AR-15s, Senate babies and Facebook envy

Off to the races

Gov. Rick Scott officially jumping into the U.S. Senate race offers a post-Parkland test for Florida’s true feelings about gun control.

Scott, who has opposed banning assault weapons, is running against Sen. Bill Nelson, who supports banning assault weapons.

An AR-15 — like the one used to kill 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School — might as well be on the ballot right along with Scott and Nelson.

Yes a host of other issues, from taxes to health care, will play into this race that could also decide control of the Senate.

But for many voters — the ones the National Rifle Association delivers election after election — the race comes down to one issue.

Who will let them shoot whatever kind of guns they want to shoot and who dares suggest a limit on their firepower?

For them, the choice is easy. They put protecting guns at the top of the to-do list every election season.

Now the question is, will all those other Floridians declaring “never again” after Parkland vote like they really mean it?

It took the public’s call for action after the Parkland shooting to shame Scott and the Florida Legislature into passing the state’s first new gun restrictions in decades.

Scott and legislators raised the minimum age to buy rifles to 21, banned the sale of bump stocks and extended the wait-of ing period to buy firearms to three days. They empowered the courts to take guns from people who pose a potential risk.

But when it came to the assault weapons ban sought by Parkland’s survivors-turned-activists, that was a fight with the NRA that Scott wasn’t willing to risk.

For most of Scott’s seven years in office, his opposition to gun control earned rave reviews from the NRA.

Under Scott, Florida cities and counties were forced to scrub local gun-control measures off the books.

And for Scott, no death toll — from 26 killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut to 49 dead at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando — could shake his defense of the right to bear assault weapons.

It seems that 17 dead in Parkland didn’t change that for Scott.

In November, we will find out if it changed anything for Florida’s voters.

Babies on the floor?

Name calling, finger pointing, refusing to cooperate. Grownups in the U.S. Senate act like such babies, why not let an actual baby join them?

Sen. Tammy Duckworth on Monday became the first senator to give birth while in office. Now she is pushing to change Senate rules so she can bring her new daughter to the Senate floor with her.

Duckworth argues that the rule changes are needed so she can keep voting, while also caring for her baby.

Surely the “pro-life” Republicans who run the Senate — and aren’t shy about telling pregnant women what they can and can’t do with their bodies — won’t object to a newborn joining them … right?

Duckworth’s proposed rule change would allow any senator to bring a baby onto the Senate floor within the first year the child’s life.

“Whether you’re breast-feeding or not, or you’ve adopted or something, you should be able to bring that child on to the floor and continue to do your job,” Duckworth told CNN.

Duckworth’s proposal is aimed at more than just changing rules written by those who never had to balance breastfeeding and casting Senate votes.

Fixing the Senate’s rules would send a larger message that all American workplaces must be more accommodating to working mothers.

Facebook insecurities

Why didn’t they want my Facebook data?

After the initial relief of learning I wasn’t part of the Facebook privacy breach, I’m ashamed to admit also feeling a little bit left out.

It was like having a Facebook friend request rejected.

But this time, it was as if part of the president’s election team said I wasn’t worth the time. It was like all of Russia shunning me on social media.

What does a guy have to do to earn the attention of election-meddling data swipers?

That mindset is the real social media danger Congress should have focused on during its two days of grilling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Social media’s power to breed insecurity in all of us poses an even greater risk to our well-being than raids on our Facebook data.

Facebook envy can be more destructive than data mining.

Just as Facebook provides an online connection for “friends,” it also delivers daily highlights of lives that can seem better than ours.

We see long-lost classmates post pictures of vacation locales we can’t afford to visit. We see ex-trueloves wish their new loves another happy anniversary. Facebook’s uncaring algorithm even informs us when work rivals update their job status with the promotion we wanted.

Amplify that with what we see on Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter and our app feeds can turn into a you’re-not-goodenough avalanche.

Congress should have told Zuckerberg it’s all his fault. His creation — built to feed on us caring about the posts, likes and shares of others — spread from his Harvard dorm room to take over the world. At least the parts of the world with good WiFi.

Yes, Congress was right to shake its finger at Zuckerberg for failing to include more Facebook safeguards for our personal data.

And of course, Facebook users like me shouldn’t let it have such sway over how we feel about ourselves — or who we choose on Election Day.

We shouldn’t worry if our latest post fails to generate dozens of smiley face emojis. We shouldn’t care if we lose Facebook “friends” after sharing our feelings about gun control, the president or even our favorite Disney princess.

Unfortunately, I’m not yet at that level of social media enlightenment.

So to avoid getting left out of the next privacy breach, I’m adding a little more Red State to my Facebook data. I’m friending anyone whose feed demands building a wall, saving the Second Amendment or releasing David Hogg’s birth certificate.

Are you wearing a red hat right now? Friend me. Like me. Please?!