All the news that’s fit to teach: The battle for our students hearts and minds

The people who justify not approving math texts that advocate for including SEL (Social Emotional Learning) strategies use the seemingly legitimate argument that the function of math education is to teach students how to get the right answers and not to influence their emotions. This sounds good on the surface, as many right wing arguments do. It does not consider that there is math in everything we do; that knowing basic essential math helps a person function better in society. Learning how to express emotions, empathize and get along socially with others helps students learn how to use math principles, often subtly, in their daily lives to everyones benefit. Have you ever experienced irritation with a cashier unable to give you correct change?

A big part of the reason so many students think they will never use math after high school is that very idea that math is only used to get the right answer. Students know there is life after school. When it is implied that all you need to do in math class is get the right answer they figure it’s waste of their precious time. They dismiss math as worthless, just another useless part of a useless education. There is no connection to living a better life, with others, through math. This kind of thinking promotes not a love of learning but a disdain for education. It contributes to the continuous decline in critical thinking skills and social responsibility among Americans. The resulting tendency toward dependency on others to think for them makes them vulnerable to propaganda of all sorts. 

The multi pronged efforts of those advocating for ideas such as parental rights to choose what their children learn, stacking school districts, decrying diversity and diversity training, attacks on curriculum and control of textbooks, syphoning public money into private schools, denial of resources, covert and overt racism, mandates for strict standardized testing etc., represent a concerted effort to weaken public education to the point that it is ridiculed, reviled, and especially, defunded by disinterested families. Some of theses ideas have a semblance of legitimacy. Others are blatantly cruel. This strategy is designed to allow for sociopolitical control of the educational narrative and the concurrent control of it’’s content. This sort of control of education is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, largely because it works well in creating a supportive, compliant populace.

School is not a spectator sport. It needs to be participatory. Large numbers of students treat school as a necessary evil and actively resist learning to the point of chronic interruption of class and even threats to the well being of teachers. The claims behind the justification for ‘reform’, say that public education is failing, but fail to mention the major factor of so many indifferent, ill-prepared, and counter productive students entering the system. Parents these days seem to consider schools as nothing more than glorified day care centers and teachers as executive babysitters. The disinterest and disrespect their children show in the classroom make those claims of failure self fulfilling prophecies. When there is no interest in education in the home and there is a movement by many of the public to abandon public education how can the system inspire any child to strive for excellence and a love of learning. There is a selfish and parsimonious faction loathe to educate children who ‘don’t deserve it who are taking over school boards everywhere.

It is this disinterest in education and doubt of its value that has led to a never-ending generational cycle in many American families of discouraging the teaching anything of value to their precious progeny. A cycle that is difficult to break. When parents tell their children that school doesn’t matter it opens the door for external control of what exactly their children learn about the world. Either the parents themselves or other sociopolitical influencers will then offer their own alternate ‘truths’ to the student as a means to indoctrinate them in a particular ideology. This is done under the guise of telling the student ‘what your teachers and government don’t want you to know’. Once again we have a recipe for authoritarian control of the information available to our youth.

Somewhere in the last third of the twentieth century education took a right turn away from a goal of producing adults with critical thinking skills, respect for others, and the ability to adjust to the challenges of life. The new mantra was ‘we’ll get you ready for a job and don’t worry about the rest of that stuff because all you really need to succeed is money and the things it can buy’. Developing quality citizens capable of contributing to a thriving society began to take a back seat to preparing our youth to be cogs in the capitalist machine, capable only of following orders and being told what to think. The oligarchs pacify them through assurance of the opportunity to become bosses themselves and the ‘personal freedom’ to enjoy the creature comforts the exploitation of international workers provide for them.

Authoritarian types are very good at creating societal problems and then currying favor by magically coming up with ‘solutions’ to those problems. Of course, those solutions move the needle toward their own dominance. I’m not sure there are any immediate and viable solutions to these huge manufactured problems. The promises of the capitalists are hollow but they gleefully point out to the masses, over and over, the sad fact that no one else has solutions and at least they have a plan they say will work, eventually.

The only strategy that comes to mind for resolving this issue is taking children away from their parents’ influence and teaching them facts and debatable concepts with an honest, open and comprehensive approach, inclusive rather than exclusive. Of course, even if it is better for the student’s welfare and development this methodology is also somewhat authoritarian in nature. Parents and students alike will hate it and it’s proponents. It is as undesirable as the modern strategy of rejecting everything educational that makes anyone uncomfortable.

Many of the people who want to delete these uncomfortable truths purport to be strong Christians. Perhaps they have forgotten that Jesus exists not only to comfort the afflicted but to afflict the comfortable. Evidently they desire the Cliffs Notes method for entering heaven for themselves and their children. Sadly, they insist a theocratic authoritarian control of society through false promises of prosperity is the way to salvation of everyone.

Today there is such a broad range of attacks on public education that to neutralize their effects people will need to be strong in standing up to revisionist history and the ‘cancel culture’ of those afraid that teaching our children anything about feeling or thinking will lead them down a path of destruction and damnation. Their path of censorship and denial leads only to the destruction of American democracy as we have known it. How Orwellian to witness Americans being led down a path they think leads to the renewal of American pride and world dominance only to find that path leads to their oppression by the few, wealthy and white.

The wolves are at the doors of our classrooms.

Our living rooms are next.

A bit of simple framing and communication for forward thinking activists and candidates: A Long Title

In the interests of transparency, I have chosen to refer to those folks commonly known as conservatives as Backwards, which is a noun. Conversely, I refer to those who have been called progressives or liberals as Forwards. I do this because both the words liberal and progressive, and the word conservative, have been co-opted by any number of people claiming to be one or the other. Forwards are forward-looking thinkers who frame looking forward. Backwards are those whose framing moves backward or simply treads water.

I have no interest in merging these categories with political parties, although that would be tempting. I know Republicans who are forward thinkers and Democrats who are hopelessly looking backward. That is not the issue. For me, the idea is to live in the present moment, where we can reflect on and learn from the past and plan for and look to the future, together. This is, or should be, the goal of Forwards’ framing. They should start by talking about values before issues. This might seem unusual. Bear with me.

Framing requires we stay in the moment. The past has already happened and the future has not. We stay in the present because it is the only place that allows us to move someone’s consciousness from the past into the future. It is the anchor that lets us move from the dead values of the past to the possibilities of the future. As Richard Alpert once said “Be Here Now”. Only if we are in the moment can we really be with the people (or person) we are persuading. You have to be with them. They won’t go by themselves.

Staying in the moment means that we don’t talk about values we don’t share, neither partially or at all. We understand, respect and learn from the past but we don’t need to go and go and keep going there. We connect with people in the present to move them to a future you know will improve their lives. This means we must do a better job of respecting and appreciating all people and their values, regardless of who they are and what those values are. That’s a given. However, when speaking to anyone, either in person or through other media, we should really only talk about values we are certain we share with everybody, plus those we might share with each other. It is those universal, shared values that will move people.

Although we should respect Backwards’ values there is no reason to mention the values we do not share. Backwards already know their values. There is no need to remind them, as they will remind themselves quite easily and efficiently. It is also true that Forwards sometimes, actually often, well, to be honest, always, need to be reminded of their own values, as they tend to think their issues are values and they need to keep on topic. We must talk about our values as well as our shared values. The values we do not share, that is, if they are only Backwards’ values, should not be mentioned, except perhaps to acknowledge they exist.  Forwards’ values should always be mentioned if only to remind us of what they are.

Once again, please don’t start with values we don’t share, neither partially or at all. I cannot emphasize this enough, although I am trying. Of course, we should do a better job of respecting and appreciating all people and their values, regardless of who they are and what those values are. However, when speaking to people, either in person or through other media, we should really only talk about values we are certain we share with everybody, plus those we share with each other. Sometimes we need to persuade people to look deep enough inside themselves to realize that yes, verily we share those values. People won’t realize they share your values if you don’t tell them what your values are.

We need to articulate our values. This can be tricky for Forwards. Forwards often confuse issues with values. They assume their values are universal. Their issues reflect those ‘universal’ values, which they think everyone does or should accept as universal. This is part of the reason many Forwards cannot fathom how Backwards can disagree with their issues. They don’t understand the first thing about how Backwards values, how they think, and speak. They often don’t even understand how they think and speak themselves.

What are values? Values are the reasons why we promote issues. They are why we care about the issues. The issues themselves are not the reasons. They are not the why. Issues illuminate and identify problems. They lay the groundwork for how to solve them. They are the how. Policies are the proposed solutions to the problems. We only talk about policy at the very end of the conversation. Policies are the what. To reiterate, values are the why, issues are the how, and policy is the what. Never start with the what. Start with the why followed by the how. We are not talking about policy here. Policy is flexible, malleable. We start with the concrete, the firm., our values. Above all, don’t confuse the why. Issues are not the why.

So how do we distinguish values from issues? And what are some Forwards’ values? Consider the reason we care about an issue. Consider the why. Why is this issue important to us? For example, many Forwards have issue with the wide and widening income gap in America. Why? Because they feel all work is valuable and every worker should be able to support a family and have the stability of owning a home and the ability to do more than just survive. Notice that the only one of those things that could be considered a moral issue (and all issues are moral in nature) is the income gap. That is a thing, a problem to be addressed. Saying all work is valuable is not a thing. It is a concept, an idea, It is a reason for being concerned about the issue.

Politicians spend a lot of time trying to figure out what to do about issues. And Forward politicians don’t often talk about why they try to solve problems. They assume their audience knows why. The audience usually does know why but they would like to know the politician knows why too. Otherwise they tune out. They have heard politicians say they are going to do something many times but it rarely ever gets done. Other politicians answer a question by asking another question. People want to hear what you think. They already know what they think.

When a politician answers that ‘this is important and here’s why’ the audience might be inclined to think this person actually cares about my issue. They will listen. They will listen to how the candidate thinks the issue should be approached. When they say what they are doing or will do to solve the problem the audience is likely to think that if anyone can get this done maybe this person can. They might actually get something done.

To summarize, the values we do not share, if they are only Backwards’ values, should not be mentioned.  Forwards’ values should always be mentioned if only to remind us of what they are. To persuade start with the why to pique people’s interest and keep their attention. Modern people have been watching too many music videos. They have short attention spans. Then, address how the issue is should be dealt with. Is it feasible, does it have support, how can we can get it done? Only then should you say what you think we should do about it. People might think that you might actually care about them, that you aren’t just looking for their vote. They might even want to support you in some way, even if they don’t agree with everything you say. Why? Because you had the courage to say it.

Is that confusing enough?

Socialism: What Is It Really?

Socialism is almost a universally misunderstood term. To some it is a pejorative, an awful thing, and to others it is the wave of the future. For many Americans it is whatever their favorite politician says it is. Plenty of governments and political parties of all types have referred to themselves as socialist. Some of them never actually define the word or why they use it. This confusion of definition makes the term ‘Socialism’ what cognitive linguists refer to as a contested concept. A contested concept is one that appears to be clearly defined by a certain word but the word, in reality, means different things to different people. 

One definition of a word is often promoted by a group to advance their ideology or philosophy over another group’s definition. Words have power, so defining them can mean the acquisition of power. Some words or phrases naturally have a variety of definitions, for example ‘interesting’ or ‘love’. Other previously clear concepts, such as ‘equality’ and ‘news’ have been intentionally muddied by people with an ideological agenda. They want to create confusion in the public about the meaning of the word. There is fierce competition between groups to establish a universal definition of a word. Each group wants to lock it into a particular picture or frame, and point it to their meaning of the word over all others. The winner then acquires the power of that word. The word now points to what they want the public to hear.

Socialism is a word whose definition has been fought over for years. Conservatives and capitalists have been winning this battle. But most recently, changes have appeared in the picture they want you to see when you hear the word ‘Socialism’. Most scholars define Socialism as a type of government, usually related to Marxist/Leninist ideology. This is true in many cases, but not all. Conservatives use this definition in their framing of the word. However, it is my contention that Socialism is not really a form of government. It is actually a necessary but separate part of government. How else could we explain why both both extreme right wing and left wing governments have been described as socialist. My definition of Socialism is not universaly accepted. But I believe in it strongly. Socialism is always an economic part of government but it is not a government by itself.  

In America the conceptual battle over the term Socialism has centered on the right wing’s campaign to tarnish the reputation of the word. It has been effective. They have taken advantage of the ambiguity surrounding the word’s meaning. Their tactic has not been to design an alternative definition of the word because today it has no definite meaning. Instead they have constantly bombarded the public with the idea that Socialism is bad. Like their complaint about most things liberal they tie Socialism to the idea that government interferes with a person’s ability to decide for themselves how to live, it limits their freedom and liberty. They have succeeded, primarily through constant repetition, in making it a dirty word to a majority of Americans. Many people now fear that Socialists hate American and will do anything to hurt them, from poisoning their water to stealing their children. These fears were intentionally promoted by conservatives. When they call someone a socialist, or claim a thing is socialist, people are afraid and angry.

As well as tying it to big government, capitalists have implied that Socialism will destroy the free market. Their attacks on Socialism focus on it being big, suffocating government that oppresses people. But their examples are mostly about government stealing people’s hard earned tax money and giving it to people who don’t deserve it. They hate government spending on programs they don’t like and didn’t have a say in. They tell us that a socialist government will take away your freedom to choose your own healthcare coverage. They say that Socialism will choke business until it dies from unnecessary and cruel regulation. They tell us Socialism will discourage the innovation and entrepreneurial spirit that makes America great.

What do all these complaints have in common? They are all about money. They economic arguments. They aren’t about Socialism taking away our right to vote or abolishing the Bill of Rights. They are not about government itself. They are about what government does with our money. These complaints reveal what both the complainers and I consider to be the real definition of Socialism. Socialism is an economic system whose true opponent is not democracy but capitalism. The idea that Socialism represents big government versus the democratic will of the people is a smokescreen. The people who hate Socialism the most are capitalists.

The capitalists who play dirty to keep people thinking that Socialism a dirty word are aware that millennials and Gen Z see through their greedy tricks. Young Americans know that the rich use the poor’s desire to be wealthy to their advantage. They see how the oligarchy dangles the carrot of a nonexistent American dream in front of the poverty stricken, teasing them with the idea that they too can become rich if they just do what the 1% tell them to do. Our young citizens can tell that the system is corrupt and broken and there is no wizard who will give them everything they want. There are just some clever and frightened men behind a screen, pulling levers and manipulating the masses.

The coming political and economic power of people of color and young adults has the capitalists fearful. They have turned their attacks on Socialism up to 11. But in the last several years a new breed of young leaders have had the courage to declare themselves Socialists. They are challenging the capitalists directly. They see a future America where both Socialism and Capitalism have a role in our economy. They are confident history tells them they will prevail.

The American Civil War was based on the North opposing slavery. Yhat opposition was a direct threat to the South’s economy. The current growing political division in America is also based on racial and class struggles that are a direct threat to our wealthy rulers. Over 150 years since the emancipation of the slaves racism is still a major factor in American politics. The coming economic and political power of people of color and the young is bringing to a head this centuries long conflict. we are in a real war between white supremacy’s political and economic domination of our nation versus a new multicultural politics and economy that works for everyone. Socialism or more accurately socialist principles are in the trenches of this fight. The fight over what Socialism really means is intense and important.

An appreciation of what Socialism is and isn’t.

Socialism is a kind of system and philosophy that goverments use to run their economy. The standard dictionary definition of socialism states that it is a government that owns and/or controls the means of production. Significantly, that definition does not say what type of government that might be. A government that controls the means of production can be of any type, from democratic to authoritarian. Socialist economies, no matter what type of government uses them, work the same way every time.

Conservative capitalists continue to constantly tell us that Socialism is a threat to Anerica and a destructive type of government. This is not true. Socialism isn’t really a type of government at all. In fact, governments that feature a Socialist economy are widely diverse in nature. They can be, and have been, both right and left wing, conservative or liberal, with hybrid types in between. Here are some examples. 

Nazi was an abbreviation of National Socialist Party, the political party that ruled Germany during World War II. It featured a government dominated by the Nazi Party, which worked closely with all levels of business plus religious and cultural entities to form an authoritarian, nationalist government. Nazi Germany’s socialist economy was based on the power of the government to force business to follow its orders or face punishment. It was socialism used and controlled by a right wing government.

There also are and were many left wing governments who applied socialist principles to their economies, most of them based on a Marxist/Leninist philosophy. These socialist governments insist that capitalists are only concerned with profits and not the welfare of the people. Therefore it is the people who should rule, control the means of production, and direct the economy to the people’s benefit.

To establish governments with Socialist economies, the people, usually headed by a charismatic leader or leaders, will often overthrow what they feel is a corrupt government. The goal is to give or restore control of the economy to the people. Many of these sovereign nations refer to themselves as People’s Republics. As a Republic they are governed by representatives, usually limited by a constitution. But rather than holding democratic elections that feature two or more strong parties they hold elections where only members of the one ‘party of the people’ are elected.

In these ‘Republics’ the head of the party usually has more power than the head of state. It is also the party which dictates how the economy operates. This kind of socialist economy often works better in theory than in practice. Many of these governmental representatives are chosen more for their loyalty to the party rather than for their ability to govern. Their weakness lets the economy fail. Weak leaders can succumb to the lure of power. Power can corrupt even the most honest of politicians. ‘The people’ who overthrow corrupt governments can easily become corrupt themselves. Therefore, many of these nations are unstable, with one government after another becoming corrupt. The people rise up once again and that government is also overthrown. But the economy remains socialist.

An extreme form of Socialism is Communism. Communism is perhaps the purest form of Socialism in the sense that the government is the economy. In Communism the workers both own the means of production and elect the representatives that form the government. Again, there is only one party, the worker’s party. The two major Communist nations were and are Russia and China, both born of 20th century people’s revolutions.

Russian Communism also featured only one party, the Communist Party. The nation was divided into integrated social, economic, and political units called communes. Thus the name ‘Communism’. The workers elected a committee, called a Soviet, that ran the commune out of those workers who were party members. Central government representatives were elected out of the Soviets. Again, party leaders had more power than the elected representatives. The Russian ‘empire’ or sphere of influence was the called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. 

The USSR was a Union because it united a number of previously sovereign nations such as Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, etc. into one functioning government. It was Soviet because its basic political unit was the Soviet. Theese nations were Socialist Republics because they were sovereign states that were dominated by Russia. Russia allowed them to elect and send party representatives to a central government, called a Politburo, that controlled their government, and individual lives, through controlling the communes

In the Soviet economy each commune was given a specified task and was told by government what production goals they were to reach. There was a strict hierarchy of rulers who handed down these orders from the level above them, much like a military hierarchy. More and more pressure was placed on communes to produce more and more to keep pace with western capitalist economies. The economy began to lag behind the capialist nations. Although the USSR had a large amount of resources the Soviet model was not able to take advantage of them. Also, the Communist hierarchy easily became corrupt as opportunites for bribery and lies were numerous. Eventually, over about 75 years of Communist rule, it became clear that communist economics were failing and in the late 20th Century the USSR broke into it’s separate staes, most of whom returned to democracy and capitalism.

Communist China saw the Soviet Union begin to fail as the Soviet form of economics and worker operated government was unable to compete against the challenge of Capitalism. Economically, they realized that some capitalist principles had to be used to compete with the West. The government remained “communist” because they remained a one party government with representatives selected only from within the Communist party. However, they began to downplay their communisy nature and started to call themselves simply ‘China’. Businesses and corporations were allowed to compete in international markets using certain capitalist principles. Still, because government permission and guidance was required for companies to use capital, their economic system became something of a hybrid. This socialist/capitalist hybrid economy has seen greater success than Soviet style economics ever did.

There is another hybrid form of Socialism, one which has had a measure of success. It originated not in authoritarian, one party goverbments but mostly in parliamentary onarhies, where the monarch are primarily figureheads and government is democratly elected from a number of parties. Its appeal is growing in America. It is gathering support from many younger Americans and even some old school American socialists. This American Socialism, often called Democratic Socialism, is modeled after what is known as Scandinavian Social Democracy or the Nordic Model.

I don’t know a great deal about the inner workings of Scandinavian style social democracy. What I do know is the government is democratic, elected by the people. The power of the government and its economy originates in the will of the people. Nordic people have a tradition of working together and sacrificing personal gain to make sure all citizens have security in their quality of life. The Socialist nature of the economy comes from this strong social welfare tradition. While Nordic economies still feature a large amount of capitalist free-market activity, this strong social welfare policy dominates. It is another type of hybrid economy, one whose government is very different from China, but with a similar economic philosophy.

The citizens of Nordic social democracies pay a high percentage of their income in taxes. For this they get such social benefits as publicly financed (not free) healthcare, higher education without fees or tuition, generous parental leave for all parents, nearly unlimited unemployment benefits, and other generous social welfare programs. The Nordic spirit of community motivates Scandinavians to pay more taxes in order to insure meaningful and secure lives for everyone regardless of status. It is largely this strong social safety net which appeals to many young Americans.

We should expect more of these hybrid economies in the future, as it has become clear that neither pure, unrestrained capitalism nor strict and limiting Socialism have succeeded to any great degree. These new ideas have been largely ignored by the leaders of both the capitalist and socialist forms of economics. They still see the world from a 20th Century viewpoint. The failure of these old economic theories stems from the constant economic growth needed by Capitalism and the harshnesss of government control of the economy that defines Socialism. Both are impossibly and/or functionally unsustainable. 

Much to the irritation of America’s conservative capitalists there has been a recent increase of interest in and support of Democratic Socialism. They can no longer avoid the challenge of hybrid economies. Young people are not accepting the conservative definition of Socialism as being a dirty word. They see the hypocrisy of conservatives who claim Nazism and Communism are the same thing and say that Socialism is a government that is desperate to destroy America and Democracy. 

Millennials and many precocious Generation Z youth see through this effort to define Socialism as a threat to everything American. They see that a well thought out social democracy that both respects individual liberty and social welfare is not only desirable but necessary. They want a government and economic system with the honest competition and entrepreneurial spirit of Capitalism and the wise regulation of capitalists and efficient social services found in Socialism.

Americans don’t realize that we have many hybrid Socialist programs already in place and succeeding. Local services such as police and fire services, water treatment and snow removal are paid for through taxes but produced and controlled by government. That’s Socialism. Every time we hear of a “public/private cooperative project” we are dealing with a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism. Government and private business working together is a growing means of doing large public projects such as road building and bridge construction.

Neither Keynes’ nor Friedman’s economic theories work in the 21st Century. This is something all politicians must learn and embrace. Strictly adopting either demand driven or supply side economic principles by themselves in today’s information and service world is not wise. America no longer has the industrial, manufacturing economy of the past. Hybrid economies featuring modified principles of both Capitalism and Socialism, or perhaps a totally new economic theory are the future.

Until then the battle rages on.

A Chess Board Analogy

They say too much idle time is the Devil’s workshop. Last week while using some power tools I imagined that the world’s political power dymanic was analogous to a chessboard, with its pieces and moves. I’m aware that chess has been used as a metaphor for any number of systems and functions. So I’m sure someone has been here before me. Regardless, I lay down before you my chessboard analogy, which I enjoy calling ‘Just Like Bobby Fischer Say’.

People before me have likened the power dynamic of players on the world stage to that of a game of 3 dimensional chess. It is an easy metaphor to visualize I suppose. While I’m not well versed in 3 dimensional chess I do have a layman’s understanding of the basics of the chess we non-Vulcans play. I must interject here that I am a poor chess player. I can barely see the current move much less several moves ahead. Anyway, here is my chessboard analogy, submitted for your approval.

This is obviously my own imagining and is in no way meant to imply any great profundity. I’m not sure why I always include a caveat with my posts. Perhaps it is because I have trouble accepting criticism and must attempt to divert it. Or perhaps it is because there really are legitimate alternatives. This particular post is narrow in scope but says enough to blog it up. Besides, I need something to post.

I have tried to present the pieces in the order of the heirarchy pyramid of their relative power. I thought a bit about the relationship between the King and Queen. To me it is somewhat a chicken and egg proposition. I eventually settled on the idea that to protect the power is in reality the most important power.

Corporations and government are the queens. They are the power that dominates the board and protects the king, who is almost invisible until it falls. The queen is easily the most versatile piece on the board. Her power is not only visible but surrepticious. She is her team’s General. I like the idea of the General being a woman. A queen who plays well uses her power in offensive and defensive ways, both stealthy and aggressive. It is the king who gives the queen her power and she protects him at all costs, to her dying breath.

The plutocratic oligarchs are the kings. They don’t move very much or very far. They hold and assign all power and give the queen her marching orders. They are the most sought after and the most protected. They are nearly invisible on the board until they are threatened. They are like matadors, avoiding catastrophe with the slightest of movements. The entire game is played to overcome them. The king who outsmarts the other wins everything. .

I could go here into a discussion about the gender of the monarch. But chess was created well over a millennia before gender equity became significant so I’m sticking to its rigid interpretations. I’m happy to accept criticism.

Religion is the aptly named bishop. It is primarily an offensive weapon that has an underlying prominence on the board because of its angular attack. It must be accounted for at all times as it can lull the queen and king to sleep and strike swiftly and surely. The queen often uses religion as a flanking maneuver that forces the king to relinquish control of a large part of the board.

The military and police are not separate pieces but together are the knights, who are versatile attacking and defending machines. They can attack suddenly from unexpected places. They can often get quite close to the king without being opposed and can make the queen weaken her defenses in a strategic way. Defensively they can snuff out an opponent’s best planned attack. They do this by making counter attacks with their uneven movement, often effective even when taken into consideration by the offense.

The rook is the media, who has the power to attack the king directly, from near and far, and with surprise. It forces the queen to make certain the king moves with caution. It’s power is perhaps greater than is perceived but it can entice the queen to make difficult decisions. The queen must use a portion of her troops to encircle the king with protection at all times. The rook can be held in check, just don’t ignore it. It is the most vulnerable piece on the board next to the pawns.

The pawns are the people. There are many more pawns on the board than any other piece but they are also the most limited in movement and power. They open the game with a relatively small move, but one which for both them and game is significant. It is the pawn’s only double move. And it points the King toward his strategic options. Pawns are sacrificial both on offense and defense. They can only move forward but can sometimes slip ahead at an angle and capture another piece, when their opponents are under multiple attacks. It is a movement similar to the way a bishop attacks. I do find it interesting that the pawn and king can both only move one square at a time.

Pawns are the chess piece most often used as a metaphor in real life. In the game they can gain great power but they must move wisely, stealthily, and with unity. They have to have a plan. It is possible to overwhelm one of the other side’s powerful pieces with numbers, or distract them while a single piece races to regain its rightful power. It can’t crown itself a king, yet can still gain any power up to and including a queen. However, it needs no small amount of luck to do this.

The machinations of the powerful pieces are of primary importance in the game. The people have little say, save for giving the king his means to defeat them. But the people can gain enough power to perhaps bring power to bear to defeat the king. It is difficult but not so rare as to give up without trying.

While it is true that in the event an elevated pawn, the people’s champion, assists in defeating the other king, the board is still ruled by a king. That king should be made aware that it was the people’s power which won the day. In that circumstance we have as much or more leverage as did the British people who forced King John to give his people the right to equal protection under the law.

Of course, this was accomplished by economic pressure from wealthy influences. But it gave the people protection from unscrupulous entities and eventually a representative government. That would actually be a good start for us. We will work on the rest of our agenda next.

We can force our current authoritarian leader to sign a new Magna Carta, just a short 700 years later.

You Won’t Like This

Las Vegas.

It usually takes me several days to process dramatic and truly damaging events that permeate our shared public consciousness. Las Vegas is such an event. It has made such a deep impact on America that I cannot even speak of it in the past tense, as it will linger and fester in our souls for a long time. I don’t even have to qualify it. Simply the name of the city is enough. And this will probably be the case for a long time. Unless the arms race of massive death creates another tortured soul with a plan.

Heroes is not necessarily the only word I would use to describe the many whose acts of courage and compassion are rightfully honored and revered. So many, in all disasters are called heroes. But in this, as in those, heroes is an incomplete concept. For me, it is not enough to simply say they are heroes. I need to hear why they are heroes, either big or small, either saving lives or soothing scared children.

Heroes do what they do, they run towards not away, because they love their neighbor, out of compassion and empathy. Because they intuitively revere and love life and people, who all deserve to be saved. Tragedy destroys the boundaries between people and carries suffering down the path to hope. The clarity of our shared pain shows us we are one, individual yet part of something greater, something that lives deep inside us and manifests when we need it. This is the divinity and beauty of heroism, not merely a selfless deed.

Now the authorities are looking for motive. Desperately. The motive is simple, as it is for all mass killers. They are in pain and choose to assuage that pain through heinous murder. No matter their state of being they all make a choice. Whether suffering through political anger, mental disorder’s damaged thinking or aggrieved despair, the pain is the same and the choice to act with violence is the same, to make others suffer as they do. Having known severe pain I cannot hate them. But why do we make so many more of them than anywhere else?

These killers act out because American culture permits us to resolve conflict and pain with violence. Not only is it permitted it is the preferred means. Immorality as social norm. But one cannot legislate morality. Conservatives know this but are so heavy-handed and self-serving they cannot serve that truth in a way that serves society. Liberals want to help save people but sell themselves short out of fear. They cannot maintain outrage because more tragedy is always around the corner to overwhelm them. And the twain shall never meet.

Everybody knows subconsciously that the American culture’s affair with guns makes the gun violence dynamic here different than the rest of the world. We cannot be another Australia no matter how much we legislate gun sensible laws. Law can only scratch the surface. Sensible gun safety legislation will help, but not enough. There must be more.

Many say we can’t stop invisible lone wolves from acting, from committing mass murder. That it’s impossible to ferret them out. They use this as an excuse to never try stopping them. The gun makers tell us the solution is more guns. Plenty of us believe this to be true. And a majority of the country does not trust the law to solve anything. In this case, they may be quite right. But I see these people as cowards, throwing up their hands in insincere despair. Selling death for profit.

To my mind, there is a good solution here, perhaps the best solution. Instead of trying to stop these evil killers when they are fully grown and engaged, we should change the way we raise our children, especially boys and especially white boys. Call it sexism/genderism and racism but the statistics bear it out. White men make up a large majority of mass murderers.

The way to stop us from accepting gun violence as a solution to social problems is to stop teaching our children this myth, this soul-crushing lie that violence is the way to go, the way to make everything right. The circle of violence can only be broken by Americans acting in concert to stop telling our boys to “be a man” and then equating that manhood with violence. I feel strongly that this “be a man” syndrome is sinful. The Christ does not ask us to turn the other cheek for nothing.

The glorification of violence is outdated at best. The fight or flight autonomic reaction existed for a creature with few reasoning skills, creatures without language as a tool of peace. There is a reason it is buried deep in our brains. It is no longer a viable means of avoiding pain or resolving conflict. As thinking beings, we can overcome our instant calls to violence. This is not easy. But as humans, we can call on the power of mind over matter. It works.

We must begin the hard work of creating fewer and fewer men with unbearable pain, those who feel horribly wronged but who hide it well, those subjected to abuse who process violence as normal, and even those who are barely aware of what they are doing. Of course, there are anomalies. There are women who act out in this way but as much as prehistoric women were rarely called upon to fight for existence, modern women are rarely acculturated to violence. This, I feel, is part of why they make up a small percentage of mass murderers. Yet another anomaly, in the instance of the sins of psychopaths these souls may never be inclined to abandon violence.

As said, it is imperative that we contribute to the solution the right way, by telling our children that violence is never acceptable. We must still learn the ways of violence as a defense against an existential threat. Complete passivity is naive. But the best way is to show our sons and daughters that violence is not the way is by our actions, modeling peaceful negotiation and mediation as the preferred method of conflict resolution, that through human interaction we can ease our pain.

The best way is better than the right way. And the example we set is the best means of successfully moving our pain into hope, as befits sentient beings. The Sanskrit word for weapon is also the word for tool. We can, as the Christ intimated, beat our swords into plowshares. We can use our hearts, souls, and minds to change society, to join many of us together as one without needing a disaster to unite us. We would no longer need to battle in the halls of Congress. We wouldn’t have to fight so much at the taverns, cafes and dinner tables of America. We could change.

An addendum

You won’t like this.

This will be seen as and called racism and it probably is. But I must say my piece. The situation in the black and much of the Latino communities, as I observe it, is that the relative lack of mass murderers from these communities is due to the fact that their suffering involving gun violence is intimate, up close and personal. It is directed at the individual, the person right there in front of you. Violence here is not an anomaly, it is omnipresent. One need not meticulously plan a bloodbath of the anonymous. Here the pools of blood will be at their feet, and the plan was formed quickly, specific to the grievance. So when those in the public eye conflate murder in these POC communities with mass murder they are terribly wrong. Though the solutions to the violence are similar the essence of the problem is different.

Mea Culpa. Please forgive me if I am wrong about this. I cannot know for certain but I witness. I fully accept a charge of racism for these comments and the mantle of racist. I speak what I feel.

You won’t like this either.

A word about prayers, including candlelight vigils and moments of silence. Prayer is a good thing. Praying for the peaceful repose of the lost souls and healing grace for their friends and families is a good thing. Candlelight vigils and shrines and moments of silence are good things. But they are all also feel good actions. They allow us to feel as though we have acted, we have done something good, something to help. We can do this and then go home and not take any further action, thinking we have done our part. In this, I do not judge. I only bear witness. Think on it yourself.

As powerful as is prayer, for the departed, we must also pray for the strength to do the hard work of changing the nation’s zeitgeist. It will take several generations but we must change the way we do this business. Praising those we call heroes and changing our laws and offering prayers are all good things but they can only save a fraction of the lives we need to.

These things are right things to do but they are not the best things to do. It is not easy to find and choose the best thing over the right thing. Doing the right thing we are so tempted to be satisfied and go home. I am convinced that, for America, the best path to hope out of pain is accepting our own pain and finding our own hope. This will give us the confidence to teach our children well. I believe we all know in our hearts that this path is true.

Let us start on this path together in love.