Gun Myth #7

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.

Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.

• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.

• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

On Siglitz: Part Six

The sixth chapter of Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality is called, "1984 is Upon Us." In this section, Stiglitz details how many of the wealthy in this country try to frame the discussion in a way that benefits their interests, realizing that, in democracy, they cannot simply impose their rules on others. He posits that, in one way or another, they have to "co-opt" the rest of society to advance their agenda. They do this using their own, more subtle version of "newspeak."

An example of this can be seen in how our society responds to the word "socialism."

In American parlance, "socialism" is akin to communism , and communism is the ideology we battled for sixty years, triumphing only in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Hence labeling anything as socialism is the kiss of death. Medicare is a single payer system-the government pays the bill, but the individual gets to choose the provider. Most of the elderly love Medicare. But many are convinced that government can't provide services efficiently that they believe that Medicare must be private.

Hence the famous "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" line. The irony here, aside from the obvious, is just how much socialism there is in this country that hasn't delivered the promised tyranny we now daily from the Right and, in fact, has been enormously beneficial to our country. Even famed "unbridled capitalist" Adam Smith wrote, in The Wealth of Nations, that the sovereign has

The duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain; because the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, though it may frequently do much more than repay it to a greater society.

Here, Smith champions elements of socialism and states that they are essential to any successful society. They have certainly worked out very well for us as we are the greatest nation this world has ever seen.

So, the dichotomy here is very frustrating given how the framing of American parlance operates. When we start discussing economics and the high level of inequality we have in this country, we see it again. As Stiglitz notes

Mainstream economics assumes that individuals have well defined preferences and fully rational expectations and perceptions. Individuals know what they want. But in this respect, traditional economics is wrong. If it were true, there would be little need for advertising. Corporations use recent advances in psychology and economics that extend our understanding and preferences and beliefs can be shaped to induce people to buy their products. 

Exactly right. One of the major problems I have with the whole "people act in their own enlightened self interest" meme is that..well...people don't. They are often foolish, emotionally unintelligent, and behave poorly, even engaging in criminal activity. That's why "leaving it all up to the free market to sort out" doesn't work given that the powerful people who run many of these markets can be characterized as all the above.

More importantly, people who don't really know what they want and aren't rational can be easily manipulated. Because of this simple fact, Stiglitz notes that most Americans have no earthly idea how much inequality there is in this country. They believe there is less economic inequality than there is, they underestimate its adverse economic effects, and they overestimate the costs of taking action.

In a recent study respondents on average thought that the top fifth of the population had just short of 60 percent of the wealth, when in truth that group holds approximately 85 percent of the wealth. Interestingly, respondents described an ideal wealth distribution as one in which the top 20 percent hold just over 30 percent of the wealth. Americans recognize that some inequality is inevitable, and perhaps even desirable if one is to provide incentives; but the level of inequality in American society is well beyond that level.

I've brought up this study before but I think it should be revisited given the context of Stiglitz's argument. People don't have any idea just how much the wealthy have in this country. Of course, any discussion about it results in Orwellian screeches and howls from the Right about "Marxism" and "class warfare." Yet this sort of wealth concentration at the top is exactly where liberal economic theory was born. Men like Adam Smith and Samuel Stiles bemoaned the hoarding of wealth by the aristocracy through mercantilism and other protectionist practices. In many ways, Stiglitz has argued the same thing in previous chapters by pointing out the endless cycle of rent seeking, incompetent government action and government inaction. Regardless of the times or the mechanism, the wealthy are continuing to do what they always do: consolidate power.

Now, this is usually the point when people ask, "how much inequality is bad and how much is good?" Well, before we do that, we have to get back to the perception problem.

Not only do Americans misperceive the level of inequality; they underestimate the changes that have been going on. Only 42 percent of Americans believe that inequality has increased in the past ten years, when in fact the increase has been tectonic. Misperceptions are evident, too, in views about social mobility. Several studies (here, here, and here) confirmed that perceptions of social mobility are overly optimistic.

So, we need to solve the problem of awareness first before we can detail any sort of serious metric regarding acceptable or unacceptable levels of inequality. That means we have to combat the 1984ish messaging we see every day from the 1 percent.

After we've done that, the best place to start is the most commonly used measure of inequality: the Gini-coefficient. There is also the Theil index, which has more sub group and sub region development, the Decile dispersion ratio, and the Share of income/consumption of the poorest x%. All of these metrics should be used in tandem for a more accurate analysis.

In taking a look at where we are today, it's obvious that we really do have some very serious perception problems.

Bear in mind, these figures are only through 2010, the last time the Census Bureau did their estimate. Two years ago we were at 46.9 which means we are very close to that .5 tipping point where we quite literally have a country of haves and have-nots. The study from above shows that Americans want our country to be more like Sweden. That's not surprising, given that there Gini coefficient is .23, nearly half of what our's is today.

Stiglitz has much more to say in this chapter regarding perceptions in terms of market behavior, fairness, and a whole host of other issues like the public view on estate taxes and bank recapitalization. It's quite a bit of information to absorb so I chose to focus on the more general theme of the chapter-the perception of inequality. For the finer points, as always, I recommend reading the book and the sources contained at the end of each section, some of which I have listed here.

So, the facts show that it's a more subtle version of newspeak, isn't it? It's not quite war is peace (although the Right's view on guns is certainly close to that) but it's still just as contradictory. The people of this country need to know just how much inequality there is and, as Stiglitz noted in previous chapters, the detrimental effects it is inflicting on our country.

Yay, I'm Wrong!

It's always a pleasure to note when my cynicism about red states is proved to be wrong. Interestingly,  this video shows how many different ways I can be wrong!

And I love the guy who mentions judging and Jesus to the "bigot."

 

Gun Myth #6

Myth #6: Carrying a gun for self-defense makes you safer.

Fact-check: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.

• In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.

• A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Daily Reminder

I need to remind myself more often that patience is all that is required when it comes to nearly all of the issues I gripe about on here. In the final analysis, reason always prevails.

For example, Oklahoma rejected SB 758 just a few days ago. This bill would have required teachers to address "controversies" like evolution and climate change.

In Arizona, SB 1213 didn't even make it out of committee. This bill would have allowed teachers to present creationism as a "balance" to evolution as well as right wing blogs in juxtaposition with the National Academy of Science.

And in Indiana, the Hoosiers rejected extremism again (remember Richard Murdock?) when HB 1283 died in the House. Check out the language in this bill.

“To help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the strengths and weaknesses of conclusions and theories being presented in a course being taught by the teacher.”

Funny, because they do that anyway. That's why evolution is settled science.

Of course, even if any of these bills had passed, it's not likely that any teacher would have used this leeway. While some of my colleagues are conservative, they haven't completely abandoned reason. They might believe in smaller government or have a different view of the Constitution but none of them would ever teach creationism in a fucking science class.

It's comforting to know that even in these deep red states, people can still be rational.

Gun Myth #5

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer. 

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun. 

• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

 • 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm. 

• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

Good Question

Will Wall Street spurn GOP in 2014?

I say they will and it's because the Republican Party draws a good chunk of its numbers from people who are certifiably insane. When they money goes away, so will the crazy.

Gun Myth #4

Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.

Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0 

• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5

A Profile in Courage

The media tends to love talking about conservative activists like James O'Keefe, Bill Whittle or Erick Erickson  but they never really talk about the liberal ones like Zack Kopplin. Man, is he making life hell for the creationists down in Lousiana.

Encouraged by Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University — and a staunch critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute — Kopplin decided to write a letter that could be signed by Nobel laureate scientists in support of the repeal. To that end, he contacted Sir Harry Kroto, a British chemist who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley. Kroto helped him to draft the letter — one that has now been signed by 78 Nobel laureates.

I can't figure out why creationists and intelligent design folks aren't content with teaching their stuff in church. They can talk about how Jesus rode dinosaurs or whatever they want in there. Kopplin had gone after the voucher program as well.

School vouchers, he argues, unconstitutionally fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism. "These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private," he says. "But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules."

Those rules being a strict adherence to the scientific method. There is nothing scientific about creationism.

"Creationism is not science, and shouldn't be in a public school science class — it's that simple," he says. "Often though, creationists do not, or are unwilling, to recognize this." Science, he argues, is observable, naturalistic, testable, falsifiable, and expandable — everything that creationism is not. But what also drives Kopplin is the inherent danger he sees in teaching creationism. 

"Creationism confuses students about the nature of science," he says. "If students don't understand the scientific method, and are taught that creationism is science, they will not be prepared to do work in genuine fields, especially not the biological sciences. We are hurting the chances of our students having jobs in science, and making discoveries that will change the world."

"We don't just deny evolution," he says, "We are denying climate change and vaccines and other mainstream science. I'm calling for a Second Giant Leap to change the perception of science in the world."

In the final analysis, this is really the crux of the problem. In an age of globalization. we can't afford a bunch of religious nonsense to interfere with our economic growth and security. Young men like Zack Kopplin give me a lot of hope that intelligence is alive and well in young people in the deep south and the time to put this assinine, anti science garbage behind us is yesterday.

Honestly, I thought we already did that in the Age of Enlightenment but I guess we still have a few stragglers:)

Gun Myth #3

Myth #3: An armed society is a polite society. 

Fact-check: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.

 • Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without. 

• In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

How Long?

Man, here is some really fucked up paranoid shit... a United Nations-driven conspiracy to harness private property through rezoning and planned-use ordinances passed by local governments.

I wonder how long it will be before this now becomes mainstream on the Right, if it isn't already.

 

Gun Myth #2

Continuing on with the gun myths...

Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people. Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements.

Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Estimated Number of Guns Owned

Robbing Peter to Teach Paul

There's a kid, call him Thomas, that costs a Minnesota school district $100,000 a year to educate. That's twice what it costs to go to Harvard. This kid is so violent that he has to be driven to school in his own personal bus, attended by an aide during the ride, and then he has to tutored by a teacher one-on-one, often assisted by another aide. And he needs a special classroom, all to himself, with a swing in it because he goes nuts if things are too still.

Special ed kids cost the states a ton of money. Because the laws mandate kids get the education they deserve, but don't give the schools enough funding to provide it, that means the money to teach special ed kids reduces the amount of money for other kids. That means schools have to fire tutors for kids who are less disabled but could do well with instruction in small groups, who would then have much higher chances of making it than the $100K kid. It also means increased class sizes for regular kids, perhaps making it less likely that they'll get into the college of their choice. That means librarians have to be fired. That means, frankly, that the majority of kids will suffer so that a tiny minority of kids like Thomas will a receive an education that will almost certainly fail to prepare them for anything resembling a normal and productive life.

Then there are charter schools, the darlings of the right. They often have special purposes (science, art, etc.) and receive special dispensations, so they often expel kids that cause trouble or aren't performing. This has been a problem around the country, including Washington D.C. and Minneapolis. Many of these charter schools are a haven from the mayhem that rules in many public schools, which have become dumping grounds for problem kids. That's great for the kids who can get into the charters. But again, it benefits a few kids at the expense of the majority.

It's good that we try to give kids like Thomas who got a bum deal some help. But at some point we have to perform some triage. Special ed is crushing many school districts. Between 2001 and 2011, the number of Minnesota kids with autism spectrum disorders rose from 3,800 to 15,000. We're turning our schools into psychiatric care facilities, and it's just plain wrong.

Who's to blame? Liberals, for insisting that all kids get the education they need? Or conservatives, by making it harder for women to have access to birth control and abortion, and insisting that women on welfare get a job so they can't stay home and take care of their kids themselves? How much do the barriers conservatives erect for women's reproductive services increase the number of special-needs kids who suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, drug addiction at birth, and severe birth defects?

The right is constantly hacking away at school budgets, interfering with the way schools are run, insisting on standardized tests that make schools facing massive challenges waste even more time teaching kids to pass the stupid tests, and No Child Left Behind constantly threatening to shut down these schools because so many of the kids dumped there by the charters are too hungry or too poor or too afflicted by ADHD and autism to pass those standardized tests.

And now they want to divert billions of dollars from real education by turning all our schools into armed camps to protect them from a few crazed gunmen who have easy access to guns because the NRA doesn't want to be burdened by universal background checks or magazine size limits.

Forcing one crack-addicted woman to bear a child that she doesn't want can wind up costing the welfare and education system literally millions of dollars over the child's school-age years, and then, when that kid "graduates" he'll go on public assistance and cost millions of dollars more.

I'm not suggesting some eugenics program to clean up the human race. I'm suggesting that the right get off its high horse and stop interfering with people's most intimate decisions, let women have unimpeded access to birth control and abortion, stop trying to stifle the free speech rights of doctors advising their patients of all their options, and let women decide the most responsible course for themselves and their families.

We should make sure that all pregnant women have access to prenatal health care, especially in the early stages, to prevent birth defects and other developmental disorders that cost so much later in life. That means money for women's health clinics like Planned Parenthood, who lost funding in Oklahoma for nutritional programs for pregnant women because of politics.

We should have preschool programs that identify and help kids with problems early on, perhaps saving millions of dollars in the long run.

Once kids are born we all have a moral obligation to help them. It's crazy to force a woman to bear a child and then throw them out on the street when she can't support the kid she never wanted.

All too often the right's ideological social dogmas run completely counter to their ideological budgetary dogmas. If we got rid of all the dogma we'd earn a lot more karma.