I’m too young to remember the campus convulsions of the 1960s, but older friends who were there tell me that the growing campus protest movement against US support for Israel’s war in Palestine bears a striking resemblance to those days.

I happen to support that movement’s goals, at least to the extent of wanting to see the US government butt out of other people’s arguments.

I’m told by some “pro-Israel” friends that the student protesters  are all “anti-semites” and “supporters of Hamas,” and that if I support them I must also hate a particular ethnic group and support terrorism as a tactic.

But I don’t hate any ethnic groups, nor do I support Hamas any more than I support the Israeli Defence Forces.

I don’t doubt that SOME of the student protesters fall into the “hater” category, simply because the protests are a convenient bandwagon for “haters” to ride on. The next large political event I attend that doesn’t have a least a few weirdos hanging around, trying to grab a little unearned credibility by association, will be the first.

I just want a government that claims it works for me to stop handing out weapons and cash to other governments. Especially, though not only, to crybully regimes that constantly play the victim while also occupying territory outside their borders for decades on end, imposing apartheid regimes on the inhabitants of those occupied territories, murdering anyone who resists (along with many who don’t), etc.

To the extent that the kids on campus are seeking the same thing, they’re doing God’s work and have my full support.

Heck, I may even make myself a sign, see if I can find my old gas mask (just in case), and go hang out at the university campus nearest me this weekend if I’m feeling nostalgic (I’ve attended protests on and off for about 40 years, but not lately).

I consider the protests a positive sign to the extent that campus movements tend to be bellwethers.

The protests against the US war in Vietnam didn’t end the war, but they did presage wider popular opposition to the war, and 15 years or so of a general “well, let’s not do THAT again” temperament in America after it ended.

The campus movement to end US support for apartheid South Africa was also broadly successful and contributed to the fall of that vile regime.

Whatever your opinion of the Black Lives Matter movement, those protests (on and off campus) put cops on notice that they might finally be held accountable when they murder citizens.

These protests are probably the beginning of the end for a US foreign policy offering unconditional support to Israel. That’s a good thing.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On April 23, National Public Radio reports, the US Federal Trade Commission voted “to ban nearly all noncompetes, employment agreements that typically prevent workers from joining competing businesses or launching ones of their own.” The ban is largely retroactive, but does exclude existing agreements for the high-salary “senior executives” most people associate with the idea of noncompete agreements.

It’s a terrible idea, and not just because it’s likely unconstitutional in at least two ways (the Constitution forbids ex post facto legislation and only allows the federal government to control interstate, not local, commerce).

Yes, we’ve all heard the horror stories about low-wage retail workers being told they can’t leave one coffee shop or restaurant to draw espresso shots or make sandwiches for another. In that context, noncompete clauses look less like a way to keep key leadership personnel away from competitors, and more like a tool that lets vengeful, authoritarian managers/owners continue abusing former employees who don’t like working for vengeful, authoritarian managers/owners.

But the existence of vengeful, authoritarian managers/owners is a terrible reason for letting a vengeful, authoritarian Federal Trade Commission seize even more control over how American businesses operate.

If you have a problem with a prospective employer’s demand that you accept a noncompete clause, there’s a simple solution: Don’t accept the job.

Yes, that might make it harder for you to find the job you want or even need.

MANY things can make it harder for you to find the job you want or even need.

Maybe the workplace is 30 miles from your home, and you don’t own a car, and can’t afford one. Should the FTC mandate that all employers buy cars for all their employees? If you answer “yes” to that one, we’re simply not on the same political page and you can probably give up on this column now.

The “problem” of noncompete clauses for low-wage workers is in the process of “solving” itself right now. Unemployment rates are low — it’s a worker’s, not an employer’s, market. When vengeful, authoritarian managers/owners end up working double shifts because nobody wants to hire on, they’ll tone down the vengeful authoritarianism or they’ll go out of business.

Standing up for yourself instead of settling for whatever you’re offered may be hard, but it’s a better solution than turning more control of the American economy over to Lina Khan and Company. Your interests and theirs are not the same.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On April 15, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was sentenced to 18 months in prison for involuntary manslaughter over her role in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of Rust, a movie production for which Gutierrez-Reed served as an armorer. Actor Alec Baldwin faces trial in July, on the same charge and regarding the same incident.

Most news stories describe the incident, in which Baldwin fired a gun that was supposed to be loaded with blanks but which turned out to have live rounds in the chamber, as an “accidental shooting.”

On any given day, my news feeds show me other stories of so-called “accidental shootings,” usually involving children and guns which are mishandled by, or left unattended by, their adult owners.

The phrase “accidental shooting” is usually a contradiction in terms. There are, in the normal course of events, only two kinds of shootings: Intentional and negligent.

An intentional shooting occurs when a competent individual intentionally loads, points, and fires a properly functioning firearm.

A negligent shooting occurs when a competent individual fails to do his or her job. That job includes:

1. Knowing what’s in a firearm’s chamber or magazine before pointing it.
2. Taking care not to point a firearm at anything the shooter doesn’t want to hit.
3. Taking care to not pull the trigger if there’s anything or anyone other than the intended target in front of the firearm.
4. Taking care to secure the firearm such that people who shouldn’t have access to it DON’T have access to it.

Truly “accidental” shootings are incredibly rare. Under anything like normal conditions, guns can’t load themselves and fire themselves without human intervention.

In the Rust incident, it was Gutierrez-Reed’s responsibility to ensure that the weapon was not loaded with live rounds before it got onto the set and into Baldwin’s hands.

It was also Baldwin’s responsibility to ensure that the weapon was not loaded with live rounds before he pointed it at people, and especially before he pulled the trigger.

Baldwin claims he DIDN’T pull the trigger, implying a defective weapon that Gutierrez-Reed, as armorer, shouldn’t have missed. According to ABC News, an FBI analysis concluded that it couldn’t have fired without the trigger being pulled.

The Rust shooting was no “accident.” Like most so-called “accidental shootings,” it was the end result of negligence by one or more people.

Gun ownership is your right. Gun safety is your responsibility. Take both seriously.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY