Monday, February 10, 2014
Sunday, February 09, 2014
Time, Frozen
Time is like a river, the old saying goes. Always changing, yet ever the same. Summer is like the river; an eternal now, always the same, one day indistinguishable from the next.
But come winter, time freezes. We can see in four dimensions. Last night a deer walked through the woods. It lay down here and slept with several of its fellows. Sometime around dawn a coyote bounded through the snow, chasing a rabbit. A squirrel climbed down this tree, ran across the driveway and went up that tree. Here, a skier fell down. There, a man walked his dog. He was an inconsiderate lout, based on what he left behind.
Winter gives us second sight and superhuman powers of locomotion: we can see through thick forests and find animal trails that are completely hidden in the summer. Mere mortals become expert trackers. We can stroll through marshy bogs and dense thickets with nary a scratch; winter has stripped the leaves away, snow has crushed the brambles, our coats are armor against the thorns. But lakes cloud our X-ray vision: they are still mysterious broad snowy expanses, seemingly solid, but slush and thin ice could be lurking out there anywhere.
On the river, time is frozen on the surface. Our vision still extends into the past. As we walk we can look back to see exactly where we've been. But beneath the snow and ice time is still flowing forward, always beyond our sight.
Winter gives us time to remember, to look back, and to look forward. Snow is a physical manifestation of memory. Looking back at their tracks in the snow, two men walking along a river must agree on where they have been.
But we as a nation have come to a juncture where those same two men, if they are from opposing political parties, will look back at the last few years and completely disagree on the basic facts of everything that has happened.
If we cannot agree on where we've been, how can we possibly hope to find a way forward?
But come winter, time freezes. We can see in four dimensions. Last night a deer walked through the woods. It lay down here and slept with several of its fellows. Sometime around dawn a coyote bounded through the snow, chasing a rabbit. A squirrel climbed down this tree, ran across the driveway and went up that tree. Here, a skier fell down. There, a man walked his dog. He was an inconsiderate lout, based on what he left behind.
Winter gives us second sight and superhuman powers of locomotion: we can see through thick forests and find animal trails that are completely hidden in the summer. Mere mortals become expert trackers. We can stroll through marshy bogs and dense thickets with nary a scratch; winter has stripped the leaves away, snow has crushed the brambles, our coats are armor against the thorns. But lakes cloud our X-ray vision: they are still mysterious broad snowy expanses, seemingly solid, but slush and thin ice could be lurking out there anywhere.
On the river, time is frozen on the surface. Our vision still extends into the past. As we walk we can look back to see exactly where we've been. But beneath the snow and ice time is still flowing forward, always beyond our sight.
Winter gives us time to remember, to look back, and to look forward. Snow is a physical manifestation of memory. Looking back at their tracks in the snow, two men walking along a river must agree on where they have been.
But we as a nation have come to a juncture where those same two men, if they are from opposing political parties, will look back at the last few years and completely disagree on the basic facts of everything that has happened.
If we cannot agree on where we've been, how can we possibly hope to find a way forward?
Rand Paul: Texas Will Turn Blue
Rand Paul is clearly gearing up for a presidential run. Yesterday he said the following
What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change. That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.
Exactly right, Rand. Maybe now that you are saying it, some people will listen. Still, I wonder being more inclusive is going to be possible with people like this?
The core of the problem with the Right today is all they have is pettiness. That's what the majority of their base is all about. One need only look at my comments section for evidence of this. They are an angry, hateful, bitter and fearful people who have not matured past the adolescent level of development. I wonder if Rand Paul is the one to help them grow up. It sounds like he certainly is, in terms of immigration.
“We won’t all agree on it,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.” This is the exact kind of positivity the Right needs right now. Will more follow suit?
What I do believe is Texas is going to be a Democrat state within 10 years if we don’t change. That means we evolve, it doesn’t mean we give up on what we believe in, but it means we have to be a welcoming party.
Exactly right, Rand. Maybe now that you are saying it, some people will listen. Still, I wonder being more inclusive is going to be possible with people like this?
The core of the problem with the Right today is all they have is pettiness. That's what the majority of their base is all about. One need only look at my comments section for evidence of this. They are an angry, hateful, bitter and fearful people who have not matured past the adolescent level of development. I wonder if Rand Paul is the one to help them grow up. It sounds like he certainly is, in terms of immigration.
“We won’t all agree on it,” he said. “But I’ll tell you, what I will say and what I’ll continue to say, and it’s not an exact policy prescription … but if you want to work and you want a job and you want to be part of America, we’ll find a place for you.” This is the exact kind of positivity the Right needs right now. Will more follow suit?
Going To Hell!
Right around this time of the year we talk about Charles Darwin in class and every year, I get a few students that question Darwin and evolution. This year, I was asked by a young woman what I thought.
"Evolution is scientific fact but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. What if He began the process for evolution? I think there is room for everyone to be right here."
I realize that's kind of a cop out answer (everyone wins!) but being open minded is something I try to pass on to my students. After class was over, the young woman came up to me and said, "I didn't want to say anything in front of class but people that believe in evolution are going to hell." She stormed out of the room in all her seventh gradedness and left me pretty much speechless. What sort of parents does a person like this have to have to bring them to this point? Worse, this recent poll shows that Republican belief in evolution is actually falling. Seriously?!?
I guess in some ways I was hurt by what she said but as the next class rolled in, another young woman came up to me and asked me how old I was. I told her I was 47 next month. Her jaw dropped to the ground.
"Everyone thinks you are 35!"
Ah, the life of a teacher...
"Evolution is scientific fact but that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. What if He began the process for evolution? I think there is room for everyone to be right here."
I realize that's kind of a cop out answer (everyone wins!) but being open minded is something I try to pass on to my students. After class was over, the young woman came up to me and said, "I didn't want to say anything in front of class but people that believe in evolution are going to hell." She stormed out of the room in all her seventh gradedness and left me pretty much speechless. What sort of parents does a person like this have to have to bring them to this point? Worse, this recent poll shows that Republican belief in evolution is actually falling. Seriously?!?
I guess in some ways I was hurt by what she said but as the next class rolled in, another young woman came up to me and asked me how old I was. I told her I was 47 next month. Her jaw dropped to the ground.
"Everyone thinks you are 35!"
Ah, the life of a teacher...
Saturday, February 08, 2014
Your Logical Fallacy Is....
Recently, Kent from Minnesota wrote me.
Hey, Mark, what's the deal with these standard responses that your commenters always quote. Aren't those all ad hominem?
Yes, Kent they are. It should also be pointed out that ad hominem is part of the genetic fallacy family of logical fallacies. Kent also sent along this link which I found to be most helpful.
ad hominem:
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
And...
genetic:
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.
Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.
Click here for more illustrative examples of how the TSM commenters consistently use ad hom and genetic fallacy. As to why they do it, they are obviously insecure about their own arguments. This explains why they only criticize and never make any of their own, living in a constant state of terror that they might be "proved wrong."
What a sad and pathetic way to live your life...
Hey, Mark, what's the deal with these standard responses that your commenters always quote. Aren't those all ad hominem?
Yes, Kent they are. It should also be pointed out that ad hominem is part of the genetic fallacy family of logical fallacies. Kent also sent along this link which I found to be most helpful.
ad hominem:
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument. Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
And...
genetic:
You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.
Example: Accused on the 6 o'clock news of corruption and taking bribes, the senator said that we should all be very wary of the things we hear in the media, because we all know how very unreliable the media can be.
Click here for more illustrative examples of how the TSM commenters consistently use ad hom and genetic fallacy. As to why they do it, they are obviously insecure about their own arguments. This explains why they only criticize and never make any of their own, living in a constant state of terror that they might be "proved wrong."
What a sad and pathetic way to live your life...
Economic Growth Retreat
Great editorial in the Wall Street Journal yesterday about just how stupid the Republican Party is these days. After criticizing the president, they had this to say.
Conservatives and the GOP are as responsible for the failure on immigration. The populist wing of the party has talked itself into believing the zero-sum economics that immigrants steal jobs from U.S. citizens and reduce American living standards. Neither claim is true, but Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and the Heritage Foundation might as well share research staffs with the AFL-CIO.
So great is the House GOP fear of a talk-radio backlash that it won't even pass smaller bills that 75% of Republicans agree on. There will be nothing to codify the legal status of children of illegal immigrants who have lived here for decades. And no expanded green cards for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, a policy Mitt Romney endorsed. And no cleaning up the work-visa morass that has obliged U.S. farmers to hire illegals to harvest their crops.
The result of doing nothing will be a de facto "amnesty" in which 11 million illegal immigrants will continue to work using fake documents. Mr. Obama will look for ways to grant more of them legal status using executive power, and the GOP will look even more unwelcoming to minorities.
This last bit is all too revealing. Republicans actually do favor amnesty and are granting it every day by doing nothing. Further, they will end up making the president look even better than the fears of an immigration win would by forcing him to do all he can with his executive power.
The GOP has a real shot at taking back the Senate this year but without immigration reform, I don't see it happening. Louisiana, where Mary Landrieu is going to have a very tough race, Latinos make up over 5 percent of the population. The New Orleans metro area has the 3rd largest Honduran American population in the country. Arkansas also has a growing immigrant population and Mark Pryor is very beatable. Both of these states could turn on the Latino and Asian vote. Pass reform this year and you can say goodbye to both of these Democratic senators.
It seems that the fear is too great, though...
Conservatives and the GOP are as responsible for the failure on immigration. The populist wing of the party has talked itself into believing the zero-sum economics that immigrants steal jobs from U.S. citizens and reduce American living standards. Neither claim is true, but Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and the Heritage Foundation might as well share research staffs with the AFL-CIO.
So great is the House GOP fear of a talk-radio backlash that it won't even pass smaller bills that 75% of Republicans agree on. There will be nothing to codify the legal status of children of illegal immigrants who have lived here for decades. And no expanded green cards for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, a policy Mitt Romney endorsed. And no cleaning up the work-visa morass that has obliged U.S. farmers to hire illegals to harvest their crops.
The result of doing nothing will be a de facto "amnesty" in which 11 million illegal immigrants will continue to work using fake documents. Mr. Obama will look for ways to grant more of them legal status using executive power, and the GOP will look even more unwelcoming to minorities.
This last bit is all too revealing. Republicans actually do favor amnesty and are granting it every day by doing nothing. Further, they will end up making the president look even better than the fears of an immigration win would by forcing him to do all he can with his executive power.
The GOP has a real shot at taking back the Senate this year but without immigration reform, I don't see it happening. Louisiana, where Mary Landrieu is going to have a very tough race, Latinos make up over 5 percent of the population. The New Orleans metro area has the 3rd largest Honduran American population in the country. Arkansas also has a growing immigrant population and Mark Pryor is very beatable. Both of these states could turn on the Latino and Asian vote. Pass reform this year and you can say goodbye to both of these Democratic senators.
It seems that the fear is too great, though...
Friday, February 07, 2014
The Real Story Behind Global Cooling
Right wing commenters on the inter webs love to do their little adolescent dance about how global cooling was all the rage back in the days when they didn't have man tits and could still see their penises. But Doug Struck's recent piece in Scientific American (you know, that magazine for scientists that has been published for nearly 170 years with past contributions from people like Albert Einstein) details exactly how the Church of the Climate Denier has lied about this theory.
For example, the author of the global cooling piece...
"When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster," Gwynne recalled. "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking." And, revisionist lore aside, it was hardly a cover story. It was a one-page article on page 64. It was, Gwynne concedes, written with a bit of over-ventilated style that sometimes marked the magazine's prose: "There are ominous signs the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically..." the piece begins, and warns of a possible "dramatic decline in food production."
"Newsweek being Newsweek, we might have pushed the envelope a little bit more than I would have wanted," Gwynne offered.
Oh really? I'm most shocked that they would leave out these details...
For example, the author of the global cooling piece...
"When I wrote this story I did not see it as a blockbuster," Gwynne recalled. "It was just an intriguing piece about what a certain group in a certain niche of climatology was thinking." And, revisionist lore aside, it was hardly a cover story. It was a one-page article on page 64. It was, Gwynne concedes, written with a bit of over-ventilated style that sometimes marked the magazine's prose: "There are ominous signs the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically..." the piece begins, and warns of a possible "dramatic decline in food production."
"Newsweek being Newsweek, we might have pushed the envelope a little bit more than I would have wanted," Gwynne offered.
Oh really? I'm most shocked that they would leave out these details...
The Explanation
Herewith is the explanation that was asked for:
Corporate boards are populated by executives of other corporations. To set salaries for executives they form "compensation committees" consisting of themselves and their underlings. They conduct "salary surveys" of other corporations to determine what appropriate levels of compensation should be.
The boards then tell themselves that to attract (or maintain) marvelous corporate leadership, they need to set compensation a bit higher than the median. CEOs are constantly fired when the stock doesn't perform. But every time CEOs change seats in their game of corporate musical chairs, no chairs are removed: the salaries are just increased.
Thus, companies see an endless parade of CEOs whose salaries just keep getting higher and higher, while cycling the same old cast of characters through various executive suites and boardrooms across the country.
This inflationary spiral would be deemed completely unsupportable for maintaining a high quality labor force, but since each large corporation only has a few dozen execs, keeping the best talent around is "worth it."
The problem is that, when you add up the cost of all that compensation for the entire executive team, it starts to add to hundreds of millions to billions of dollars for the bigger companies. To pay for it, employees are laid off. Wall Street rewards the company by running up the stock price, lauding the CEO for his "tough management style" and "increasing productivity."
And the thing is, the average CEO is simply not worth what they're being paid. I've personally known CEOs, and they're just regular guys. The vast majority of them are not any smarter or faster than you or me. Most of them got where they are by being someone's son, someone's college roommate, or someone's drinking buddy. A rare few got there by being brilliant, innovative, hard-working. Almost all of them created nothing; most are just hired guns.
The only people who can make a claim that they deserve the big bucks are the real innovators, like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. But those guys are usually ill-suited to running a corporate bureaucracy; innovators and entrepreneurs are frustrated and stifled by the demands of shareholders and "Wall Street expectations."
The one thing most CEOs do have in abundance is the ability to project confidence. Corporate boards just love a CEO who projects confidence. But, just like all those confident and exciting boyfriends that so many women seem to fall in love with, only to find out they make absolutely terrible husbands, these supremely confident CEOs make absolutely terrible managers.
Corporate boards are populated by executives of other corporations. To set salaries for executives they form "compensation committees" consisting of themselves and their underlings. They conduct "salary surveys" of other corporations to determine what appropriate levels of compensation should be.
The boards then tell themselves that to attract (or maintain) marvelous corporate leadership, they need to set compensation a bit higher than the median. CEOs are constantly fired when the stock doesn't perform. But every time CEOs change seats in their game of corporate musical chairs, no chairs are removed: the salaries are just increased.
Thus, companies see an endless parade of CEOs whose salaries just keep getting higher and higher, while cycling the same old cast of characters through various executive suites and boardrooms across the country.
This inflationary spiral would be deemed completely unsupportable for maintaining a high quality labor force, but since each large corporation only has a few dozen execs, keeping the best talent around is "worth it."
The problem is that, when you add up the cost of all that compensation for the entire executive team, it starts to add to hundreds of millions to billions of dollars for the bigger companies. To pay for it, employees are laid off. Wall Street rewards the company by running up the stock price, lauding the CEO for his "tough management style" and "increasing productivity."
And the thing is, the average CEO is simply not worth what they're being paid. I've personally known CEOs, and they're just regular guys. The vast majority of them are not any smarter or faster than you or me. Most of them got where they are by being someone's son, someone's college roommate, or someone's drinking buddy. A rare few got there by being brilliant, innovative, hard-working. Almost all of them created nothing; most are just hired guns.
The only people who can make a claim that they deserve the big bucks are the real innovators, like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. But those guys are usually ill-suited to running a corporate bureaucracy; innovators and entrepreneurs are frustrated and stifled by the demands of shareholders and "Wall Street expectations."
The one thing most CEOs do have in abundance is the ability to project confidence. Corporate boards just love a CEO who projects confidence. But, just like all those confident and exciting boyfriends that so many women seem to fall in love with, only to find out they make absolutely terrible husbands, these supremely confident CEOs make absolutely terrible managers.
America Is Owed An Explanation
I think America needs an explanation as to why it's so difficult to raise the minimum wage yet incredibly easy to raise the pay of CEOs. Take a look at this recent piece in the LA times about CEO pay.
The great management guru Peter Drucker advised companies to stick to a ratio of about 20 to 1 between the pay of the CEO and that of the average worker. That's "the limit beyond which they cannot go if they don't want resentment and falling morale to hit their companies," Drucker wrote, according to a comment on the CEO pay rule submitted to the SEC by Rick Wartzman, executive director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University. Drucker's standard was in line with the ratios of the 1970s and early '80s, when he wrote those words. Today they seem positively quaint.
The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 2012 was about 350 to 1. That's down somewhat from where it was before the 2008 recession, but it would have to come down a great deal more to return to the non-obscene range. It's plain that this ratio typically has little to do with an executive's performance. The CEO-to-average-worker pay ratio of the 250 largest companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index ranges from 1,795 to 1 (J.C. Penney's Ron Johnson) to 173 to 1 (Agilent Technologies' William Sullivan), according to Bloomberg, which ran the data for 2012.
My wife used to work for Supervalu. They went through a few CEOs during her tenure there and it was always the same thing. Somebody would be brought in to "fix" the company. They would be paid millions of dollars. They would fail. And then they would leave with their millions, accomplishing nothing, with dozens (if not more) of average workers being laid off. The information in this link details how something similar happened with JC Penney. In so many ways, this is complete bullshit. If the CEO fails to do is or her job or makes it worse, they shouldn't get any amount of money. Take the money you are paying the CEOs and keep the average workers longer.
At least the SEC seems to be doing something about it.
I wholeheartedly support this new rule and think that the public (especially the investing public) needs to be aware of how these companies are doing business. Firms like Penney's don't seem to understand, as Drucker noted above, that the health of a company springs from its employees, not from the top. They aren't going to be successful unless they start paying better wages to everyone. Worse, the social cohesion in our society is fraying as a result. There are a lot of people hurting out there and seeing wealthy people bitch about poor people while they themselves are getting something for nothing is really FUBAR.
The Right likes to scream about "class warfare" but that's really code for desperately wanting to maintain aristocracy.
The great management guru Peter Drucker advised companies to stick to a ratio of about 20 to 1 between the pay of the CEO and that of the average worker. That's "the limit beyond which they cannot go if they don't want resentment and falling morale to hit their companies," Drucker wrote, according to a comment on the CEO pay rule submitted to the SEC by Rick Wartzman, executive director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University. Drucker's standard was in line with the ratios of the 1970s and early '80s, when he wrote those words. Today they seem positively quaint.
The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio in 2012 was about 350 to 1. That's down somewhat from where it was before the 2008 recession, but it would have to come down a great deal more to return to the non-obscene range. It's plain that this ratio typically has little to do with an executive's performance. The CEO-to-average-worker pay ratio of the 250 largest companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index ranges from 1,795 to 1 (J.C. Penney's Ron Johnson) to 173 to 1 (Agilent Technologies' William Sullivan), according to Bloomberg, which ran the data for 2012.
My wife used to work for Supervalu. They went through a few CEOs during her tenure there and it was always the same thing. Somebody would be brought in to "fix" the company. They would be paid millions of dollars. They would fail. And then they would leave with their millions, accomplishing nothing, with dozens (if not more) of average workers being laid off. The information in this link details how something similar happened with JC Penney. In so many ways, this is complete bullshit. If the CEO fails to do is or her job or makes it worse, they shouldn't get any amount of money. Take the money you are paying the CEOs and keep the average workers longer.
At least the SEC seems to be doing something about it.
I wholeheartedly support this new rule and think that the public (especially the investing public) needs to be aware of how these companies are doing business. Firms like Penney's don't seem to understand, as Drucker noted above, that the health of a company springs from its employees, not from the top. They aren't going to be successful unless they start paying better wages to everyone. Worse, the social cohesion in our society is fraying as a result. There are a lot of people hurting out there and seeing wealthy people bitch about poor people while they themselves are getting something for nothing is really FUBAR.
The Right likes to scream about "class warfare" but that's really code for desperately wanting to maintain aristocracy.
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Obama Mental Meltdown Syndrome (And The Lying It Produces)
I didn't get a chance to catch the Bill O'Reilly interview with the president but apparently Dana Millbank did.
O’Reilly devoted nearly 40 percent of his time to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, 30 percent to the Obamacare rollout and 20 percent to IRS targeting.
Wow. Talk about playin' the hits for the hardcore fans. Does he actually think that most people give a shit about any of these issues?
Of course, this is their modus operandi. We now live in a society where you are not only entitled to your opinion but your own facts as well. Case in point...
Anti-Obamacare, facts be damned
“Sick kids denied specialty care due to #Obamacare,” his Twitter feed proclaimed on Saturday, linking to a conservative blog post based on a TV news report out of Seattle. His Facebook page weighed in on the same story, calling it “heartbreaking” and vowing that House Republicans “will continue working to scrap this broken law.” There’s just one problem: The shocking claim — that the President’s health reforms resulted in sick children being denied care — was flat-out false. Which Boehner’s staff must have known, assuming they actually read the material they were helping to spread across the Internet.
The anger and the hatred towards the president is so irrational that the Right is simply lying now and they don't really care.
O’Reilly devoted nearly 40 percent of his time to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, 30 percent to the Obamacare rollout and 20 percent to IRS targeting.
Wow. Talk about playin' the hits for the hardcore fans. Does he actually think that most people give a shit about any of these issues?
Of course, this is their modus operandi. We now live in a society where you are not only entitled to your opinion but your own facts as well. Case in point...
Anti-Obamacare, facts be damned
“Sick kids denied specialty care due to #Obamacare,” his Twitter feed proclaimed on Saturday, linking to a conservative blog post based on a TV news report out of Seattle. His Facebook page weighed in on the same story, calling it “heartbreaking” and vowing that House Republicans “will continue working to scrap this broken law.” There’s just one problem: The shocking claim — that the President’s health reforms resulted in sick children being denied care — was flat-out false. Which Boehner’s staff must have known, assuming they actually read the material they were helping to spread across the Internet.
The anger and the hatred towards the president is so irrational that the Right is simply lying now and they don't really care.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
How The Gun Laws Will Change
Last Friday, Bill Maher and his guests wondered on Real Time what it would take for our nation's gun laws to change to suit our current challenges. If Sandy Hook didn't change things, what possibly could? I kept waiting for them to say it and they didn't. Here is how it will happen.
There will be a mass shooting at some sort of gun event in which powerful people in the gun lobby will be affected personally and very deeply. They will lose family members and friends and will realize their own hubris played a part in causing this. And that's when the gun cult will completely fall apart.
Americans don't move to change until they are affected by things in an overwhelmingly personal way. Sandy Hook and the other shootings we've had in the last year haven't done that because they were incidents that occurred outside of the sphere of the gun lobby. Once they start happening within that sphere, things will change and very rapidly indeed. One need only look at the issue of gay marriage, for example, to see how it will happen. Republicans were very anti gay marriage until family members, friends and donors started coming out. The sphere was no longer closed. Cigarettes were nearly identical, as I have mentioned previously. When the pro smoking crowd started losing people to cancer and heart disease, it all fell apart. The same thing will happen with climate change.
So, we will see incremental changes, with people like Gabby Giffords and her husband making small gains, for what seems like a far too long of a time and poof! Suddenly, it will all change and we will wonder why we didn't have enough common sense in the first place. I realize this isn't much solace for the citizens of our country that have to endure the pain of losing someone to gun violence because a minority of people in this country are mentally unbalanced. People should take some heart, though, that we have made progress in identifying the underlying causes of mass shootings (in particular, school shootings) and talking about them more frequently. Check this recent article out.
Bill Bond, who was principal at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., in 1997 when a 14-year-old freshman fired on a prayer group, killing three female students and wounding five, sees few differences in today's shootings. The one consistency, he said, is that the shooters are males confronting hopelessness. "You see troubled young men who are desperate and they strike out and they don't see that they have any hope," Bond said.
We can give the young men in our community hope right now. We don't need altered gun laws to do this. In addition, we can make sure that these troubled young men don't have access to firearms. If we can pursue this vigor and care, we will reduce the number of school and mass shootings in this country. This could be the beginning of a very necessary sea change in this country in which we wake up to the fact that American culture has some very deep flaws in terms of gun competency.
There will be a mass shooting at some sort of gun event in which powerful people in the gun lobby will be affected personally and very deeply. They will lose family members and friends and will realize their own hubris played a part in causing this. And that's when the gun cult will completely fall apart.
Americans don't move to change until they are affected by things in an overwhelmingly personal way. Sandy Hook and the other shootings we've had in the last year haven't done that because they were incidents that occurred outside of the sphere of the gun lobby. Once they start happening within that sphere, things will change and very rapidly indeed. One need only look at the issue of gay marriage, for example, to see how it will happen. Republicans were very anti gay marriage until family members, friends and donors started coming out. The sphere was no longer closed. Cigarettes were nearly identical, as I have mentioned previously. When the pro smoking crowd started losing people to cancer and heart disease, it all fell apart. The same thing will happen with climate change.
So, we will see incremental changes, with people like Gabby Giffords and her husband making small gains, for what seems like a far too long of a time and poof! Suddenly, it will all change and we will wonder why we didn't have enough common sense in the first place. I realize this isn't much solace for the citizens of our country that have to endure the pain of losing someone to gun violence because a minority of people in this country are mentally unbalanced. People should take some heart, though, that we have made progress in identifying the underlying causes of mass shootings (in particular, school shootings) and talking about them more frequently. Check this recent article out.
Bill Bond, who was principal at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., in 1997 when a 14-year-old freshman fired on a prayer group, killing three female students and wounding five, sees few differences in today's shootings. The one consistency, he said, is that the shooters are males confronting hopelessness. "You see troubled young men who are desperate and they strike out and they don't see that they have any hope," Bond said.
We can give the young men in our community hope right now. We don't need altered gun laws to do this. In addition, we can make sure that these troubled young men don't have access to firearms. If we can pursue this vigor and care, we will reduce the number of school and mass shootings in this country. This could be the beginning of a very necessary sea change in this country in which we wake up to the fact that American culture has some very deep flaws in terms of gun competency.
Robots Saved Steeltown
Politico has an absolutely fascinating piece in their magazine about how robotics literally saved the economy of Pittsburgh. In many ways, it's rebirth should be the model for how our economy should be transformed to fit the age of globalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)