Dear Commons Community,

A resolution passed unanimously in San Francisco on Tuesday declares the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

The city’s board of supervisors passed the resolution accusing the NRA of inciting gun violence and arming people who commit acts of terror across the U.S.

“All countries have violent and hateful people, but only in America do we give them ready access to assault weapons and large-capacity magazines thanks, in large part, to the National Rifle Association’s influence,” the resolution reads in part. “Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City and County of San Francisco intends to declare the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.”

The board also cited gun violence statistics in its decision.

“The United States is plagued by an epidemic of gun violence, including over 36,000 deaths, and 100,000 injuries each year,” the document notes. “Every day approximately 100 Americans are killed with guns and … there has been more than one mass shooting per day in the United States in 2019.”

The NRA ― which is facing collapse amid financial mismanagement and legal fees ― dismissed the resolution, calling it “ludicrous.”

“This ludicrous stunt by the Board of Supervisors is an effort to distract from the real problems facing San Francisco, such as rampant homelessness, drug abuse and skyrocketing petty crime,” NRA spokesperson Amy Hunter told KQED.

The resolution calls on other cities and states, as well as the federal government, to join San Francisco in designating the group a domestic terrorist organization.

I am not sure what the impact of this resolution will be but I like that San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors did it.  Other cities and states should do the same.

Tony

Boris Johnson

Dear Commons Community,

British lawmakers yesterday rose up against Prime Minister Boris Johnson, moving to prevent him from taking the country out of the European Union without a formal agreement. The epic showdown pushed Britain to the verge of a new election.  As reported by the New York Times.

“After losing his first-ever vote as prime minister, Mr. Johnson stood up in Parliament and said he intended to present a formal request for a snap general election to lawmakers, who would have to approve it.

A little over a month ago, Mr. Johnson, a brash, blustery politician often compared to President Trump, swept into office with a vow to finally wrest Britain from the European Union by whatever means necessary, even if it meant a disorderly, no-deal departure.

Now, Parliament has pulled the rug out from under him, and Mr. Johnson is at risk of falling into the same Brexit quagmire that dragged down his predecessor as prime minister, Theresa May.

The lawmakers forced his hand by voting by 328 to 301 to take control of Parliament away from the government and vote on legislation as soon as Wednesday that would block the prime minister from making good on his threat of a no-deal Brexit.

That prompted an angry response from the prime minister.

“I don’t want an election, the public don’t want an election, but if the House votes for this bill tomorrow, the public will have to choose who goes to Brussels on Oct. 17 to sort this out and take this country forward,” Mr. Johnson said, referring to the next European Union summit.

Tuesday was a critical moment in Britain’s tortured, three-year effort to extract itself from the European Union. The saga has divided Britons, torn apart the ruling Conservative Party and prompted complaints that Mr. Johnson has trampled the conventions of the country’s unwritten constitution.

A majority of lawmakers are determined to block a withdrawal from the European Union without a deal, which they believe would be disastrous for the country’s economy. Tuesday’s vote suggested they have the numbers to succeed.

Mr. Johnson’s aides had made clear that, in the event of a defeat on Tuesday, he would seek a general election on Oct. 14 — just a little over two weeks before the Brexit deadline of Oct. 31.

In his rebuttal to Mr. Johnson’s call for elections, the opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said he would agree to an election only after Parliament passed legislation barring a no-deal Brexit. The House of Commons is expected to approve the measure on Wednesday.

Tuesday’s vote marked a moment when Mr. Johnson’s hardball tactics, for once, were met with equal resistance.

On a day of high drama, Mr. Johnson lost his working majority in Parliament even before the vote took place, when one Conservative rebel, Phillip Lee, quit the party to join the Liberal Democrats, who have managed to stage a resurgence by positioning themselves as an unambiguously anti-Brexit party.

The practical effect of Mr. Lee’s defection for Mr. Johnson was limited, however, because the government would fall only if it were defeated in a confidence motion.

But in a moment weighty with symbolism, Mr. Lee walked across the floor of the House of Commons and sat beside Jo Swinson, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, as the prime minister was speaking about the recent Group of 7 summit. Mr. Lee accused Mr. Johnson of pursuing a damaging withdrawal from the European Union in unprincipled ways, and of “putting lives and livelihoods at risk.”

Mr. Lee’s break with the Tories was most likely just the first of many.

On Tuesday night, Downing Street began pressing ahead with plans to discipline those rebels who voted against the government, moving to expel them from the Conservative Party. Those who defied the government included two former chancellors of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond and Kenneth Clarke, and Nicholas Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill.

That could threaten Mr. Johnson’s ability to manage day-to-day business in Parliament, underscoring the need for a new election.

The extent of the Tory civil war was on full display as several of Mr. Johnson’s Conservative critics, including Mr. Hammond, lobbed hostile questions at him, making it plain that they had not been brought back into line by threats of expulsion from the party.

Opponents of a no-deal Brexit argue that leaving the block without a deal — as Mr. Johnson has promised to do, if no agreement is reached — would be catastrophic for the British economy. Many experts say it could lead to shortages of food, fuel and medicine, and wreak havoc on parts of the manufacturing sector that rely on the seamless flow of goods across the English Channel. Leaked government reports paint a bleak picture of what it might look like.

Mr. Johnson says he needs to keep the no-deal option on the table to give him leverage in talks in Brussels, because an abrupt exit would also damage continental economies, if not as much as Britain’s. The prime minister appealed to his own lawmakers not to support what he called “Jeremy Corbyn’s surrender bill,” a reference to the leader of the opposition Labour Party.

“It means running up the white flag,” he said.

Mr. Johnson also claimed to have made progress in talks with European Union leaders, although his own Brexit secretary, Stephen Barclay, on Monday gave a much less rosy assessment of the state of negotiations.

Britain’s main demand is for the European Union to ditch the so-called Irish backstop, a guarantee that the bloc insists it needs to ensure that goods flow smoothly across the Irish border whatever happens in trade negotiations with Britain. Mr. Johnson said he planned to visit Dublin next week for talks with his Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar.

Conservative rebels believe Mr. Johnson is more interested in uniting Brexit supporters behind him ahead of a general election than in securing an agreement in Brussels.

One former chancellor of the Exchequer, Kenneth Clarke, accused Mr. Johnson of setting impossible conditions for the negotiations, attaching as much blame as possible to the European Union for the failure to get a deal and then seeking to hold a “flag-waving election” before the disadvantages of leaving without an agreement become apparent.

The bitter dispute has taken Britain into new political territory.

Last week, Mr. Johnson provoked outrage by curtailing Parliament’s sessions in September and October, compacting the amount of time lawmakers would have to deal with the most crucial decision the country has faced in decades.

Mr. Johnson’s allies argue that it is the rebels who are subverting the principles of Britain’s unwritten constitution by seizing control of the proceedings of Parliament that are normally the preserve of the government.

The European Commission said on Tuesday that while the frequency of meetings between its Brexit team and the British negotiator, David Frost, had increased, little headway had been made toward avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Asked whether the British government was using reports of its talks with the commission for political purposes at home, the commission’s spokeswoman, Mina Andreeva, said that the body was “an honest broker, as always.” She said she could not “report any concrete proposals having being made that we have seen.”

Mr. Hammond, a senior member of the cabinet two months ago, told the BBC on Tuesday that Mr. Johnson’s claim of progress on the negotiations was “disingenuous.”

To add to the turmoil and confusion, the opposition Labour Party suggested it might thwart Mr. Johnson’s attempt to push for a general election, should it come to that. Under a 2011 law, the prime minister needs a two-thirds majority to secure a snap election, although it is possible that the government might try to legislate to set that provision aside, a move that would mean it needs only a simple majority.

There is so little trust in British politics that Mr. Johnson’s opponents fear that he might request an election for Oct. 14 but then switch the date until after Oct. 31 as part of a move to lock in a no-deal withdrawal.

Labour has said that its priority is to stop Britain leaving the European Union without a deal, because of concerns about what such a departure would mean for the economy.

But Labour’s stance underscores that the backdrop to everything in British politics is a sense that a general election is looming, with key players maneuvering for the most advantageous moment.”

Heavy times in the U.K!

Tony

Doug McMillon, Walmart’s Chief Executive, left, and Rob Walton, Retired Chairman of the Walmart Board

Dear Commons Community,

Walmart, the largest arms retailer,  announced yesterday several new gun-control policies including saying it would stop selling ammunition that can be used in military-style assault rifles, would discourage its customers from openly carrying guns in its stores and would call on Congress to increase background checks and consider a new assault rifle ban. It would also discontinue handgun sales in Alaska, the only state where it sells these guns.

Walmart will stop selling short-barrel rifle ammunition such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber after clearing current stock. While this type of ammunition is commonly used in some hunting rifles, they are also used in large capacity clips on military-style weapons, the company said.  As reported by Reuters.

“The retailer, which has been under pressure to change its policies on gun sales, said it took the action following the death of 31 people in mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, one of which took place in a Walmart store.

Just last month, Walmart asked employees at its U.S. stores to take down signs and playable demos of violent video games, but made no changes to its policy on selling firearms.

“As a company, we experienced two horrific events in one week, and we will never be the same,” Chief Executive Officer Doug McMillon said in a letter to Walmart’s associates.

The retailer, however, said it would continue to cater to hunting and sport shooting enthusiasts, selling long barrel deer rifles and shotguns.

The company added that its latest actions would reduce its market share of ammunition from around 20% to a range of about 6% to 9%.

“We believe it will likely drift toward the lower end of that range, over time, given the combination of these changes,” McMillon said.”

Prominent gun control activists such as former Representative Gabrielle Giffords congratulated Mr. McMillon.

“Walmart’s action is another sign that the private sector has had enough with America’s gun violence crisis,” she said in a statement. “Addressing a problem this big requires leaders from across American society to be part of the solution. Walmart’s announcement should be applauded by all Americans, and I’m hopeful it will inspire elected leaders to follow in their footsteps.”

Hopefully the inspiration isn’t confined to politicians — or to Mr. McMillon. Which C.E.O. will be next?

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

I just had a new article published in the Online Learning Journal (OLJ) yesterday entitled, Artificial intelligence and the academy’s loss of purpose.   

This article speculates on the future of higher education as online technology, specifically adaptive learning and analytics as infused by artificial intelligence software, develops and matures. Online and adaptive learning have already advanced within the academy, but the most significant changes are yet to come. These evolving technologies have the potential to change the traditional roles in our colleges and universities to the point that many educators will reconsider their purposes as teachers, researchers and administrators.

If you are interested in online technology and the future of our colleges and universities, you may find this article a provocative read.

It is available for download at the Online Learning Journal (OLJ) at:  https://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/2023

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Washington Post columnist, E.J. Dionne Jr. has a piece today calling on his readers to remember the legacy of Labor Day.  While Labor Day officially became a federal holiday in 1894, Dionne focuses on the Treaty of Detroit, a labor contract agreed to by General Motors and the United Auto Workers in 1950.  He comments  that it “fundamentally altered the social contract in the United States” and quotes a Fortune Magazine article concluding that it “made the worker to an amazing degree a middle class member of a middle class society.”  Sadly we live in a much different time.  Below is Dionne’s entire column.

Enjoy your time with family and friends today!

Tony

———————————————————————

Remembering the Legacy of Labor Day

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

It was known as the Treaty of Detroit, but it did not end a shooting war. In 1950, Walter Reuther, the legendary leader of the United Auto Workers union, and Charlie Wilson, the CEO of General Motors, agreed to a historic labor contract that bought the automaker five years of labor peace.

After more than a decade of sometimes violent conflict and short-term contracts, Wilson wanted stability so he could expand his company. The result was a trendsetting deal that included not only substantial wage increases but also generous pension and health-care coverage. The Post labeled it “a great event in industrial history.”

Those were the days. At the peak of its power at the end of World War II, the American labor movement — which had cooperated closely with management and government to create democracy’s great arsenal — fundamentally altered the social contract in the United States. Fortune magazine said the Treaty of Detroit “made the worker to an amazing degree a middle class member of a middle class society.”

The story of the Reuther-Wilson pact is told in Steven Greenhouse’s “Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of American Labor,” an excellent account of how important strong unions were in moving our nation “toward greater economic and social justice,” and how their decline has increased “inequality and unfairness.”

Greenhouse, who spent 19 years covering labor and workplace issues for the New York Times, is unabashedly pro-labor without ignoring the union movement’s warts and shortcomings. His essential point is that, while we can talk all we want about how technological change and the decline of manufacturing work have undercut the living standards of many Americans, the truth is that better wages and benefits are almost always the product of bargaining power. Building that power was the work of tough-minded idealists such as Reuther, backed by New Deal-era labor laws rooted in an understanding that mass purchasing power underwritten by decent wages was good for the overall economy.

In the years since the Treaty of Detroit, the negotiating leverage of American workers has been vastly diminished. In the absence of powerful unions, we have yet to find an alternative and sustainable way of representing employees’ interests.

We have also lost the sense of solidarity that originally inspired Labor Day. Greenhouse recounts a conversation with his then-86-year-old mother when he was in Wisconsin covering Republican then-Gov. Scott Walker’s offensive to gut collective bargaining and cut public employee benefits.

“When I was growing up,” she told him, “people used to say, ‘Look at the good wages and benefits that people in a union have. I want to join a union.’ Now, people say, ‘Look at the good wages and benefits that union members have. They’re getting more than I get. That’s not fair. Let’s take away some of what they have.’ ”

How did we get to this point? In another must-read book for our moment, “The Economists’ Hour: False Prophets, Free Markets, and the Fracture of Society,” Binyamin Appelbaum argues that the growing role of professional economists since the late 1960s fundamentally altered popular understandings about how the world should work.

We have moved, Appelbaum argues, from a healthy respect for what markets can accomplish in their proper sphere to a “single-minded embrace of markets” that “has come at the expense of economic equality, of the health of liberal democracy, and of future generations.”

“In the pursuit of efficiency,” Appelbaum writes, “policy makers subsumed the interests of Americans as producers to the interests of Americans as consumers, trading well-paid jobs for low cost electronics.”

Appelbaum, who writes about economics and business for the New York Times editorial page, values what economists do, but the ones he respects most are those who understand the limits of a purely material understanding of what matters. He quotes the brilliant Amartya Sen: “Economic growth cannot sensibly be treated as an end in itself. Development has to be more concerned with enhancing the lives we lead and the freedoms we enjoy.”

The financial crisis of 2008, as Appelbaum suggests, will be seen historically as dropping the curtain on a period of market supremacy and radical individualism. The transition to the next act is not pretty. The rise of right-wing nationalism is part of the reaction against the earlier era’s mistakes. The times call for democratic visionaries of Reuther’s stripe who understand that free societies — and, yes, thriving economies — depend on sharing the fruits of our productivity and rebuilding a solidarity that can overcome our fractiousness.

Dear Commons Community,

A new paradigm evolved yesterday in American mass murder wherein an individual is stopped at a traffic light and then goes on a spree of shooting random people while driving a car.  It wasn’t in a school.  It wasn’t in a church.  It wasn’t in a store.  It wasn’t at a concert.  The murderer just drove up and down roads shooting at cars, people, stores and anything else he saw.  The result is another community devasted by a man with a gun.   As reported in the New York Times:

“Five people were killed and at least 21 others [These figures have been upped to seven people killed and 22 injured.] were injured in a brazen daylight drive-by mass shooting in the West Texas cities of Midland and Odessa on Saturday, as a gunman drove on the highways and streets opening fire on residents, motorists, and shoppers, the authorities said.

The attack at the start of Labor Day weekend terrified sister cities 20 miles apart with a combined population of 263,000, less than a month after gunmen killed 31 people in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio, in back-to-back massacres that stunned the nation and revived the debate in Washington over gun control.

The chief of the Odessa Police Department, Michael Gerke, said at a news conference on Saturday that the attack had begun after a traffic stop. The gunman fled the police and hijacked a postal truck, firing at civilians as he made his way into Odessa.

Three law enforcement officers and a toddler were among those wounded, before the police shot and killed the gunman, a white man in his mid-30s, near a movie theater on the outskirts of Odessa. The police said the gunman’s motive was not immediately clear.

It was, in some ways, a sadly familiar scene of panic in America, as people suddenly ducked for cover or fled businesses as gunshots rang out. In Texas alone since 2017, there have been four mass shootings including the one Saturday. And yet in other ways it was unique, as the panic typically concentrated in one school or store spread for miles across the Texas flatlands amid early reports that there were multiple gunmen.

Police officers and state troopers warded drivers off the highways as businesses across the two cities shut their doors. Universities went on lockdown. A television station in Odessa evacuated its studio while its reporters were covering the breaking news live on the air.”

At the time of this posting, the identity of the shooter and his motive was not made public.”

There is one thing common to all the mass killings in the country, the killers had easy access to guns.

Tony

NOTE:  After this posting, the killer was identified as Seth Ator.  No motive has been established.