Which Side Are You On?

Which Side Are You On?
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, July 26, 2022, p. A6
In a panel discussion of whether America’s difficulties were the fault of media or politicians, Congressman Barney Frank interjected, “Our constituents aren’t all that great either.”

Abraham Lincoln, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson before him, warned of the fragility of a democracy confronting an authoritarian-driven mob: “And when such a one does [appear] it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.”

The House Select January 6 Committee’s investigation of officials encouraging authoritarian dictatorship is essential – in a country where 44% of U.S. households, 50 percent of Republicans and 18 percent of Democrats have guns.

And yes, a democracy requires independent, respected institutions, such as judges and courts, human rights and voting rights, newspapers and libraries.

However, as with Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson’s oft-quoted preference of “newspapers without government” (over “government without newspapers”) was followed with the less mentioned, “but I should mean that every [person] should receive those papers and be capable of reading them.”

Both Jefferson and Lincoln were emphasizing the need to prepare us as citizens.

Americans will someday search for the enemy who caused our democracy to crumble and wash away, like sandcastles at the seashore. They will discover, as Walt Kelly’s cartoon Pogo observed, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”

The founders realized all Americans would need to be well informed and involved to function as democracy’s governors. They made it job one for each of us. Volunteers, handsomely paid with the rights and freedoms of democracy, in exchange for responsibilities willingly accepted.

To train us they provided free public education. Iowa created more one-room schoolhouses than any other state (12,000-plus). To create the social benefits of easily accessible information the founders created a postal service with reduced rates for books, magazines, newspapers and nonprofits. The colonial libraries have expanded to over 9,000 today – 542 in Iowa.

Each of us can help keep our democracy – or push us further down the slope to fascist dictatorship – in hundreds of little and big ways each day. Whether you chose to praise our election officials, teachers and librarians – or drive them to resign (as in Vinton). Whether you choose to subscribe or advertise in newspapers.

Whether you volunteer in political campaigns, contribute what you can, and never miss voting. Stay informed about policy and politics, while questioning unsupported assertions. Learn enough about other democracies evolution into authoritarian states to spot those changes here. Participate in neighborhood associations and civic organizations.

Pew reports only 40 percent of Americans are committed to democracy. A third of Republicans and 17 percent of Democrats say, “a strong leader who can govern without interference from other branches of government is a good thing.”

“Which side are you on, boys?” union organizers sang in 1930s Harlan, Kentucky. It’s a question you must answer today. The most important decision you’ll ever make. You can’t sit this one out.

Which side are you on?

[Photo source: "Harlan County War," wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County_War] _______________
Nicholas Johnson is the author of Columns of Democracy. Contact mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES
Barney Frank. The quote is from memory. I heard him say it. But I cannot find a source where it is reported or recall the details.

“Barney Frank,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#Public_image (“In 2004 and again in 2006, a survey of Capitol Hill staffers published in Washingtonian [magazine] gave Frank the title of the ‘brainiest,’ ‘funniest,’ and ‘most eloquent’ member of the House.”)

Abraham Lincoln. “Report of Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, 27 January 1838, ‘The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions,” (full text Lincoln speech), https://papersofabrahamlincoln.org/documents/D200130 (See full paragraph beginning: “The question recurs “how shall we fortify against it?”)

George Washington. “Washington’s Farewell Address to the People of the United States,” Sept. 19, 1796, U.S. Senate, https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf

(“Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.”)

Thomas Jefferson. See below.

January 6 Committee. “Select Committee to Investigate the January 6xth Attack on the United States Capitol,” https://january6th.house.gov/

Gun ownership. Lydia Saad, “What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?” Gallup News, https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

32% of Americans own guns; 44% live in a gun household “Republicans (50%), rural residents (48%), men (45%), self-identified conservatives (45%) and Southerners (40%) are the most likely subgroups to say they personally own a gun. Liberals (15%), Democrats (18%), non-White Americans (18%), women (19%) and Eastern residents (21%) are the least likely to report personal gun ownership.”

Thomas Jefferson. “Jefferson Quotes & Family Letters,” Monticello, https://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1289

(“Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” … (“the basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter, but I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.”)

Pogo/“we have met the enemy.” “Pogo (comic strip),” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_%28comic_strip%29 (page contains image of strip with that quote)

Iowa schoolhouses. “A Walk Through Iowa’s One-Room Schoolhouses,” Iowa Department of Education,” https://educateiowa.gov/walk-through-iowa-s-one-room-schoolhouses

(“Take the one-room school house, once ubiquitous across Iowa’s country landscape. Numbering an astonishing 12,000 to 14,000 at one time, depending on what report you use, Iowa had more one-room school houses than any other state in the union.”)

Postal Service and reduced rates. “A Brief History of Preferred Postal Rates,” U.S. Postal Service Inspector General, Aug. 20, 2012, https://www.uspsoig.gov/blog/brief-history-preferred-postage-rates

(“Since the beginning of the Post Office and the Postal Act of 1792, certain types of mail have qualified for lower postage through preferred rates. It was assumed that these types of mailings yield social benefits for senders, recipients, and more importantly, a large nation. Preferred rates’ roots trace to the first federal postal policy, which recognized that disseminating newspapers at below-cost postage would advance the important social goal of educating the electorate. Soon after, magazines received special rates. For its first 50 years, the Post Office was predominantly a newspaper circulation service . . ..”)

Vinton librarians. Gage Miskimen, “With another leader leaving, Vinton Public Library closes for now; Library lost 2 directors in 2 years amid resident complaints,” The Gazette, July 9, 2022, https://www.thegazette.com/news/with-another-leader-leaving-vinton-public-library-closes-for-now/

(“The library board met Tuesday to accept the resignation of Colton Neely, the interim director. Neely, formerly the library’s children’s director, will become a museum curator in Burlington. . . . Most recently departing the library before Neely was Renee Greenlee, its director for six months. She had been the children’s and family services library assistant at the Marion Public Library and had worked at the Hiawatha Public Library and the Kirkwood Community College library. Greenlee, who left the Vinton post in May and started a new job at the Cedar Rapids Public Library, declined to comment. . . . Vinton also saw another director, Janette McMahon, resign in July 2021. She now is director of the DeWitt Public Library in Clinton County.

McMahon previously told The Gazette that she received complaints about children’s books on display, including “Joey,” written by first lady Jill Biden, and “Superheroes Are Everywhere” by Vice President Kamala Harris. She said some residents argued the library should have more books about former Republican President Donald Trump on display.

“I can’t buy what doesn’t exist, and there weren’t quality books about Trump.”)

Gage Miskimen, “Two directors quit Vinton library after complaints about hirings, LGBTQ and Biden books,” The Gazette, June 20/July 10, 2022, Thegazette.com/news/two-directors-quit-vinton-library-after-complaints-about-hirings-lgbtq-and-biden-books/

Gage Miskimen, “Vinton Library to Reopen Monday with Limited Hours,” The Gazette, July 15, 2022, p. A1

(“closed this week after losing its interim director — and, before that, two directors in two years — will reopen for limited hours beginning Monday.

Marandah Mangra-Dutcher, “Johnson County librarians oppose Iowa bills looking to change intellectual freedom,” The Daily Iowan, March 20, 2022, https://dailyiowan.com/2022/03/20/johnson-county-librarians-oppose-iowa-bills-looking-to-change-intellectual-freedom/

David Sye, “Beyond Book Banning: Efforts to Criminally Charge Librarians,” Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, March 8, 2022, https://www.oif.ala.org/oif/beyond-book-banning-efforts-to-criminally-charge-librarians/

Vinton, Iowa, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinton,_Iowa

Marcela Cabello and Stuart M. Butler, “How Public Libraries Help Build Healthy Communities,” Brookings, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2017/03/30/how-public-libraries-help-build-healthy-communities/

(“According to a 2015 Pew survey, almost two-thirds of adult Americans say that closing their local library would have a major impact on their community. As Pew found, over 90 percent of adults think of public libraries as “welcoming and friendly places,” and about half have visited or otherwise used a public library in the last 12 months.”)

Crystle Martin, “Who says libraries are dying? They are evolving into spaces for innovation,” theconversation.com, Aug. 19, 2015, https://theconversation.com/who-says-libraries-are-dying-they-are-evolving-into-spaces-for-innovation-44820

(“many of today’s public libraries are taking on newer roles. They are offering programs in technology, career and college readiness and also in innovation and entrepreneurship – all 21st-century skills, essential for success in today’s economy.”

Pew authoritarian study. Richard Wike, Katie Simmons, Bruce Stokes and Janell Fetterolf, “Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy,” Pew Research Center, October 16, 2017, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2017/10/16/globally-broad-support-for-representative-and-direct-democracy/

(“Unconstrained executive power also has its supporters. In 20 countries, a quarter or more of those polled think a system in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts is a good form of government.”

[Info in chart; not quotation. U.S. 40% committed to democracy; additional 44% willing to consider non-democratic alternatives]

“And in the U.S., a third of Republicans say a strong leader who can govern without interference from other branches of government is a good thing, compared with 20% of independents and 17% of Democrats.”)

Which side are you on? “Which Side Are You On?” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Which_Side_Are_You_On%3F (origins),

“Which Side Are You On?” (song; 1941 recording by Almanac Singers including Pete Seeger, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEwE0R_7TDc&t=17s (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEwE0R_7TDc)

Harlan, Kentucky. “Harlan County War,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_County_War

(“The Harlan County War, or Bloody Harlan, was a series of coal mining-related skirmishes, executions, bombings, and strikes (both attempted and realized) that took place in Harlan County, Kentucky, during the 1930s. The incidents involved coal miners and union organizers on one side, and coal firms and law enforcement officials on the other.[1] The question at hand: the rights of Harlan County coal miners to organize their workplaces and better their wages and working conditions. It was a nearly decade-long conflict, lasting from 1931 to 1939. Before its conclusion, an indeterminate number of miners, deputies, and bosses would be killed, state and federal troops would occupy the county more than half a dozen times, two acclaimed folk singers would emerge, union membership would oscillate wildly, and workers in the nation's most anti-labor coal county would ultimately be represented by a union.”)

# # #

Tags: Abraham Lincoln, authoritarian, Barney Frank, democracy, education, George Washington, citizen governors, guns, Harlan County War, House Jan 6 Committee, January 6, Thomas Jefferson

Freedom Has Responsibilities

We Are Responsible for Saving Democracy
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, May 17, 2021, p. 5A
Fans of the Seinfeld TV show may remember when Jerry discovered the rental car company had no cars.

Clerk: “Unfortunately, we ran out of cars.”

Jerry: “But the reservation keeps the car here. That’s why you have reservations.”

“I know why we have reservations.”

“I don’t think you do. If you did, I’d have a car. See, you know how to take the reservation. You just don’t know how to hold the reservation. And that’s really the most important part of the reservation.”

Freedom is like rental car reservations. It comes with responsibilities -- sometimes the most important part of the freedom.

As in, “Your freedom to swing your fist stops where my nose begins.”

Visiting my uncle’s farm for the first time as a young boy, I followed him out of the cow pasture but failed to close the gate. He kindly explained, “When the cattle get out they’re hard to catch.” That made sense to me. My freedom to wander the farm required my responsibility to close the gates.

Jim Jefferies, an Australian stand-up comedian, compares Americans’ and Australians’ response to mass shootings. As he tells it, during a 10-year stretch there were 10 mass shootings. The next year, 1996, was the worst one. Since then there have been none. Why? The government announced, “That’s it. No more guns.” To which, Jeffrey says, Australians responded, “Yeah, well, all right then, that seems fair enough.” An exaggeration? Of course. It’s not easy to get a laugh out of mass murder.

But it makes a point. Like my closing gates, because restricting guns made sense to Australians they were willing to accept it.

The people in many countries responded that way to their leadership’s COVID global pandemic mandates.

Their leaders said, in effect, “There’s a global pandemic; already one or two cases here. If we do nothing thousands will die. You will all be tested. Those positive will be isolated. Those they have contacted will be quarantined. Everyone will wear masks and keep their distance.”

And their people responded, like the Australians, “Yeah, well, all right then, that seems fair enough.” Thousands of lives were saved.

In America, our leaders did not take that path, in part because many of our people rejected it. “You’re taking away my freedoms,” they cried. “What freedoms?” we asked. “My freedoms to refuse to be vaccinated, to not wear a mask, to go wherever I want while spreading a life-threatening disease.”

The results? With 4 percent of the world’s population our “freedoms” produced 18 percent of the world’s COVID deaths. Nearly 600,000 Americans died needlessly for others’ “freedoms.”

Similarly, if we are to retain our representative democracy we must accept our responsibility to strengthen the institutions and follow the norms that make it possible. [Photo credit: Johnson County Democrats Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/jcdemsiowa/. A few of the 300+ folks at the Nominating Convention (Democratic candidate for County Supervisor), May 11, 2021, Johnson County, Iowa, Fairgrounds.]

As many countries have discovered, the “freedoms” to storm the Capitol, make it harder to vote, gerrymander districts, promote the big lie and the oligarchy’s wealth while ignoring public needs, are road signs on the path to authoritarian dictatorships. [Photo credit: Mary Vasey.]
__________
Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City, is the author of Columns of Democracy. Contact: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org
# # #

Sources
Jerry Seinfeld’s car reservation. https://subslikescript.com/series/Seinfeld-98904/season-3/episode-11-The_Alternate_Side SEINFELD (1989–1998): SEASON 3, EPISODE 11 - THE ALTERNATE SIDE - FULL TRANSCRIPT

Jim Jefferies on guns. YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0 (first 00:01:07)

Countries with effective response. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-30/seven-countries-with-better-coronavirus-response-than-australia/13102988 (see New Zealand, Vietnam, Iceland)

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-56455030 (South Korea)

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01248-1 (current research on containment measures effectiveness; Hong Kong; Germany and Austria); see also https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-01009-0 (research)

US 4% population, 18% deaths (May 11, 2021). https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/; https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ US COVID deaths May 11, 2021: 596,181, World deaths 3,320,104 = 18% (17.956%)
Google search:
US population: 328,000,000 (US Census Bureau, Eurostat, World Bank) World population: 7,674,000,000 (World Bank) = 4% (4.274%)

# # #

How to Eliminate Police Shootings

How to Eliminate Police Shootings

Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), July 4, 2020, p. A6
In 2010, I suggested a way to eliminate the cost of college. In 2013, it was "How to Totally Eliminate Flood Damage." Earlier this year, it was "How to Eliminate COVID-19."

Today, it's "How to Eliminate Police Shootings."

Iceland is the world’s 15th most armed country per capita. Yet a police shooting in 2013 was that nation’s first.

There were 461 "justifiable homicides" by U.S. police in 2013, but not one in the United Kingdom.

Data from Ireland, New Zealand and 12 Pacific island nations is similar.

How can this be? What are they doing?

Their formula isn't complicated. It turns out that it is virtually impossible for a police officer without a gun to shoot people. (In rare situations, an officer may check out a gun for a given assignment, after which it’s returned.)

Just as a gun in the home is many times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, arming police apparently creates more gun violence than it prevents.

Doesn't this impose greater risk on those officers? Apparently not. A 2004 survey revealed 82% of British police did not want to be armed, even though one-third had sometimes feared for their lives. Less than one-fourth of Irish police are even qualified to use a gun.

Maybe begin with a community policing trial. Maybe we’d first need to remove the causes of crime, poverty and systemic racism from the U.S. But, shucks, we ought to be doing that anyway.

— Nicholas Johnson, Iowa City

# # #

School Shootings: What You Can Do

We’re told those 17 Stoneman Douglas High School students killed on Valentine’s Day in Broward County, Florida, were the victims of the eighteenth school shooting during the first six weeks of 2018. [Photo credit: Stoneman Douglas High School Eagles logo.]

We feel helpless after each school shooting, and in many ways, we are. It is all but impossible to identify and stop a single individual, operating alone, free to select the time and place of carnage, from causing a good deal of it.

But there are things we can do.

(1) Start Early. There are many moral, ethical, and compassionate reasons for giving every child a fair start in life. But one of those reasons is that waiting to act until there are signs a child is a potential mass killer can be too late – as it was with Nikolas Cruz.

Make sure no child feels left out – or picked on. Encourage understanding and acceptance by teachers and students of those of different race, ethnicity, background, socio-economic class and abilities. Look for young children who are shy, seem to have no friends, have challenges and no support (or worse) at home, suffer from depression, are angry and discouraged, feel like they “don’t belong,” and have no adult they can turn to.

Don’t suspend, or expel, students for their behavior without first finding, and doing something about, the causes of that behavior. That’s not easy to do, especially in schools with large student populations (like Stoneman Douglas’ 3000) and inadequate resources. But even using students’ names while offering a kind word can go a long way and pay enormous future dividends.

(2) Ask questions. You have a right to know what your own school district is doing about (a) getting informed, and acting, regarding students showing signs of potential mass violence, (b) creating and informing teachers and students about what they should do in emergencies (including shootings), and running sufficient drills to make sure they can do it, and (c) maintaining building security at an optimum level – enough to be safe, while not unnecessarily increasing students’ anxieties.

(3) Commonsense gun controls. There are probably many reasons why the United States has far and away more gun deaths than other countries from mass shootings at schools. But clearly one of the major distinctions is the relative ease with which those who wish to create this carnage can acquire their weapon of choice: an AR-15 – as Nikolas Cruz did.

Find out what your federal and state senators and representatives have done, or refused to do, about the many proposed commonsense gun control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association.

Have they taken leadership on these issues, spoken out, written and introduced legislation? Signed on to legislation introduced by others? If they haven’t written or signed onto such legislation, have they at least voted for it?

Or, have they done the opposite? Have they advocated the NRA line, introduced its legislation, signed onto it, or at least voted for it – while opposing others’ commonsense suggestions?

Find out. And then work and vote for those who will help curtail, rather than perpetuate, this carnage of our children.

No one of us can make all these shootings stop. But here are three things you and I can do to reduce their number.

# # #

When Words Can Kill

"Will no one rid me of the turbulent priest?"

-- King Henry II's casual reference to Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket, following which four devoted knights were inspired to go to Canterbury, where they found and murdered Beckett, December 29, 1170

"Like the extreme right in Israel, many Republicans conveniently ignore the fact that words can kill. . . . [T]hey could use a short session with Yigal Amir, Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, who was inspired by the rabid rhetoric hurled at the Isrraeli prime minister . . .."

-- Chemi Shalev, Israel's Haaretz newspaper columnist, quoted in Thomas Friedman, "Trump's Wink Wink to 'Second Amendment People,'" New York Times, August 10, 2016, p. A19

"If she [Hillary Clinton] gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people -- maybe there is, I don't know."

-- Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Wilmington, North Carolina, August 9, 2016

_______________

This morning [August 10] the Times editorialized: "Three months from the presidential election . . . Americans find themselves asking whether Donald Trump has called for the assassination of Hillary Clinton. . . . His supporters have shouted 'kill her' . . . A New Hampshire delegate [said she should] 'be put in the firing line and shot for treason.'" Editorial, "Further Into the Muck With Mr. Trump," New York Times, August 10, 2016, p. A18. And see, Nick Corasaniti and Maggie Haberman, "Donald Trump Suggests 'Second Amendment People' Could Act Against Hillary Clinton," New York Times, August 10, 2016, p. A1.

Trump's opponents argue that Trump's remark -- "nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people -- maybe there is, I don't know" -- was his intentional call for the assassination of Hillary Clinton.

His defenders say that's ridiculous; he was just saying that the Second Amendment supporters have proven to be well organized and politically effective, and that they might be able to bring enough political pressure to prevent a President Hillary Clinton from successfully nominating liberal judges.

In my view, both sides miss the point.

No one can know if, or what, Trump (or anyone else) is thinking when they speak. With Trump's often rambling and disjointed exposition it's often difficult to figure out what he has said after he has said it. And it is even more perilous to speculate about another's motive.

So the argument between those who believe Trump was advocating assassination of his opponent and those who think he was just urging citizen participation in the judicial selection process is one that cannot be, and will not be, resolved.

The point is that, based on what he said, that argument can (and did) take place.

That is to say, what he said was open to the interpretation, an interpretation by many, that he was calling for her to be shot -- an interpretation supported by the context.

Trump's now oft-quoted potential threat was preceded by the line, "Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment." Paul Barrett, "What Trump Gets Wrong About Clinton and the Second Amendment; Hint: everything," Bloomberg, August 10, 2016.

Put aside for the moment the facts that (a) none of the fact checkers who have researched this charge have been able to find a scintilla of evidence that Hillary Clinton has ever hinted of a desire to do away with the Second Amendment -- indeed, quite the opposite. She has said that she supports the Second Amendment. And (b), as the Constitution makes clear, constitutional amendments are not, like executive orders, something the president can simply "abolish" whenever she or he wants to.

In other words, his disjointed appeal -- "Although the Second Amendment people -- maybe there is, I don't know." -- came in the context of an attack on Hillary Clinton (however false its premise) regarding the constitutional amendment most near and dear to the hearts of America's gun owners.

In the past, I have often gone out of my way to defend those who were fired, or otherwise severely punished, for what sometimes seemed to be a single, relatively innocuous remark. See, e.g., Nicholas Johnson, "Was It Something I Said? General Semantics, the Outspoken Seven, and the Unacceptable Remark," Institute for General Semantics presentation, New York City, October 30, 2010.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's remarks in Wilmington, North Carolina, yesterday were seriously dangerous. I would not, and do not, defend them. They forcefully bring into question not only his lack of fitness for office, but that of those other Republicans who continue to urge us to join with them in voting for him -- including Iowa's principal statewide-elected officials: Governor Branstad, and U.S. Senators Grassley and Ernst. Think about it.

# # #

Quick Draw Harreld and Why Language Matters

During 2010 seven individuals of varying prominence discovered they had something in common. The group included a major corporation’s CEO, U.S. Army General, CNN correspondent, Department of Agriculture employee, talk show host, major political party’s national committee chair, and a White House correspondent.

What did they have in common? Each endured the experience of joining the ranks of the unemployed. Because of the economy? No; because of something they said.

I call them “the Outspoken Seven.”

-- Nicholas Johnson, "Was It Something I Said? General Semantics, the Outspoken Seven, and the Unacceptable Remark," Institute for General Semantics, New York City, October 30, 2010 [drawn from an expanded, footnoted, unfinished manuscript with the same title]

[B]asically we always talk about ourselves. Our statements are the verbalizations of our preverbal tensions. It is these organismic tensions -- not the external reality -- that we transform into words.

-- Nicholas Johnson, What Do You Mean and How Do You Know (2009), Ch. 9, p. 118, Wendell Johnson, "General Semantics and the Neuro-Biology of Communications"

Communicating with the dead is only slightly more difficult than communicating with the living.

-- Author unknown

UI President Bruce Harreld has put his foot in it with the current debate surrounding whether he said teachers "should be shot," or whether he said he "should be shot."

"UI's Harreld Sorry for Saying Unready Teachers Should Be Shot," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 15, 2015, 12:28 p.m.; hard copy: "Harreld Says He's Sorry for Teacher Comment; UI President is Under Fire for a Statement About Unprepared Instructions," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 16, 2015, p. A1

Vanessa Miller, "Graduate Students Say University of Iowa President Shiould Quit Over 'Should be Shot' Remark; Harreld Apologizes for 'Off the Cuff' Comment Made During a Meeting," The Gazette (online), December 15, 2015, 4:51 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: UI President Apologizes for His Remark That Unprepared Lecturers 'Should be Shot;' Graduate Students Say He Should Quit Over 'Off the Cuff' Comment," The Gazette, December 16, 2015, p. A3

Vanessa Miller, "University of Iowa President Harreld Tries to Clarify 'Teachers Should Be Shot' Comments; 'I Never Said Teachers Should Be Shot,'" The Gazette (online), December 16, 2015, 4:04 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Harreld 'Should Be Shot' Remark Misquoted; The UI President Says His Comment to Staff Inaccurately Reported," The Gazette, December 17, 2015, p. A3

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Harreld Tries to Clarify 'Should be Shot' Comment," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), December 16, 2015, 6:41 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI President Harreld Attempting to Clarify 'Should be Shot' Comment," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 17, 2015, p. A1

Corey Hickner-Johnson, "Harreld's Comments Out of Line," December 16, 2015, 5:33 p.m.; hard copy: Corey Hickner-Johnson, "UI President's Comments Are Out of Line," Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 17, 2015, p. A9

One could probably organize a seminar around all the categories of issues this suggests for discussion.

There is the science of communication, and as the last two quotes suggest, the miracle that human communication ever accomplishes what the speakers intend.

One could inquire into the kinds of punishments that have been imposed on those whose words were found to be unacceptable -- along with an exploration of what our society's standards should be in this context, and the due process that should be followed in the fact finding preceding punishment. (That is the subject of the sources from which the first quote comes. If you'd like to see what the "Outspoken Seven" actually said, how the complaints against them were processed, and some commentary on what might have been preferable punishments to their being fired, click on the links following that opening quote.)

In the course of this discussion, one might compare Harreld's remarks with those that resulted in the firings of the "Outspoken Seven."

Finally, there is the matter of "executive communication 101" -- what Harreld did, why it was problematical, and how he made it worse for himself -- the subjects this blog entry addresses.

A law school colleague told me the story of running into a large law firm's hiring partner one day in the school. The partner inquired about a student the professor knew. The professor raved about the student in question -- how bright he was, how he was always prepared to recite in class, his quality writing. At that point the partner interrupted, "No, I know that, or at least assumed it. What I want to know is, can he tie his shoestrings?" In other words, does he have common sense, good judgment, and reasonable social skills -- what my mother's generation would have described as "the sense God gave geese."

There are people who start every day believing they will be disrespected by others, and then look for examples. Given the attention paid to what executives say, and the difficulties associated with human communication under the best of circumstances, referred to above, they need to be more careful than the rest of us. They need good judgment. An ill considered choice of words, expressions, or stories, can harm an organization's morale, and an executive's reputation among those who may already harbor grievances and a willingness to think the worst -- however unchallenged the language might be among the boys in an all-male boardroom, barroom, or country club locker room.

As with sexual harassment by supervisors, the words used by Harreld (on the assumption he was not talking about literally shooting any UI employees) suggest a kind of tough guy approach to administration-employee, university president-faculty, relations that creates considerably more intimidation than if it came from a peer, or casual bystander. It reminds me of an occasion when I couldn't help but overhear a passenger in an airline's executive lounge shouting his demands of an employee into the phone. When he hung up, he turned to me, smiled and said, "I don't get ulcers, I give them." That's one style of management -- one I never found useful as a government official. We don't know what Harreld's style will be as he weighs layoffs and budget cuts. But his reliance on forceful figures of speech, like shooting the unprepared, even if not literally likely, are not reassuring.

There have been shootings of instructors on college campuses, including the one on which Harreld now resides (in 1991), as well as in K-12 schools across the country. As Corey Hickner-Johnson points out in the opinion piece linked above, one should be able to anticipate that attempts at lighthearted references to instructors being shot are probably not going to be well received by instructors -- even if the remarks do not inspire real harm from the deranged.

Words matter. TV host Glenn Beck infamously advocated that the best way for conservatives to deal with liberals was to "shoot them in the head." A correlation is not a cause, but many suggested that this kind of language from Beck, Sarah Palin, and others may have played some role in subsequently motivating the shot in the head of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, seven months later, on January 8, 2011 (along with the injury and death of 18 others).



There is an expression in the business literature, and elsewhere, that if you find yourself stuck down in the bottom of a deep hole, the first step to getting out is to stop digging. It has its application in Executive Communication 101 as well. Or, as law professors advise their soon-to-be new lawyers, once you've won your case, stop arguing.

After his gaff was called to his attention, Harreld's first instinct was his best. In an email exchange with the person who emailed her complaint about his remark, he replied, “I apologize and appreciate your calling my attention to it." She responded that she appreciated his apology and understood his remark to be rhetorical. Had he left it at that he would have taken a lump, but the story probably wouldn't have made it into the next news cycle.

Not content to leave this resolution alone, and rejecting the wise counsel from the adage that "yesterday's newspapers are used to wrap fish and line bird cages," he kept the story alive. That was his first mistake. The second mistake was that what he came up with by way of a defense made no sense at all. He contended that, in the context of a discussion of UI instructors preparation to teach, while saying that "unprepared teachers should be shot" would be inappropriate, that was not what he said. He claimed he said that if he was, or when he was, an instructor that if he was unprepared "he should be shot."

He thereby insured a second round of stories in the next news cycle, and since there was no recording of what he said, the rejection of his assertion by some of those present. It also created the sense that although he once seemed to understand what he'd done wrong and apologized for, he was now trying to excuse it as OK -- and with a distinction that was unpersuasive at best.

Watch this space.

# # #

The Militarization of America

July 5, 2015, 8:30 a.m.

Note: This column was written as a part of one of the Gazette Writers Circle projects; in this case, the militarization of local police in Iowa and across the country. I saw the issues as merely a sub-set of those raised by "the militarization of America," and best understood and addressed within that context.

Having done so, it is useful to make clear by way of this note that I fully recognize: (a) the United States needs a military, (b) there are occasions when our national interests do require that it be used (such as World War II), and (c) that those who volunteer to serve, and do so with skill and honor, deserve our respect, thanks, and far more GI-Bill-style practical support on their return than we seem willing to provide. At a minimum, they should not be blamed for the foolish decisions of our elected officials. One way of honoring them is to discuss and question those decisions, as I attempt to do, below.

Text below [in brackets] was submitted to The Gazette, included in its online version, but omitted from its hard copy edition. -- Nicholas Johnson
_______________

The Militarization of America

Nicholas Johnson

The Gazette, Gazette Writers Circle, July 5, 2015, p. C3
Philadelphia police crowd control 30 years ago? Dropping a bomb from a helicopter; 60 homes burned.

Not the typical response of the thousands who do “protect and serve.” But today’s militarization of local police with hand-me-down Army equipment is worth examining — in context.

Because it’s only a small part of the militarization of America.

We are the world’s pre-eminent military power. Of the top ten military nations we spend more than the other nine combined. With our military presence in over 150 countries, and provision of weapons to others, we have militarized the world.

Expenditures reflect values. There is little political objection to the trillions of debt from credit card military adventures. We accept the opportunity costs as we reject universal, single-payer health care, starve our public schools, cut programs for the poor, and watch our infrastructure crumble. “We’re number one!” we cry, notwithstanding low international rankings for test scores, infant mortality, and life expectancy.

Our national anthem celebrates “the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air.” Our sporting events often begin with a vocalist and spectators singing that song. Athletic contests in many cultures serve, in part, to prepare young men for battle. Our most popular sport is our most violent: football. Those games sometimes begin with a flyover of military fighter planes. [Photo credit: Brian Ray, The Gazette.] See footnote, "Fighter Planes Flyover of Kinnick Stadium," below.

We have a [“ready, fire, aim”] militarized media, its cheerleaders for war ready to support every military action. [Never mind we haven’t been attacked, and there’s no realistic threat.] War coverage is dramatic and improves ratings, whether baby wars (Granada), “pre-emptive” wars (Iraq), or perpetual wars elsewhere. [TV stations used to “sign off” at night with visuals of flags and fighter planes. As Mason Williams said, “Every night, before it goes to bed, television gets down on its knees and prays to war.”] [Photo credit: unknown.]

We have militarized our homes and ourselves. Our children play with video games that train them as military sharpshooters and drone operators. Roughly 40 percent are living in homes with guns. The U.N. reports America’s gun death risk per 100,000 population is 20 times the average for other countries.

There are 50,000 suicides and homicides each year; 60 percent involve guns. (Homicide is the second leading cause of death of 15-25 year olds.) Some estimate guns in homes are 16 times more likely to harm occupants than intruders.

Given those odds, Americans must really love their guns a lot — a love that surpasses all understanding.

It’s natural such a nation would have a National Rifle Association (NRA) opposing virtually every form of gun regulation, including restrictions on owning assault weapons, retention of databases of gun purchases, background checks on purchasers at gun shows and changes in the registration of firearms.

With the expansion of permits to carry, we see the militarization of other institutions as well. There are guns on college campuses, in schools, malls, movie theaters, bars and even churches. And there are the all-too-regular reports of deaths — genuinely grieved, but all too quickly forgotten.

We have militarized our politics and governing. Few elected officials are defeated for supporting increased defense appropriations or the NRA’s agenda. Many have military bases or defense contractors in their districts. Coupled with the NRA’s campaign contributions, large membership, and ability to defeat its opponents, military-industrial complex and NRA victories are not surprising.

We’ve already militarized law enforcement.

The 1878 posse comitatus act makes it a federal crime to use “any part of the Army ... to execute the laws.” However, with many exceptions, plus the Insurrection Act, it’s a low hurdle.

In 1932, President Hoover ordered Army General Douglas MacArthur and Major Dwight Eisenhower to use the infantry to disburse the WWI Bonus March veterans from their Mall encampments. President Eisenhower used the Army’s 101st Airborne Division to integrate the Little Rock schools in 1957. When riots followed Dr. King’s 1968 assassination, President Johnson ordered 2,000 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers flown to Washington.

Sometimes Army intervention aids big business. In the 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, President Harding ordered the Army to support mine owners against 10,000 miners. Since the 1890s union organizing and strikes have often yielded to government force — including the Army.

In October 2002, the activation of USNORTHCOM marked the first time since George Washington that a military commander’s mission is our own homeland.

Militarized nations need blanket surveillance of their civilians. We have that, too. The NSA plus 15 other spy agencies we know about.

That’s the context. Now let’s talk about the militarization of police.

• Nicholas Johnson, as U.S. Maritime Administrator, had responsibility for military sealift to Vietnam. www.nicholasjohnson.org, FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

_______________
Fighter Planes Flyover of Kinnick Stadium
The two photos, above, were taken in Kinnick stadium in Iowa City during the Iowa-Ohio State football game, November 20, 2010.

The flyover demonstrated America's militarization by blending the Star Spangled Banner, being played at the time, with the low, swooping flyover of the stadium by four T-38 fighter jets.

For the most part, the crowd seemed to love it: "The military flyover came at the end of the 'Star Spangled Banner' and was followed by loud cheering and a standing ovation by many Hawkeye football fans."

Although I've not thoroughly research the matter, I am unaware of any writing at the time (beyond my own) questioning the propriety of an institution of higher education promoting militarization. "UI spokesman Tom Moore [chose to specifically acknowledge that] 'The purpose of the flyover was to honor all of our military personnel."

The primary focus of objections only related to the height, and clearance of the stadium, at which the fighter jets were flying at such high speed. Haley Bruce, "Officials Say Kinnick Flyover Too Low," The Daily Iowan, December 13, 2010 ("Officials said a flyover at Kinnick Stadium during the Iowa-Ohio State football game last month may have violated Air Force regulations by being hundreds of feet too low, the Associated Press has reported"). [Photo credit: Rob Johnson, The Daily Iowan; "Four T-38 jets fly over during the national anthem at Kinnick Stadium on Saturday, Nov. 20, 2010."] And see the follow up, "Pilot in Low Kinnick Flyover Blamed Other Air Traffic," Associated Press, The Gazette, March 31, 2014.

_______________

James Edward Johnson, Comment on Facebook, July 5, 2015, 10:11 a.m.
Generally, I agree, but with one exception. Allowing people to privately possess the tools of self-defense is an acknowledgement that total control (through mass surveillance, overwhelming force, and general denial of our Constitutional rights) by the police is an undesirable goal. This is the heart of the values represented by the Second Amendment - particularly as extended thought the 14th. We should not have standing armies or a militarized police force. But, to secure the rights that may be protected by state power, the people should be directly enabled to secure those rights.

Since moving to Chicago, it has become clearer that disadvantaged people are, too often, both unprotected or threatened by the police, and at risk from a small number of criminals who terrorize their communities. The individual right to self defense, and the ancillary right to retain the tools for that purpose, exist so that people are not dependent on forces that threaten their liberty just as much as they promise to protect the people from other threats.

As a society, we should work to improve the integrity of our police, repeal laws against victimless crimes that enable police harassment of the people, and ensure educational and work opportunities that strengthen communities against such state and criminal threats.

However, the people hurt by these systemic problems should not have to wait on the rest of us to take remedial action. I support the Huey P. Newton Gun Club because I believe they take these rights seriously. We should not conflate their actions with the actions of a militarized police that acts offensively.

# # #

WWPD? Pat Paulsen on Guns

February 1, 2013, 8:20 a.m.

Comedy and Concerns from Pat Paulsen's Writer
Quick Internal Links to Content
Introduction/Background: Mason Williams, Smothers Brothers, and Pat Paulsen

Mason Williams, "Pat Paulsen's Solutions for Gun Violence and Other Challenges"

Mason Williams and Nicholas Johnson Offer Gun Violence Solutions

Remember the wrist bands, "WWJD," for "What would Jesus Do"?

They came to mind the other day as I was thinking about what we might succeed in accomplishing as we try to reduce the 30,000 annual suicides and homicides involving firearms. With President Obama's inaugural address still echoing in my brain, my thoughts drifted back to less well-known presidential candidates during my lifetime, and the question, "What would Pat Paulsen do?" [Photo/poster credit: "Pat Paulsen for President."]

Because I had run into a grocery store clerk in Galveston the week before who had no memory of the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" (he was also unaware of which grocery aisle contained the store's offering of bread), it occurs to me that perhaps you, too, would appreciate a little background.

You remember "the Sixties," right? No? OK. Well, the 1960s and early 1970s were times of great creativity and upheaval in America. We had more "movements" then than . . . you get the idea. Large numbers of citizens were involved in protesting, demanding, and often obtaining their rights and goals regarding African-Americans' civil rights, women's rights, and bringing a halt to the Viet Nam War. Whether life imitates art, or the reverse, it was also a time of innovation in graphic art, music, literature, drama -- and television programming.

Given that my term as an FCC commissioner ran from 1966 through 1973, my "15 minutes of fame" pretty much overlapped these years, and caused me to be involved in one way or another with many of the passions of these times -- including one of those innovative TV programs, the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," one of CBS' most popular shows throughout the 1966-68 seasons.

There were conflicts between the show, primarily Tom Smothers, and the CBS' "censors," primarily involving politically edgy content. Ultimately, CBS' Chair Bill Paley ordered the cancellation of the program in April 1969. A film depicts those controversies, "Smothered: The Censorship Struggles of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," in which I play a bit part, and a summary of which is presented, ironically, on "The Paley Center for Media" Web site.

I believe it was during that time frame Tom Smothers flew to Washington and visited with me in my FCC office. My memory is that he said CBS was telling him that he was violating National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and FCC requirements.

As Mason Williams recalls, I explained to Tommy, and later to Mason, that the NAB Code (NAB "Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters) was a 1951 set of ethical standards, with something almost literally a copy of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, seldom if ever taken seriously (and subsequently abandoned by the NAB in 1983, following pressure from members), with no specified sanctions for violation.

I also reassured him that so far as I knew, there would be no commissioners or staff, many of whom (including myself) were fans of the show, who would be able to find anything in the show that was forbidden by the Communications Act of 1934, or FCC regulations.

That conversation ultimately led to my occasionally visiting the set and meeting a number of those involved with the program. Among them, I spent the most time with Mason Williams, Emmy-award-winning head writer, and composer of "Classical Gas" -- one of the most played pieces in the history of American music. [Photo of Tom Smothers, Mason Williams, Dick Smothers. Photo credit: MasonWilliams-online.com]

If you'd like to know more about this historic and influential program and its place in American television history, here are some links: The Smothers Brothers' Web page; "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour," wikipedia.org; "Smothers Brothers," wikipedia.org; Mason Williams' Web page; and "Mason Williams," (including discography), wikipedia.org.

All of which, at long last, brings us to Pat Paulsen and the Pat Paulsen for President campaign, and ultimately Paulsen's proposals for dealing with gun violence. See, e.g., "Pat Paulsen for President," and "Pat Paulsen," wikipedia.org. Tom Smothers has said that Pat Paulsen "was the most important comedic talent I’ve met in my life.” [Photo credit: "Pat Paulsen for President," and other sources.]

There are a couple of videos that will give you a better sense of what that part of the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was all about than I can recreate in words. But to give you a start, some early video manipulation enabled the candidate to, literally, talk out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously. One of his campaign events involved climbing the highest mountain in Kansas with the governor. Another was, as I recall, an 89-cent fund raising bean dinner in Los Angeles -- with Carl Reiner acting as master of ceremonies. You get the idea. [Photo/poster credit: Mason Williams.]







Here are the videos:


This one is narrated by Henry Fonda:


This next one is a memorial tribute (Paulsen lived 1927-97), with "Classical Gas" as the soundtrack, Pat Paulsen's rendition of "God Bless America" as a close, and a couple of brief bits from the prior video:



As the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour head writer, it fell to Mason Williams to write material for Pat Paulsen as well. So who better to ask than Mason Williams how Pat Paulsen might go about controlling gun violence.

As it turns out, although Pat Paulsen has not been with us in a temporal sense since 1997, Mason Williams is still able to channel Paulsen's thoughts from the great beyond. Here, then, is . . . ____________________
Pat Paulsen's Solutions for Gun Violence and Other Challenges
by Mason Williams

[Photo credit: Wikipedia.org.] Solving the gun control issue, less paper work & reduced pressure on hospital emergency rooms

“I’d pass a law that states that from here on, anyone who wants to buy a gun has to be willing to be shot with it. It would be a little like the “golden rule” in reverse: “Do unto yourself what you might do unto others.” In this case, I’d probably call it the “lead rule”. This would solve several aspects of our gun control problems.

1. It would probably get rid of anyone wanting to own ten guns.

2. You wouldn’t need a permit, you’d have the scar from the bullet-wound. No need for a permit means less bureaucracy and therefore less paperwork. This would save a lot of time & money.

3. Local gun shows would probably have to go out of business. You wouldn’t want to buy a gun from some guy who would take you out behind the building and shoot you with it before he sold it to you. You would want go to a reputable dealer who’s a good shot, a marksman.

4. As to the part of the body where you would be shot, that would of course be your decision. This is, after all, a free country.

Pat is asking Congress to act quickly and pass this proposal into law, not just to save lives, but in order to clear the decks for his other proposals. He is concerned about the indication a number of public prosecutors are planning on bringing an "aiding and abetting" criminal behavior case against the National Rifle Association. The theory of the case is that the NRA's efforts to increase the sales of their members who are gun manufacturers and gun show owners, while weakening such regulations as exist, and stonewalling efforts to staff the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, have the effect of aiding and abetting the crimes of those who use guns in the course of robberies or as the preferred instrument for homicides. Candidate Paulsen is concerned that the focus on these protracted and contentious criminal prosecutions, and their attendant publicity and public participation, will detract from what he considers essential legislation for the American people.

Here are some of his other proposals.

Education vs. The escalating cost of putting young people in prison. We need to spend more money and effort to provide a better education for our young people. A great many of today’s high school student’s drop out early only to begin a life of crime. We need to convince kids that if they stay in school and get smarter they’ll be less likely to get caught. This obviously means fewer kids going to prison. This will take a lot of pressure off of the costs of running our prisons.

The smarter kid is a fiscally responsible crook for us all! Who knows, they could even go on to have a career on Wall Street.

Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. It's the Republicans who are, for the most part, anti-abortionists. They have no qualms about butting into your personal life, but they do have the basic philosophy of staying out of private business affairs.

Therefore, I’d recommend passing a law to have all of the women in America become corporations. This way, if the hypothetical Jane Doe Corporation got pregnant & decided to “downsize” it would be strictly her “business,” and the Republicans, being honor-bound to abide by their tradition of staying out of people’s business affairs, would have to make her business decision none of their business.

Given the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United (that turned all corporations into persons), although the women would no longer be able to rely on the Nineteenth Amendment for their voting rights, they could simply vote as corporations.

And here’s the “two-fer,” since there are approximately 150,000,000 women in the United States, this would provide an enormous business opportunity for the lawyers of America.

Drugs and Social Security. I’d solve our nation’s drug problems & our Social Security problems in one fell swoop.

I’d propose that only Senior Citizens deal illicit drugs! (They could certainly use the money!) Think of the big load this would take off of the Social Security Reserves.

They’d probably even be willing to report their income and pay taxes on it!

It would also probably stop much of the violence associated with drug dealing. Who’s going to blow away somebody’s grandmother? Sure, there might be a walker-by-swatting with a handbag once in a while, but I’m sure the cops could handle it. I also think that older, wiser people would be more apt to show a little concern for their clients: “Now sonny boy, don’t take too many of these at once!” Or, “No downers with alcohol.” “These together will kill you.”

So there’s an extra, additional bonus here! The users won’t overdose and cost us, the taxpayers, a fortune in treatment and rehabilitation. In this case you get three solutions for the price of one!

# # #
There you have it, folks. Mason Williams channeling Pat Paulsen from the great beyond, bringing solutions to a political Washington seemingly mired in mud, members of Congress accorded less respect by the American people than the regard they have for cockroaches and communists. We are desperately in need of the leadership only Pat Paulsen could provide.

Now . . .

But seriously, folks . . .
Nick: Mason, why do you think people want assault rifles?

Mason: Don't you see? You can't paint everyone with the same brush, but some of them act like fathers who are afraid their daughters will end up dating someone who is like they were. They know they are out there! They want to be able to protect themselves from people who have assault rifles. In other words, they want to be able to protect themselves from people who think like they do. If nobody, including them, had assault rifles, they wouldn't need to protect themselves from themselves. [Photo credit: Mason Williams.]


Nick: OK, good point. What else?

Mason: I think we ought to encourage and enlist the NRA members to help police themselves.

Nick: Are you serious? How is that going to work?

Mason: The goal would be to encourage the NRA to help solve gun violence problems rather than resisting all solutions. Not that they should go out hunting for criminals -- no good guys with guns going after bad guys with guns -- but agreeing to intensified restrictions that are inconvenient to all when they're applied.

Nick: Lots of luck with that one.

Mason: No; listen now. Suppose in a town like Butte, Montana, there are very few, if any, firearm suicides and homicides. Why should the gun owners in Butte be inconvenienced with regulations and prohibitions on gun ownership? My guess is that most of the congressional opposition to gun controls come from communities, counties, and states like that. Eliminate that opposition, focus the regulations on localities where they are needed, make sense, and could save lives, and the whole effort becomes more politically possible.

The NRA claims to be willing to back sensible regulations that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and psychopathic killers. Giving the NRA a base on balls in that 75 percent or more of geographic America where responsible gun owners outnumber the armed criminals and psychopaths might just be attractive to them.

Nick: Hey, you may actually have something there. But how would it work?

Mason: Well, once a community reaches a certain threshold of gun violence, that would trigger a set of laws and regulations. But they would only apply to that area. It would be like conditions triggering a curfew; something nobody wants to happen. Maybe Congress or the FCC could require radio and TV stations to report firearm deaths, and broadcast what we used to call public service announcements about shootings.

For example, if the selective enforcement would come into play maybe those who own hunting rifles or pistols would not be bothered, but those who own assault rifles would be subject to more scrutiny.

Don't you see? This would provide an incentive for NRA members to do everything possible to keep these rules from going into effect, an incentive to be left alone. In fact, the whole community would have a vested interest in not bringing these Draconian measures down on itself.

But I see a couple possible problems.

Nick: What's that?

Mason: Nick, it's always the same dilemma. You can't legislate common sense or personal responsibility. Laws tend to be absolutes. The reason is, you can't have loopholes without absolutes, and folks like loopholes. Common sense doesn't have any loopholes.

Besides, could Congress do that? Can you have different standards that apply in different ways to different areas of the country?

Nick: The first example that comes to my mind is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by President Lyndon Johnson when I was a part of his administration. It was an effort to outlaw voting practices throughout the South that resulted in the disenfranchisement of African Americans.

That Act had a built-in formula for distinguishing various areas of the United States. What the Act called "covered jurisdictions" were forbidden to make any changes in their voting laws without the Justice Department's prior approval, or "pre-clearance." Covered jurisdictions were states and counties in which less than 50 percent of the population was registered to vote, and that had used a "device" to restrict voting. Other parts of the country were not subject to that review, and triggering of restrictions.

That doesn't answer your question, but it's at least an example of something somewhat similar. Another might be the FCC regulation, when I was there, that exempted the smallest radio stations from the burden of lengthy paperwork for their license renewals. They could just submit a postcard. That didn't involve geographical areas, but did provide a disparate standard in the application of the law and regulations.

Mason: Those examples hit the mark; they establish legal precedents.

I remember reading an article in the New York Times opinion section that was about how, more and more, people are coalescing into what is called groups of "like minded people," like organizations, or gated communities. And one of their findings was that the larger the group got, the more it embraced the views and perspectives of its most extreme and radical members, rather than the collective average of the group. ("[W]hen like-minded people get together, they tend to end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before . . . [a] kind of echo-chamber effect . . .. '[B]iased assimilation' . . . means that people assimilate new information in a selective fashion. . . . [I]nformation that supports what they initially thought [is given] considerable weight. . . . [I]nformation that undermines their initial beliefs, they tend to dismiss . . .." Cass R. Sunstein, "Breaking Up the Echo," New York Times, September 18, 2012, p. A25.)Maybe the NRA has fallen into this category. Maybe the NRA is just a group of like minded people who are held hostage by the extremist views of its most radical members.

# # #

Gun Violence: Keeping Public Focus on Solutions

December 31, 2012, 10:20 a.m.

Newtown a "Routine Episode" or Catalyst to Real Change?

Recalling the shooting rampage that killed 20 first graders as the worst day of his presidency, President Barack Obama pledged to put his "full weight" behind legislation aimed at preventing gun violence. . . .

The president said he intends to press the issue with the public.

"The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away," Obama said. "It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that -- you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."

-- Jim Kuhnhenn, "Obama wants gun violence measures passed in 2013," Associated Press/Yahoo!News, December 30, 2012

What now? [Photo credit: multiple sources.]

The Newtown Massacre understandably produced cries of grief and outrage, politicians' speeches for constituents and prayers by and for all, demands for solutions and a number of suggestions as to what those solutions might be.

Suggestions have included, as they have in the past, bans on sale of assault weapons and multi-round magazines, trigger locks, background checks, restrictions on permits and gun show sales, and especially this year, expanded mental health services. The NRA argues more good guys with guns, especially in schools, will decrease random attacks by armed bad guys. It also emphasizes education and training of new gun owners. I don't, now, express an opinion about these and other ideas. Rational, data-driven public policy proposals are almost always an essential element of progressive change -- and almost never, alone, enough to bring it about.

In a democracy, a prerequisite to change is that the political stars be properly aligned, whether the issue be the "fiscal cliff," immigration policy -- or gun violence. That alignment is, admittedly, disproportionately influenced by the "special interests" and their campaign contributions. But it is also, in no small measure, driven by public opinion.

President Obama, in the quotes at the top of this blog entry, says "he intends to press the [gun violence] issue with the public." He can be commended for his hope that the Newtown Massacre "does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away."

The President is less clear as to how he will prevent that from happening. He will have a lot on his plate during 2013. There's a limit to how many speeches, on how many occasions, he can make about gun violence, or how effective they would be if he could.

Public opinion is also driven by media coverage -- news, opinionated discussions, TV shows and feature films. And the media, like the President, will have a great many things to talk about during 2013 besides gun violence.

So here's an idea, suggested by something television has already shown its willingness to do.

We are regularly shown pictures of the members of our military killed in Iraq and Afghanistan -- ABC's "This Week" on Sunday mornings, PBS' "Evening News Hour" every evening, and probably others as well, once names are released and pictures are available.

Many Americans have questioned the wisdom of the Iraq War from the get-go; others have been urging for months and years that we should get out of Afghanistan. But no one in my acquaintance questions the patriotism and courage, and the debt we owe, to those willing to say "Yes, Sir," salute smartly, and march off to war when asked to do so. Putting a face, their faces, on their sacrifice keeps those wars from "drifting away" from our consciousness.

One source puts the number of U.S. military killed in Afghanistan from 2001 to December of 2012 at 2173. "Operation Enduring Freedom," iCasualties.com. Watching their pictures, along with their names, ranks, ages and hometowns on our television screen has always been a solemn moment in our house. All multi-tasking and conversation ceases as we concentrate on the seriousness of what we're watching, as if at a funeral service.

Those 2173 deaths are 2173 deaths too many. But at an average of 181 military killed outside of our country each year, it is but a small fraction of the 32,000 who die from firearms inside our country each year.

"Firearm injury in the United States has averaged 32,300 deaths annually between 1980 and 2006 . . .. An estimated two nonfatal injuries occur for every firearm death. The 2006 age adjusted [per capita] death rate from firearm injury is 10.2/100,000 with an estimated nonfatal injury rate of 23. Firearms are involved in 68% of homicides, 52% of suicides, 43% of robberies, and 21% of aggravated assaults. Deaths peaked in 1993 at 40,000 in the early 1990s . . .. [F]irearm injury represents a significant public health impact, accounting for 6.6% of premature death in this country.

"Firearm Injury in the U.S. (Version 2009)," Firearm & Injury Center at Penn.

Imagine the impact it could have in preventing public concern regarding gun violence from "drifting away" if we could put a face on these 32,000 faces.

And putting a face on domestic gun deaths need not be any more argumentative than displaying the names and faces of those killed in Afghanistan. Pacifists undoubtedly see them as evidence of the folly of war; hawks see them as a necessary cost of national defense and glory. Similarly, the NRA could view the domestic deceased as evidence of the need for more "good guys with guns." It could point out how many were killed with guns that did not have multi-round magazines, or that were brought about by killers who needed mental health services.

Why should we not be as reminded of the 75 to 100 people killed with guns throughout the United States each day as we were of the 26 who were killed in one town (Newtown) on one day (December 14, 2012)? They are all just as dead. They were all killed with firearms. Aren't they all entitled to the same respect, and the same calls for solutions?

Of course, 32,000 deaths a year would average 88 a day. Even if an entire 20-minute network newscast were devoted to nothing but these 88 individuals they would only get about 13 seconds each. So showing them all may not be practical. Maybe only a few could be selected. Maybe it would prove to be impossible to get the names and photos of everyone anyway. Maybe they could be streamed fast, at a second or two each.

Of course, there is no way, and should not be any way, that television stations could be forced to adopt a feature like this. But if we as a caring people, and the President as our leader, are ever to be able to make a real and successful effort at reducing these 32,000 deaths, something like this proposal will have to be a part of doing so.

# # #
Addendum

The main area where the U.S. exceeds the firearm violence of other nations is in comparison to other affluent nations. Using the U.N. data, European nations -- even former eastern bloc countries -- typically have rates well below 1 per 100,000, or far less than one-third the frequency seen in the U.S. The pattern is similar in other advanced industrialized nations, such as Canada, Taiwan, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

One study published in 2011 confirms this finding. The study, published in the Journal of Trauma -- Injury Infection & Critical Care, found that firearm homicide rates were 19.5 times higher in the U.S. than in 23 other "high income" countries studied, using 2003 data. Rates for other types of gun deaths were also higher in the U.S., but by somewhat smaller margins: 5.8 times higher for firearm suicides (even though overall suicide rates were 30 percent lower in the U.S.) and 5.2 times higher for unintentional firearm deaths.

"Facebook post says the U.S. is No. 1 in gun violence. Is it?" PolitiFact.com.

America ranks number one in the world for the number of guns per 100 individuals: 88.8. Virtually all the other countries are less than one-half our rate; over 100 countries are one-tenth or less. "Number of Guns Per Capita by Country," wikipedia.org.

We are only marginally better when measured by the annual number of firearm deaths per 100,000 population -- at 10.2, the rough equivalent of Mexico (11.14). "List of Countries by Firearm-Related Death Rate", wikipedia.org.

# # #

Second Amendment, Second Thoughts

January 17, 2011, 9:30 p.m.

Presenting, and Responding to, a Blog Entry's Critics
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
A week ago I wrote about the carnage in Tucson, Arizona, and provided statistics about the number of gun deaths in America each year. "Guns Do Kill -- 30,000 Americans a Year; Just Americans Toasting Toast," January 10, 2011 ("Even in the lawless, wild west of old, Iowans had the sense to forbid six-shooters in bars and taverns. Iowa's legislators, yearning for the past, missed that nuance, and have provided that even those who can't walk and chew gum at the same time can legally drink and carry a gun at the same time.").

It's a subject I have written about before:

Related: Nicholas Johnson, "Branstad and Public Transparency," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 5, 2011, p. A7, embedded in "Governor Branstad's 'Transparency,'" January 5, 2011 (urging more media stories that "associate those appropriations [of taxpayers' money to for-profit corporations] with the legislators who voted for them, and how much those legislators received in campaign contributions and lobbying expenses from the recipient of the appropriation.").

Nicholas Johnson, "Police Accidental Shootings -- Of Themselves; Additional Risks from Armed (Campus and Other) Police: Accidental Self-Inflicted Wounds," May 9, 2008 ("It was pointed out that those who keep handguns in their homes are 16 times more likely to have those guns used on family and friends than on criminal intruders (e.g., as a result of suicides, accidents, mis-identification, or the gun being stolen and used by the intruder). Accidental shootings of unarmed, innocent civilians by police officers sometimes occur -- including in Iowa City. It was noted that police are sometimes shot with their own guns as a result of losing them to an attacker in a scuffle. What was not discussed was the danger to the police themselves from . . . themselves. We were reassured that our police would be well trained. And I assume they are. But it turns out that isn't always enough. Indeed, some of the accidental, self-inflicted wounds (and death) occur during that very training.").

Nicholas Johnson, "A Public Health Response to Handgun Injuries: Prescription -- Communication and Education," American Journal of Preventive Medicine (May/June 1993) ("So long as we are unwilling to adopt effective, fail-safe solutions--actually removing these instruments of carnage from our midst--the price exacted for this "freedom" will continue to be thousands of lives of children and adults.").

(And see this morning's [Jan. 18] New York Times: "The contention . . . is that the good guys can shoot back whenever the bad guys show up to do harm. An important study published in 2009 by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine estimated that people in possession of a gun at the time of an assault were 4.5 times more likely to be shot during the assault than someone in a comparable situation without a gun. . . . Monday was a national holiday celebrating the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. While the gun crazies are telling us that ever more Americans need to be walking around armed, we should keep in mind that more than a million people have died from gun violence — in murders, accidents and suicides — since Dr. King was shot to death in 1968. We need fewer . . .. That means stricter licensing and registration, more vigorous background checks and a ban on assault weapons. Start with that. Don’t tell me it’s too hard to achieve. Just get started." Bob Herbert, "How Many Deaths Are Enough?" New York Times, January 18, 2011, p. A25.)

The January 10 Giffords blog entry produced a significant number of hits -- and criticism.

And so, in an effort to provide the remedies of the First Amendment to this discussion about the Second Amendment, I'm going to reproduce some of it here.

Some were comments appended to the blog entry. One of the most impressive rational responses, I thought, came in the form of an email I'm reproducing at the bottom of this blog entry. First, the comments:

Jeff Morelock said...

You forgot some other info...

Tobacco 435,000
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,000
Alcohol 85,000
Microbial Agents 75,000
Toxic Agents 55,000
Motor Vehicle Crashes 26,347
Adverse Reactions to Prescription Drugs 32,000
Suicide 30,622
Incidents Involving Firearms 29,000
Homicide 20,308
Sexual Behaviors 20,000
All Illicit Drug Use, Direct and Indirect 17,000
Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Such As Aspirin 7,600
Marijuana 0

So I guess cars, alcohol, Tobacco, sex, getting fat and a bunch of other stuff kills people too
1/10/2011 08:49:00 AM

He's got a point. It's a risk perception, risk assessment, point -- if what you're concerned about is death or serious injury. It's like being afraid to fly, but willing to smoke cigarettes and travel in automobiles -- both of which pose much greater risk of death than airplanes. My only reactions are two: (1) most of the deaths from "suicide," "incidents involving firearms," and "homicide" -- which he lists -- do involve deaths from guns. (2) Aside from them, the only other product on the list that, when used for the purpose for which intended, will cause death, is tobacco. Eliminating handguns (an impossibility, as the email writer explains) would at least eliminate deaths involving handguns -- a device manufactured for the purpose of creating violent trauma, whether to a fellow human, animal, or paper target. Automobiles, prescription drugs, and sex are seldom deliberately used to produce death, and at least have alternative purposes and uses.

Vinney B. said (in part),

Gun control in this country would only cause more problems than it would solve. Guns sold on the black market would create more crime and a deadly element worse than what we have now. Similar to our drug problem. Imagine the amount of our hard earned taxpayers money we would have to spend to fight it. It would be a losing battle. Similar to our drug problem. Criminals would still have guns knowing that most Americans may not.
1/10/2011 04:49:00 PM

He also has a point -- one expanded on by the email writer. But handgun injuries and deaths can be reduced, even if they cannot be eliminated -- any more than guns can be eliminated. Even the most avid "anti-gun control" advocates support the idea of education in gun safety and operation, and keeping guns out of the hands of psychopathic killers. There are more handgun deaths from suicide than homicide. There are suicide prevention programs that could help reduce those deaths and might be acceptable to gun owners. And most of those who want to regulate "guns" in some way or other make a distinction between the handguns that can be concealed and the rifles used for hunting -- although, as no less a person than the former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney demonstrated, they can also cause human injury (and death).

Finally, among those commenting is . . .

Anonymous said...

Pathetic. What happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions (something that you and other liberals do not believe in). Yes, believe it or not it is people who kill, not guns. You pose as an academic individual, but you seem to forget that murder predates firearms. Do you honestly believe that banning firearms will decrease violence? People who want to kill will always find a way. How about placing the blame where it needs to be placed: on the man who committed the crime.
1/16/2011 03:30:00 AM

My impression -- with no more data to support it than Anonymous offers -- is that almost everyone in my acquaintance I can think of (including "liberals," once there is a definition that enables one to identify who they are) believe that "people [should take] responsibility for their own actions" and support "placing the blame . . . on the man who committed the crime." (a) I don't believe that "banning firearms will decrease violence," but I do believe that, could it be done (which it can't) it would not only decrease handgun violence, it would eliminate it. (b) Even if "violence" cannot be reduced, violent fist fights, or knife attacks, are (again I'm guessing, without data) probably far less likely to cause death when they do occur, than the expression of violence with firearms.

And now for the thougtful email:

In almost all cases I agree with the liberal/progressive position on issues.

Gay marriage, living wage, single-payer national health care.

One of the few areas where I differ is gun control.

Of course "gun control" means different things to different people. Some NRA members (which I am not) would say that gun control means hitting the target. Others would say it means a policy similar to those in Canada, Japan, and many European countries where it is extremely difficult for a civilian to own any firearm, let alone a handgun.

A couple points:

1) As with most 'hot button' issues, most people have made up their minds on this and have dug in their heels, so there is no point in trying to "convert" anyone. That is certainly not my intent.

2) If the democrats want to win elections they will have to compromise on this issue. I really don't care one way or the other, just sayin'.

3) As mentioned above, there is a wide range of "gun control." I think requiring background checks, "cooling off periods," and gun safety courses is reasonable. Possibly even requiring that each gun be test fired, to allow law enforcement to have a record of the unique striations that each gun creates on the bullets that are fired from it. Beyond that, I think that the Second Amendment gives American citizens the right to own any gun that the police routinely use (i.e., not surface to air missiles or hand grenades). After all, what makes cops different from other humans? Only training. Gun owners could be required to have the same training.

4) It may sound trite, but it seems true that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns." Very similar to our failed "war on drugs."

5) Personally, I think it's all but pointless to carry a gun for protection. Typically, a would-be mugger/rapist is going to point a gun at their victim and that person will not be able to draw their weapon without getting shot. However, I would not try to prevent people from carrying a gun if they want (again, assuming they go through a background check, gun safety course, etc).

6) It's too late for gun control if that means eliminating all guns. For better or worse, guns are a part of our society and have been from the very beginning. There are something like 200 million privately owned guns. Even if we could magically eliminate all new guns, it would be next to impossible to confiscate more that a small percentage of the guns already in private hands -- and then there's that pesky Second Amendment.

7) Beyond the number of guns a person can carry it doesn't matter how many guns a person owns. Why? Because they can only shoot one at a time -- the rest will be left in their basement or gun safe. We often hear that some criminal owns 50, 75, or 100-plus guns. As if that's supposed to be extra scary or something. It may indicate that the person was or is obsessed with guns. But it doesn't make them any more potentially dangerous that the guy who owns a couple semi-automatic handguns.

8) I have owned one gun since I was 14 years old. It it is a .22 caliber rifle. It is considered tame by most standards because of the small caliber and the fact that it is a long gun. It is the type of gun that would be the last to be outlawed even by the the most frothing at the mouth anti-gun fanatics. In actuality though, it could be very lethal in the hands of a lunatic. It holds 19 rounds and will fire them as fast as the trigger can be pulled. I have a high power scope on it which makes it extremely accurate from a long distance. I'm not a particularly good shot, yet I can hit push pins stuck in a tree at 150 feet. I suppose my point is that any gun, even a .22, can be used to kill people. John Hinkley used a .22 in his attempt to assassinate president Reagan.

9) People often refer to "assault weapons" and the repealed assault weapons ban. In actuality, most assault weapons are just "gussied up" hunting rifles. They just look scarier than a deer rifle. As a practical matter, banning them has very little effect. What is more important is the ammo. I remember seeing a demonstration on TV years ago of different types of bullets being shot from a common hunting rifle at watermelons. Some (the ones with a steel jacket) went right through the melons without much damage, others just blew them apart.

10) I rarely shoot my .22 and when I do it is just for fun -- target shooting. While the primary purpose of most guns is to hunt or for personal protection, target and skeet shooting is a legitimate (and fun) sport.

11) I'll end with one for the gun control folks. There are way too many people (mostly males) who think that if they just had a gun they would be able to protect themselves and their family in any situation. That's often not the case. In fact, the opposite may be true. If the criminal sees a gun they may start shooting when they otherwise wouldn't. Or, the criminal may get the person's gun. When under stress must people will not exactly have a steady hand like Clint Eastwood -- they will be shaking and trembling and not able to hit anything more than a few feet away. In the situations similar to that in Arizona this past Saturday [January 8, 2011], it will often be very difficult to shoot the criminal without hitting someone else. Also, lets suppose one or more people do start shooting at the criminal and a gunfight ensues. Then the cops show up and they have no idea who the good guys are. Or, other armed citizens join in and mistakenly shoot one of the good guys.

That said, there are definitely scenarios where an armed citizen could save lives -- the Long Island RR massacre comes to mind -- a crazy guy walking through a train randomly shooting people. But those situations are rare.

Bottom line, things rarely go down the way they do in the movies.

-- Sherman Johnson

_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #