers “responsible for the conditions of workers they had not hired directly.”

This was rejected in court as being too broad. The CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the NLRB rule was “related to workplaces they don’t control and workers they don’t actually employ.”

The liability issue in the franchise industry will resurface. The words used by the above CEO, with a couple of inconsequential changes, are the same as those used by Purdue Pharma, CVS, et al regarding drug addiction; those firms were found liable and paid large settlement amounts.

*Victims of the late Jeffrey Epstein are suing his financial advisors, essentially forcing them to answer the “who knew what and when” questions and their role in assisting Epstein to engage in criminal behavior. This is a uniquely interesting extension of liability exposure.

*A psychiatrist ran up a $400,000 gambling debt, aided and abetted by the relevant company eagerly soliciting her to continue betting. It is easy to ridicule the fact that it was a psychiatrist who was so irrational; it is less easy to dismiss the marketing message behind the extreme skew in the company’s business: they disclosed that 0.5% of their bettors were responsible for 70% of their revenues. Does a marketing approach which disproportionately takes advantage of targeted individuals have liability?

*In Switzerland, “a group of 2,000 elderly women brought a case claiming their government isn’t doing enough to fight climate change, putting them at risk of death from heat waves.” The European Court of Human Rights ruled 16-1 in their favor. Lawyers around the world are toasting the court.

A Unique Liability Situation

*How long will social media companies be able to hide behind Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act — which says online platforms are not liable for what is posted by third parties — as they offer their platforms to bad actors of all kinds. This is a question that is receiving additional attention because of social media’s purported role in facilitating the sale of illegal drugs, a hot button which resonates in a different way than mass shootings or the data on how many teenage suicides have links to, e.g., Facebook/Instagram material.

The U.S. Surgeon General himself has warned that social media could pose a profound risk of harm to young people’s mental health. The line from social media to reduced interpersonal contact to mental health challenges to increased suicide rates seems documentable, hopefully leading to some type of compromise other than, e.g., Facebook’s periodic bland assurances that it is trying hard to establish algorithms pertinent to user protection.

Banning TikTok gets a bigger hearing because it is a Chinese company; however, half of the American population are users of its platform so it is unclear how anti-TikTok legislation would square with minimal restrictions on US-based social media companies.

A young woman named Larissa May (reportedly formerly a heavy user of social media) is not waiting for social media to mend their ways. She has started a non-profit, Half the Story, “to repair the damage caused by … TikTok and Instagram.” It has a curriculum designed to engage students in the process of dealing with the allure of “infinite scroll, push notifications, and videos that play automatically,” the three biggest features that keep kids hooked.

Recently, the most publicized non-politician pushing for change in the world of social media is author Jonathan Haidt, “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness.” He advocates these specific reforms:

No smartphone before high school; basic phones are okay

No social media before 16; let the brains develop first

Schools should be phone-free zones: store them in student lockers

Bring back unsupervised play; develop social skills, become self-governing

Admittedly, rich settlements in the USA and Europe already have happened in the unique liability area of social media. Unfortunately, the financial position of many of these companies is such that they can write big checks while barely tweaking the algorithms and business practices which culminated in the liability in the first place.

Demonstrated Historical Liability Situations

Many of the liability situations described above are indirectly a consequence of inadequate or absent underlying legislation at the federal level. Part of the challenge involved in the newer liability interpretations, other than potentially constituting an end-run around complete deference to the original wording of the constitution, will be a continuous debate about where liability lies when negative outcomes ensue from situations that include multiple layers of responsibility, whether recognized or not.

Gun reform specifically may evolve less slowly than before as courts in different jurisdictions deliver verdicts stemming not from individual government rulings and appeals thereof, but from the liability attached to a business enterprise. Moreover, in somewhat parallel fashion, parents and educators should become more aware of potential liability given recent legal decisions.

Of course, liability cases per se are not new. What is noteworthy is that traditional cases continue while new ones are being added; there is no replacement effect. These are but a few examples:

*In Morris County, New Jersey, a whistleblower’s complaints about the state’s ownership and management of a psychiatric hospital have been ignored. Presumably the families of those who have been harmed (sometimes fatally) by the lack of a response to reported unsafe conditions will be filing lawsuits. Liability is clear.

*In 2017, John Barnett, a long-time Boeing employee complained that Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner was being rushed to production, that safety was being compromised. In return, Boeing slandered him and Barnett sued. The case was headed to court in 2024; when a Dreamliner had a “technical issue,” that thankfully only resulted in minor injuries, Barnett reportedly committed suicide.

In 2024, two more Boeing whistleblowers have gone public with complaints about Dreamliner production and safety compliance. This comes on the heels of numerous recent small incidents that have brought attention to the practices of both Boeing and several of its airline customers. It was not that long ago that two Boeing crashes (different model) resulted in a large number of deaths and major liability settlements by Boeing.

P.S. Boeing recently promoted a non-engineer to head its commercial aircraft division, changed its incentive compensation structure, and began the search for a new CEO. Meanwhile, it continues to lose business to rival Airbus, partly because the FAA has slowed Boeing’s production schedule in order to ensure that tightened quality standards are being met.

*Years back, pesticides used to control weeds had the unfortunate side effect of poisoning the product’s users, a piece of information not adequately disclosed as a risk in its marketing literature. Major liability resulted, money was paid, product formulations and marketing materials were changed. Normal process you might say.

*When Tesla’s marketing message oversold the capabilities of its Autopilot software, it could be claimed this is normal with new technological developments. Some would argue that the liability attached to the company’s aggressiveness will be substantial. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says there have been “at least 14 fatalities, several dozen injuries and 467 crashes.”

One case has been settled, the amount not disclosed.

*Norfolk Southern’s derailment in 2023 of a train carrying hazardous materials cost it a $600 million settlement with the affected town of East Palestine, Ohio. A lawsuit by the state’s attorney-general remains open; it alleges harm to the environment. Again, a normal unfolding of a liability situation.

*With the multi-decade demise of domestic manufacturing, union membership in the USA plummeted. Fast forward to current times, from Starbucks to Amazon to Disneyland to the more traditional auto industry target, there is increased interest in unionization. This now includes the historically non-union South, e.g., Tennessee, where the UAW recently won an election at a Volkswagen plant.

As a general comment, the use of courts (and violence, however defined) has long been a characteristic of corporations resisting unionization. Litigation historically has been dominated by suits against unfair actions by employers, both prior to and during unionization campaigns. Settlements are contractual wage increases and improved benefits.

The bottom line: 2023 saw more successful union elections than in any year since 2000.

C. The aggregate responses to my Gun Survey have been posted. These are my responses.

 (1) What is the feeling among foreign countries toward the USA gun situation?

*they are stunned at what we accept in terms of deaths by guns.

(2) Historical: the right to bear arms

*individuals with three felonies on their record should not be allowed to purchase any guns.

*individuals with repeated violations of domestic violence orders should not have guns.

*individuals should be subject to a thorough background check and required to undergo training.

(3) Contemporary School-based Strategies

*None of the options were appropriate.

(4) The Gun Business

*dealers who sell guns disproportionately involved in crimes should have their licenses revoked.

*if drug retailers have been found liable for their participation in overprescribing opioids and thus contributing to addiction, gun dealers should have comparable legal exposure.

(5) Why the USA is different

*the country was born in violence and has had few periods of time when violence was absent.

*it is more concerned with individual rights than are its counterparts.

*it desires to maintain a historical right even as other historical situations have been rectified.

(6) Regarding your current community, would you rather:

*have neighbors you trust, regardless of their gun ownership.

(7) With respect to age:

*there should be a minimum age of 21.

*until the head of a household is at least 30, there should be a limit of one gun per household.

(8) The political reaction to mass shootings is:

*a belief that governments can do nothing about the situation.

*a repeat of the saying that “guns do not kill people, only people kill people.”

*a flood of opinion editorials from reform advocates.

(9) The local reaction to mass shootings at schools is:

*initial or renewed interest in gun reform.

*receipt of an influx of money from elsewhere.

*greater attention to the need for mental health counselors.

*disbelief that it could happen in their community.

*outrage at the inability of law enforcement to minimize the damage, i.e., the body count.

*debate over the particulars of a suitable memorial for the victims.

(10) Regarding a hypothetical community with half the median income of your current area and with half the population being minority, would you rather:

*the composition of the neighborhood has no bearing on my attitude toward guns.

(11) The second Amendment has communal language as well as individual rights.

The former reads: “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”

In reading this, what is your reaction:

*it provides precedent for laws regarding open carry that enhance security for all.

(12) There were 45,000 gun deaths in 2022. Which is the correct breakdown:

*54% suicides, 43% homicides, 1% accidents, 2% law enforcement

(13) Assume a Red Flag Situation, in which an individual discloses to their psychiatrist they have on-going anger issues and are thinking of shooting somebody. The psychiatrist:

*does nothing.  (This should be changed)

*tells the police.

*asks the patient if there are guns in their house

Assume the police have received the information above. They:

*do nothing. (This should be changed)

*tell a judge.

*look at the patient’s criminal record and see if there is reasonable cause to arrest them.

*refer the matter to an existing committee of mental health and police professionals.

Assume the judge has received the information above. They:

*do nothing. (This should be changed)

*issue a warrant for the individual’s arrest. (Perhaps not arrest but confiscation of weapons)

*issue a ruling empowering the police to remove weapons from the patient’s house.

*issue a ruling that puts the patient on a “cannot buy guns” list sent to every gun dealer in the state.

(14) The number of guns in circulation is (in millions)

*415

(15) In 2005, the federal ban on selling AR-15 type assault weapons ended. Since then, how many of these guns have been sold (in millions)

*25

(16) Which line represents gun ownership rate per 100 population for USA, Yemen, Serbia:

*121, 53, 39

(17) A parent:

*Has responsibility for any child of mine up to age 25 who is living in my house

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is making violent threats, I must report it

*if my child, whether living with me or not, is seeing a mental health professional and making violent threats, I must report it

*If my child is making violent threats and there are guns in the house, I must report it

kuu9900(18) Concerning rising suicide rates and guns:

*greater availability of guns has meant more suicides.

 

 

 

 

 

At a certain stage in life, even as you might attempt to swallow the phrase, it will slip from your mouth: “back in the day” – and your conversational partner will immediately recognize that a walk down memory lane is about to commence. They may smile politely, perhaps stifling a grimace in the process, or they may roll their eyes. Occasionally, okay – rarely, they will be eager to learn about your experience. Meanwhile, you are thinking about alternatives to the above pet phrase: would

“you remember when” be better or “once upon a time?” Not really. So—————-

 

Back in the day, in a typical mid-sized suburban community, there often would be a convergence of the two most important local roads, culminating in an intersection where a wide variety of small local businesses and services were distributed among the four corners.

 

Today, that four corner imagery has been rendered obsolete. Interstate highways have both extended the consumer’s reach and homogenized the store landscape. The corporatization of America has made it difficult for the single location entrepreneur to compete. And now every product imaginable can be delivered to your door, either that of your car or of your house.

 

Enter the new four corners line-up: McDonald’s, Starbucks, Urgent Care, and Generic Smoke Shop.

 

With all due respect to the Egg McMuffin, the story of McDonald’s is one of managements ability, and that of its franchisees, to operate thousands of outlets around the world without anybody being mystified about what to expect from Mickey D’s. People value that purchase/product predictability to the point where healthy eating considerations are buried. The fries are too good, when hot that is.

 

Starbucks’ success is part psychology, part product, and part snobbism. A cup of coffee actually costs pennies to make; as a store offering, its price should be a dollar or two. As a Starbucks coffee, its dramatically higher price reflects the must-have special stuff added to the beans and the sense of socialization available to those customers sitting solo with their laptops and lattes.

 

Urgent Care is the satellite healthcare location for that big hospital a couple of miles away. If one believes cost to the patient will be lower because the facility has less overhead, a smaller staff, and a reduced list of medical capabilities, think again. Urgent Care, even if technically a “non-profit,” is run under the same bottom line business principles as any profit-seeking enterprise.

 

Generic Smoke Shop is, for now, a local entrepreneurial interloper. It sells products that not long ago were either illegal or frowned upon. It is an easy entry business, even with the cost of regulatory compliance, and as a result, it is highly fragmented. In time, there will be a consolidation; some proprietors will have decided they would rather smoke their product than sell it. If they have signed a good lease and generated a modicum of goodwill, they have an asset that is attractive to the prospective Big Smoke Shop Company, which will feel right at home with their neighbors.

 

The new four corners is recognizable to everybody, including those passing through as a result of an interstate highway exit. Only a cynic would point out that if you frequent McDonald’s or Starbucks or Generic Smoke Shop too much, you are on your way to becoming a customer of Urgent Care. Only somebody fondly (and selectively, for sure) recalling “back in the day” would yearn for

Joe’s Hamburgers, Mary’s Coffee Place, Sal’s Cigarette Store, or Doc Franklin.

 

 

Ah yes, the existential question: who am I? And its accompaniment: why am I here?

Resolving the second question will require a different essay and the finest effort of the newly formed

AI community. One can envision an ultra-fast search for answers that will take us factually back to our very origins and philosophically through a lengthy list of erudite theories, perhaps culminating in a futuristic world that includes multiple individual options ala “Dark Matter.”

Fortunately, TechnoWorld, bless their irreligious souls, has brought us an answer to “Who am I.”

We are the embodiment of a list of characteristics designed so that we may function, buy stuff, and interact according to the rules laid down by TechnoWorld.

We are:

Algorithms that tell us who we are … for transactional purposes

No-reply messages … for one-way agreements

Portals … to depersonalize relationships

Default decisions … the information is too complicated to separately analyze

Likes … of people, products, ideas we know nothing about except as per TechnoWorld

Data Points that represent the numbers by which we live … as per the algorithms thus created

Phone prompts designed to drive us back to the website … or insane

Clicks that make decisions really easy … and profitable to TechnoWorld

Log ins, Log outs … the rhythm of our daily routine

 

We are that which is displayed on a screen. We need not even react; the software of our I-devices knows us and takes our hand so that we may, after some twists and turns, deposit money in the bank account of TechnoWorld. There can be no substantive complaint if something goes awry; we accepted those multi-page agreements of legalese between us as individuals and trillion dollar corporations.

Human contact is minimized in the relationship with TechnoWorld.

There is no stress, as conventionally defined, in the process of an on-line life per se. However, it is becoming more widely recognized that  acceptance of an on-line life as being normal produces stress that is being baked into the individual’s psyche. There is no longer the sense of real community, of the personal interaction which leads to growth and a life of true richness.

And there is nowhere to hide from TechnoWorld.

 

 

Once upon a time, we had slavery. It was an excellent business strategy because it drastically reduced labor costs, thereby increasing profits.

Once upon a time, women could not vote. Another excellent idea as they could then focus their energies on making babies and putting a good hot meal in front of their families.

Once upon a time, the guaranty that a person could have a firearm was equally logical. Muskets had to be at the ready for hunting, for chasing away them varmints, for protection if the government turned tyrannical, and, yes, for shooing away those who objected to a person pushing west for more land.

Fast forward.

Having decided that slavery was, you know, on the sleazy side of human interaction, we chucked it; unfortunately, racism has not been so easy to eradicate – but that’s for another essay.

After considerable bitching and moaning, men decided to let women vote. Disconcertingly, they are now moving ahead in all fields, even business. Not to worry, though, control is still male.

In some ways, the most undiluted progress has been with firearms. Very few individuals hunt to put food on the table, the varmint problem is not a real issue to most, and the land situation is a defensive, not offensive situation. Yet we can pick up an AR-15 and blow an entire classroom away before this sentence is finished.

**

Once upon a time, men and women collaborated to produce multiple babies. The infant death rate made this mandatory if a family was to have the critical mass needed to get work done. It also meant that a concept like the mental health of children had no relevance.

Once upon a time, the issue of which drugs were legal, which passed the standards of Western medicine, which represented the beliefs of underdeveloped countries – all was crystal clear.

Once upon a time, you knew your neighbors, even when geographically distant because of the large farms involved. You might get ticked off if a lazy mule wandered onto your property, but you were more likely to demonstrate your displeasure by kicking its ass than by scurrying to get your musket.

Fast forward.

Fertility rates are basically at replacement levels, we are acutely aware of how mental health is a serious issue at all age levels, it is difficult to draw the line between legal and illegal drugs, and farms have been sold to giant agri-businesses. But I can still get my AR-15 because of its direct lineage to that trusty musket owned by our forefathers. (Wait, are we actually getting prepared for a tyrannical government … yipes, that’s another essay idea … and a truly scary thought!)

**

Neighbors — what/who are they? I know somebody lives next door and I wave when its unavoidable, but that’s it. When I trot out my AR-15 and eliminate a bunch of lives, I know my neighbors can be counted upon to tell the world, “I didn’t really know him.”

Community leaders will be on point with the truism, “we are shocked that this massacre could happen in our town of good law-abiding, hard-working people.”

Politicians will run to the nearest camera and, from opposite points on the political spectrum, proclaim “we must pass legislation,” and “the availability of an AR-15 has nothing to do with this tragedy.” Non-profit foundations and public-minded companies and citizens alike will provide money, food, and gift cards to the families affected.

Eventually, after the inevitable gun reform discussion, the cry will go up in the political arena, “we tried, but………….” On the other hand, funds will be available for more security devices and trained personnel at schools. And we will encourage the formation of committees – police and mental health professionals – who will meet to assess when a red flag is to be waved.

**

Isn’t change wonderful!

 

As a parent grieves over the loss of a child, she can console herself by thinking about all the changes that have taken place in her life and in society since the parent’s birth. Too bad that their child did not live long enough to see any change from our reverence for that musket … and the AR-15.