Someone Explain These People to Me

As a public service, I'd like to keep you updated on what our vaunted Wisconsin state legislature, populated overwhelmingly with Republicans, has been doing.

I do it for two reasons: To elicit your outrage, and to ask for someone to please explain these people to me, because I do not understand them. If these are good things they're doing, I want to know why. Doesn't seem to be a heavy lift.

But then: Read this stuff. You'll see why I'm wondering.

First: All these bills were passed by the assembly by voice vote. That means that there is no accountability--no name attached to support. We don't know exactly who approved of it. What incredible courage! The machos of the Republican Party want to give off their manliness, but don't want to stand up to whomever calls them out on it. It means that they're trying to get away with something, plain and simple, hiding in plain sight.

So let's take a look at what they shouted into the legislative process: (my thanks to the Capitol Times)

• AB 495--It would allow a person who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon to possess a firearm, in a vehicle, on school grounds. Right now, that's prohibited.

The people who support it say that parents with concealed carry licenses have to unload, remove and lock up their guns before leaving their kids at school and picking them up. How incredibly inconvenient!

Of course, they have to be ready in case there's a drive-by by someone else, right? Thing is, the law would allow that someone else to actually have that weapon to start a drive-by shooting. Aren't you causing a bigger problem by trying to end another one?

Don't dismiss this out of hand. I looked up how many people believe they have to have concealed carry licenses in this state: Just under 400,000--about seven or eight percent of our population (as of last year). While that sounds bonkers, get online and look at states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida. There are a hell of a lot of Americans walking around 'packed', ready to shoot it out with real or (mostly) imagined enemies. You'll notice that the crime rate hasn't exactly subsided.

So it's asking more than you think for a significant number of people to unload before they come get their kids. So let's go with the next question: Do schools need concealed carry people to surreptitiously patrol their grounds during the five minutes that they're waiting in line for their kids?

Poor wretches. No doubt they feel picked on. It's an easy transfer to claim victimitis. All they want to do is pick up their kids! Do they have to check in with the safety people to boot?

Yes, there are school shootings, tragically. But the sick individuals who perform them aren't that worried about the concealed carriers, because their work is done within five minutes or less, and to the best of my knowledge, ends with their deaths, usually self-inflicted, if not arrest (as in the latest tragedy in Michigan). The odds that they would run into a concealed carrier just at the moment they're likely to wreak their greatest havoc is something only a rational person would consider--in which case, they most likely would have their wits about them and not go through with it. Plus, I have not heard of such a situation so far so the odds of having that kind of confrontation are even more remote than having the shooting in the first place.

Which is to say: Is this a vital function of the state legislature? Will this prevent what it purports to do?

No. It won't. So why is it happening?

Because someone called a legislator or two and complained that their daily pick-up excursions take longer and are more awkward than the rest of us who won't be bothered with needing their weapons close by, if they have any. In some parts of the state, this is a big deal, I guess. But I need someone to explain it to me.

Sigh. Let's move on:

• AB 498: Lowering the age requirement to obtain a conceal carry permit from 21 to 18.

The rationale behind this is a yawner: If you're old enough to vote--and we know how eager 18-year-olds are to do that--you're old enough to pack without notice. In fact, the author tried to introduce the idea of "ageism" to challenge the opponents of this proposal.

Another twisting of another phrase that isn't meant for that whatsoever. If you've been turned down for jobs as often as I was, you get to read between the lines and know damn well that you're considered too old to do what you've applied for. That's "ageism" in spades, and nothing's so aggravating as being unable to get into the room and get an interview and at least have a fighting chance to work again.

For the more elderly to judge someone else too young to take on the responsibilities of toting a weapon around is, well, more than appropriate. It's having the advantage of life experience to tell someone, kind of like sex, that something else is worth waiting for, that there's no reason to be in a hurry to get it. This is especially true in a circumstance in which, unlike sex where you can create human life without responsibility, here you can take it away, including your own if you make a horrible mistake.

And you're not even having fun while doing it.

• SB 843--Would require the superintendent of public instruction to develop and "comprehensive firearm education course" for high school students. She would be aided by the state DNR, a "law enforcement agency" and "an organization that specializes in firearm safety or certifies firearm instructors." If a school districts refuses, it would have go out of its way to pass a resolution to that effect.

Of course you have to involve the schools in this obsession. Never mind that our brilliant state senators didn't bother to pass funding for it. Never mind that they could sit down and figure out whether or not to include this in the required curriculum or in the electives. Nah. Just put it in there.

The Wisconsin Gun Owners are in favor of this. Among those against: The Wisconsin Association of School Boards; the Association of Wisconsin School Administrators; the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials; the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators; and--watch this--the Wisconsin Rural Schools Alliance.

I suppose it's enough that the gun owners like it. Never mind that there are plenty of privately-run clinics where kids can learn about how to operate weapons. Never mind that lots of parents take on that training themselves.

I guess everybody needs to know how to operate a gun, huh? Somehow, the rest of us have missed all this fun. What, it's not only our right, but it's our responsibility to be armed and dangerous, if only to ourselves?

Do we need this hair-splitting? No. But someone needs to pass something, apparently, for Tony Evers to veto--as he surely will--so we can create campaign ads that vilify him to areas where gun ownership is paramount, as if he already hasn't been, as if these will tip the scales to determine whether or not he gets re-elected.

Which is another way of saying how wedded, perhaps captive, the Republican Party is to the NRA and the gun owners lobby. Is that it? Is that all there is? Is it that ridiculous? Is it that obsessive?

No, I guess you don't have to explain it to me. I'd fooled myself, however briefly, in believing there must be something deeper, more meaningful. I'll have to look somewhere else.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

47 Cents. Not Bad So Far. And It's Only Mid-January.

I've made 47 cents so far this year. Not too bad. Eleven months to go. This year, though, I'm keeping track.

Nope, I haven't gone back to work. Even for those on minimum wage, that would be pretty pathetic.

All I've done is open mail. Money, a few cents at a time, is sometimes included in solicitation for more.

Is this happening to you? If you make contributions through the mail, two things are likely: First, your name will be put on lists of other charitable organizations and you'll hear from them; and second, some of them will put change in their solicitations.

Why? To engender guilt, of course. We gave you money, free of charge. Now, give us some back. And please, include this change in your contribution so we know that you're saving us the money we gave you.

It's put on with that gummy, sticky stuff so it doesn't move around in the envelope. You're supposed to use the very form that includes that small change, put a check in the mail with it, and of course, get another one in a few weeks to keep doing the same thing.

Is sending people money a gesture of desperation, or just a reminder of what they're supposed to do? You'd think the latter, since if they were desperate, why would they send money--which they're doing to thousands of us--if they actually needed more, much more, of it?

It's starting to be the template upon which I'm responding: If you send money, I'll send you some back. They want the change they're sending you, too, but I'm not biting at that. I didn't ask for the money, so I have no problem with pocketing it. It's not like I'll have to start an off-shore account in the Bahamas or anything.

Is this the price of a big heart--an endless supply of daily solicitations? Their literature is gut-wrenching, as you might expect. So they get to you that way, too. But this is also how people, especially senior people, get hoodwinked by shysters, and how the money can go to despicable sources. These sources may, in fact, be trustworthy, but it's the same mentality.

Some of these folks make really good use of the money they get, and some spend way too much of it on administrative costs. I'm sure you can look some of this up, but that won't stop stuff from getting sent.

The charitable organizations are often closely linked. Most can be generally categorized. Some have to do with: 

• getting food to starving kids: it's just a matter of where they are; 
• helping animals: it's just a matter of which ones and what services they might perform already;
• scientific research: it's just a matter of which disease is being addressed; and
• patriotic themes: it's just a matter of whether they're historical or present-day.

I've lost count as to how many there are that get sent to me in a month, or even a week; I should keep track of that, too, and report back. My mail is overwhelmed with them, especially at holiday time when people want to remind you of connecting celebration with not forgetting who allowed you to celebrate, or not to forget that there are others who can't celebrate when their unending priority is just to find a roof over their heads or food for their bellies.

And by now, I've given up on trying to get these people off my back. There are too many of them. I'm swamped. All I now do is triage and take most of the envelopes and transfer them, unopened, into the converted grocery bags that are now recycling bins. The thicker ones, I know, have notepads. Those trying for the big catch send calendars. I've asked for none of them.

This is horribly sad, in a way. It is another comment about income maldistribution. To consider this, it must be getting far worse. I used to get, maybe, ten of these a week. Now ten in a day isn't all that rare.

47 cents in January is a start. My goal? Well, Burger King is advertising two of its sandwiches for six bucks. Could I possibly get enough through the mail to treat myself by year's end? This, remember, is a slow season. Things could ramp up in a hurry.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster shot. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

School Boards Association: A Sinking Ship. Can the NEA Help?

The National School Boards Association shot itself in the foot not long ago, and the wound refuses to heal. It has pitifully torn itself asunder.

It's reported in The Washington Post that its then-acting executive director authorized, with approval of the other officers (but not the board of directors, a fatal flaw), a letter to the Biden Administration telling it about the attacks that have been made on some individual, local school board members that are pretty ghastly and over the top. And yes, there's cause for concern.

But the letter also suggested that these constitute, or approach, "domestic terrorism" and "hate crimes." Those are hot-button phrases that imply pervasive violence. And maybe there is: vaccine issues and the ever-present, phony 'critical race theory' matter have brought parents to school board meetings who sometimes lose their cool. Awful instances have been documented.

I don't have a copy of the letter. I'm not sure how pervasive the problem really is. There has been plenty of press about it. And I have seen no numbers to emphasize attention to the issue. That it has happened at all, though, is quite disturbing and another indication that the normal decorum that regulates most human affairs is continuing to frazzle. 

More participation at school board meetings isn't, by itself, a bad thing, as much as more local democracy can serve all of us well. But the rage that people sometimes bring is worrisome, because many are first-time goers, and they assume that the whole world is disintegrating when in fact it's just one little part of a world that they thought they controlled, but didn't.

The article said that some school boards have been forced to end their meetings early to stem the loud protests. That, of course, only made them angrier.

There's nothing wrong with pointing out unprecedented attacks on local school board members, who are connected (or some were) to their state associations that are affiliated with the NSBA, every bit as much as the NEA might send a letter to the White House discussing attacks on teachers who are members of their state associations. Seems to me that that's part of the responsibility of leadership; to point out to otherwise unsuspecting powers-that-be that something's going really wrong out there, and it should be addressed yesterday.

Especially nowadays, one must be careful to be politically correct with the people who complain that others are too politically correct. That is hypocritical, but it is true; they are now busy telling everyone how oversensitized they've become, as if this is news.

But, as one of its board members put it, Fox News grabbed those phrases and ran with them, cherry-picking as it usually does to elicit the greatest emotional reaction. It's not as if leftist blogs don't do the same thing, but Fox is the lighthouse for whiners around which to rally. Score one for them.

Seventeen of the NSBA's former state associations have decided, based on one controversial letter, to break away and form their own group. The NSBA is now in tatters.

The offending interim executive director was, of course, fired, because his efforts to get out in front of what he felt was quite justifiable brought with it too much opprobrium (and he didn't run it past his BOD first, a condemnable error, allowing the monster of second-guessing to enter the fray). His successor is trying to cajole the separating associations to rethink their decision. I don't think he will be successful. In fact, there may be more states that go in another direction, the article says.

This will feed the privatization proponents, who will wave this in the face of prospective parents--especially those with money--and reassure them that peace will only ensue if they break with the system and join theirs. We'll give you exactly what you want and nothing to get upset about.

Spin-off coalitions generate their own momentum, especially if there are no coercive consequences. But there is no better barometer of the kinds of conversations a country is having, and the quality of its democracy, than to look at its schools--

• how much people care about them (not much), 
• how much they complain about them (just give them an excuse), and 
• how much is actually done (to match the hypocrisy).

This is the perfect place for anti-establishment anarchists (because that's all they really are) to rush in and disperse any consistency in approach, to deconstruct without reconstructing. They think that's a good thing since they don't have to administer anything or go through schooling any longer. Everybody thinks creating a school and running it is easy--until they try it.

It may also be a place, though, for the NEA to step into this problem and first, become more vocal about it in support of the stability of public education; and to coalesce a bit more closely with what's left of the NSBA. The latter may be looking for safe haven and a reliable friend now. The NEA has always had a big tent; it has even allowed ex-gays to have a booth at its representative assembly. This seems to be a place where it can be extended.

If the NEA thinks it can help the NSBA's sinking ship to remain afloat, it ought to try. It might even be easier, in discovering common goals and values, than merging with the AFT, still an apparently impossible lift. You never know.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Ron Johnson: Why Bother? Because He's There

It's occurred to me that in all the things I've written here, I haven't once dedicated a single blog to Ron Johnson. Maybe I should. He's a U.S. Senator from my state of Wisconsin, after all.

But I've done what others who will read this have probably done: Chosen to shunt him aside for other, more important, things (It's a low bar). Because he's such a sad excuse for any kind of political representative, not to mention Senator, that one barely knows where to start.

Thing is, he's beaten one of the finest Senators we've ever had twice. I'm not sure what that says about then having to take him seriously, but he's chosen to run again (after hinting very strongly, and quite publicly, more than once that he wouldn't, in a typical snake-spine move). So he must be taken on nose-to-nose. I really do have to go to the trouble of explaining why he's one of the biggest mistakes this state has ever made, and that we cannot afford to make it again.

Why bother, then? Because he's there and may remain. That will continue to damage the state's reputation. We have to take him seriously because the powers that be in Washington clearly do not.

I've read two decent sources on him, one conservative and one decidedly not. They both say the same thing: He can be beaten, but he might also win going away.

All that says is that this is a tough, quirky state to read. It always has been. It put Joe McCarthy in the Senate, and Bill Proxmire to succeed him. It elected a Democratic governor, lieutenant governor, treasurer, and attorney general. Its other U.S. Senator is the extremely competent Tammy Baldwin, who was on some people's second lists for consideration as Joe Biden's running mate. It also has people like Tom Tiffany and Glenn Grothman representing it in Congress. Go figure.

The pogo stick nature of our politics here thus makes things hard to predict. The underlying 'skinny', though, is this: While it's true that some Republicans are bothered by Johnson's strange views on the pandemic, for instance, they may not be bothered enough to vote to unseat him. After all, he's a dependable vote on several vital issues. It will depend on whatever Democrat survives the primary on August 9.

On paper, then, it would seem that any old Democrat can swipe the seat from Johnson. But he's been elected twice against someone who many considered a rock solid dependable choice, Russ Feingold. The trick is that Johnson's been lucky: He's always run as an outsider, so to speak, when the Democrats have been in control. He hasn't had to play defense. This time is no different. That's to his advantage.

And his early TV ads drum up the same theme that ex- has been pounding on for all this time: Fear. He wants you to think that the country's gone to pieces and that Democrats are to blame. The videos are almost amateurish in their depiction. Of course, he has no plan to improve any of that, but neither do any of the other Republicans in the Senate: All they think they have to do is just sit there.

Johnson has clung to ex-'s coattails feverishly as well. His strange views on the pandemic and vaccination keep him from being criticized from Mar-A-Lago, which keeps his poll numbers at a decent level. It will be interesting to see if he will drill down on the Big Lie, or try to dodge it and move on. It will also be interesting to see how he answers for the simple fact that, back in November, he was temporarily suspended from YouTube--which hasn't been the most fastidious in self-policing--for violating its rules for spreading misinformation about Covid.

But I would never call him savvy. I would call him attuned to whatever dog whistles that are present and relevant. They've worked twice, though, and that's a prescription that won't be ignored. That also tells you something about this state, something that's been sad to admit for some time now. We used to be known as independent and unique; now far too many are knee-jerk and Southernish, taken in by pseudo-macho bullying.

He needs to be defeated. He has embarrassed this state for far too long. I think it can be done, but Democrats must take him seriously, despite the gaffes and stumbles. If they do--and it will take strong, consistent messaging about the good things government can do--we can be rid of this odd, obstructive, deceptive excuse for a major political force, who, like his idol, wants you to believe that government is your enemy until he's in charge of it, and needs power for its own sake.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

David Souter Was Right. But How Do We Fix It?

Nine years ago, former Supreme Court Justice David Souter sounded a clarion call which has not been heeded. What took place on January 6, a year ago, bore witness to that:

I don't believe there is any problem of American politics in American public life which is more significant today than the pervasive civic ignorance of the Constitution of the United States and the structure of government. An ignorant people cannot remain a free people. Democracy cannot survive too much ignorance.

As usual, it got lost amidst so many other public pronouncements. But what he failed to add was crucial and put 750 people (so far) in jail: the need to accept of the Constitution and structure of government; not only what it is, but what it means to be a good citizen, to play the game by the existing rules. The lack of it, or perhaps the inability to draw from it and their persuadability, made them crazy with agitation, spurred on by someone else with the gift of gab and demagoguery but sharing the same refusal to go along with the rules of our road, namely: If you lose, you move on to fight another day because that day is guaranteed.

He did not, by himself, cause the rupture. He accelerated it, true, but it was there, latent, to begin with.

The collapse of our civic life was put horribly on display a year ago, the key to it being self-control and restraint. Where do we address that? And how?

Schooling must be the place. But where? How? Do we assume that, if we teach civics to high schoolers, we've done our job? We can't any longer if January 6 happened. Trust me: Each of those people who assaulted the very place our government is based were exposed, at some point, to someone trying to stress upon them the uniqueness of our system, its fundamental structure, its crucial importance, the vitality necessary for it to operate effectively and the Constitution which is the basis for it. But that could have happened anywhere between 9th grade, age 14, and 12th, age 17 or 18.

As such, that is inadequate, or implicitly so, says Ronald Daniels, the president of Johns Hopkins University, in a new book What Universities Owe Democracy. Daniels shifts the paradigm: the place to best teach and inculcate democratic principles is college, not high school.

That would seem elitist, but as Daniels points out, 70 percent of high school graduates at least try to continue their education in a two-year or four-year college. If so, then that is the point at which we should make the best attempt to get them settled into the political system, peaceably and responsibly. I don't think Daniels wants to abandon any effort of high schools to begin students down that track, but he does think that the crucial place for any of it to pay off has to be college--when students become more responsible and think more about their futures. Besides, an overwhelming percentage of them can vote by then--the first, and ultimate, responsibility of a democracy into which all can join.

Having taught high school students in a fairly well-to-do community for 30 years and having witnessed it myself, I can tell you that, as vital as I believe the teaching of civics and U.S. History has always been, only the most mature kids will absorb it for what it's supposed to be: A passageway to good citizenship. And if 70 percent of those kids go on, there's still the 30 percent who don't and need it right there and then. That's a lot of kids. But some of the rioters of January 6, enough of them, were college-educated, too.

Something has gotten horribly diminished, something we have always needed. We either have to address it, or we are fried in our own pan in the heat of fascism.

The book's title suggests a boring account, but I didn't find it as such. Daniels writes provocatively but tries to make the issues as simple as possible. The issues are complex, but not that difficult to understand.

First and foremost: You can't demand that all colleges and universities teach exactly the same thing at exactly the same time. We pride ourselves on diversity, and college curricula feeds on that. Each institution has course requirements, but universities thrive on electives to keep their students interested.

What the university gained as it developed over time in America is, first of all, a reputation for graduate schools and research. In doing so, it earned respect for the establishment of science as a purveyor of fact. It thus serves the public most by fighting disinformation. It also establishes the crucial vitality of the humanities to develop well-rounded persons.

One of the great, early, visionary leaders in these resolves was the University of Wisconsin, which saw its role in research and inquiry as serving not only the general public, but the government. This became known as the "Wisconsin Idea," which had as its central philosophy, "the boundaries of the university are the boundaries of the state." The university became part of an educational ecosystem that included government and business. Probably the best-known example of this is FDR's "Brain Trust" which guided his policies in the early days of the New Deal.

But with the advent of Reaganism--again, another way in which fealty to Ronald Reagan ruined us--university education became seen as something to be earned, a private benefit instead of a public good. This led to viewing college education as elitist, dispensing with the effort to become universal (as in the G.I. Bill post-World War II), and provided a gradual ramping down of intellectualism, a return to a class ranking of the college-educated, instead of the gifts of a nation that could provide ladders for the "average" to become far better than that.

Congress also provided business with highways to invest in universities, so that much of its research was business-based. This introduced inevitable conflicts of interest, in which research results appeared to be tailored to satisfy the sugar daddies who funded it.

So the university, as a concept, has changed to fit the supposed priorities of the nation it serves. But Daniels stresses that it must return to a status that's closer to its original purposes, especially now that our media and culture are so challenged by disinformation. Reliance on corporate funding has diminished university-created reliability; truth has gained bias, so it can be attacked automatically.

So the university has reduced its own prestige. But it must regain it because its fact-finding is essential to base discussions and disagreements in the public discourse, says Daniels. It is, therefore, essential to a decently functioning democracy. There have to be 'experts' who guide us in the direction of good research and genuine knowledge. Their sharing is a vital source of our public discourse.

But it's also that public discourse that has become problematic on campuses. I have already written on such issues and the troubling polarization that has emerged. Daniels points to the difference in the claims of pluralist atmospheres that colleges claim, and the actual segregation that ultimately results when groups of students interact. It was no different, sadly, at the small liberal arts school that I attended.

Daniels' solution is what he calls "purposeful pluralism," or arranging for students to interact in a meaningful, constructive way. Easier said than done, though. Universities have tried to allow themselves to become more diverse, so 'purposeful pluralism' is a way to further and fulfill that function, but have sometimes gone about it in an awkward way.

What constitutes "diversity" of opinion on a campus too often involves inviting a controversial speaker and trying to cover their tracks with declarations of free speech afterwards, says Daniels. But that's unsatisfying and defeats the goals of inquiry. What should be more important is the interaction of differing views so that students feel able to actively participate and, what's more, ask questions. For the measurement of intelligence is not only the ability, but the willingness, to keep asking until the truth is determined or the issue properly exposed.

Unquestionably, what happens on our college campuses reflects the issues that divide us off-campus today. But they are also places where such differences can be smoothed out and approached appropriately, instead of the cataclysm that January 6th proved to be. Campuses can be leaders in that regard. They can demonstrate good civics, the kind David Souter had in mind. They need to act quickly and more decisively to take on that role. If the bad guys take over again, they will attack the legitimacy of higher education and make that their highest priority.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark