Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Mass shooting. Inaction. Repeat.

Opinion

Protest against gun violence

People take part in a Moms Demand Action Gun Violence Rally on June 8.

Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Weichlein is the CEO of FMC: The Former Members of Congress Association.

As we are dealing yet again with the horror of our children falling victim to a mass murderer, let’s keep our focus squarely on what unites us, because within hours of the news breaking, the political and media voices that benefit from keeping us divided were already out in full force.

Regardless of political persuasion, whether we are gun owners, who we voted for in the last presidential election, and what our ZIP code is – we all agree that America is in a gut-wrenching and heartbreaking pattern of school shootings, followed by outrage, followed by inaction. There isn’t one rational American who didn’t react to the news from Uvalde, Texas, with despair, followed by anger that yet again a madman could spread carnage and end young lives in an instant. These days we are not united by much but, surely, we are united by anguish over innocent lives lost and fear for our own children and grandchildren. How is common grief not enough for a call to action and a demand of Congress to overcome differences in search for solutions?


There’s no party label when it comes to gut-wrenching sorrow over 19 murdered fourth graders and two heroic teachers trying to shield them. Parents and grandparents, regardless of where they are politically, hugged their little ones tighter upon hearing the dreadful news. Republicans and Democrats alike expressed their grief and anger that yet another madman ripped a community apart. But almost as tragically, that’s where the common ground ends. Like so many other aspects of life in today’s America, we’re letting the extremists dictate policy and we’re allowing those who benefit from keeping us divided control the narrative. How, after Newtown and Parkland and now Uvalde, have we not moved even an inch closer to coming together, across the political aisle, and committed ourselves to finding compromise and solutions that most assuredly will save innocent lives in the future? Because fear-mongering voices from both extremes of the political spectrum won’t let the rest of us unite behind common sense answers.

The numbers vary depending on when polls are conducted, but a majority of Americans support making changes to our gun laws. Yes, stark differences between the parties appear immediately when pollsters narrow their questions to specific initiatives such as banning assault weapons or closing certain loopholes but, overall, the majority of Americans want to at least try to break this cycle of mayhem and madness. A 2021 Pew Research Center poll found broad support when it comes to red flag measures and background checks, for example. And that number includes a large percentage of gun owners and NRA members.

That support in a poll, however, does not translate into empowering Congress to actually act. Instead of turning grief into honest and productive back-and-forth on a crisis that literally terrorizes parents and children, we have settled on a tragically predictable chain of events: mass shooting ... thoughts and prayers ... politicizing the dialogue and demonizing your political opponent ... inaction ... repeat. And the pundits on the far right and the far left punish any member of Congress who is willing to give an inch in order to take a mile. You get punished by whatever cable news channel your constituents tune into. And, more importantly, you get punished by a candidate further to your left or to your right during the next primary, where traditionally only the more radical voters bother to show up, thus giving us more rigidly doctrine-adhering candidates heading into a general election for gerrymandered districts.

We adhere to the all-or-nothing crowd on either the left or the right, who view even the beginning of seeking compromise as a betrayal of dogma. As little children were still fighting for their lives in Texas hospitals, politicians on both sides of the aisle were already feeding their Twitter following the same old talking points, with only the dates and location needing to be updated.

Is there really no middle ground between protecting Second Amendment rights and preventing someone too young or too unstable from purchasing one or more assault weapons? Can we not strengthen our system of background checks while still licensing responsible and law-abiding gun owners? Is it really impossible to put a system in place that allows enough time for red flags to be thoroughly investigated and processed? Can’t we agree that this is not a crisis of either mental health or the vast availability of mass casualty weapons, but rather a crisis of the two combined?

The question is yet again: Will this be the moment that we finally come together as a society and demand better from our elected officials on both sides of the aisle? Will this be the moment when politics is defined by courage, leadership, and a commitment to truly work toward a solution rather than offend distraught parents again and again with the usual playbook of distraction and meaningless talking points? Tragically, I don’t think it is. It wasn’t after Newtown. It wasn’t after Parkland.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Mass shooting ... thoughts and prayers ... politicizing the dialogue and demonizing your political opponent ... inaction ... Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Read More

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less