Friends, today I recommend to you two articles, the first of which, although on the long side, will give you some great historical and global perspective on the problem of "mass shootings". Now, mass shootings are real and they are tragic, but there is little doubt that statistics about such incidents are frequently manipulated to support an anti-gun rights agenda. The Left is famous, or at least it should be, for falsely claiming to have a monopoly on "science", "facts", and "data", but all too often this claim is based on chicanery and blatant dishonesty. As this article makes plain, violence and gun violence are global problems, and they have been around for a very long time. Moreover, as Chicago has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, "gun control" offers no solution. Let's study the problem dispassionately and see what common sense measures can be taken to reduce mass shootings -- but let's NOT throw the baby out with the bathwater and take away Americans' constitutional rights. Are you with me?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/04/mass_shootings_in_america_anatomy_of_a_hyped_statistic_137960.html
The second article is depressing, but perhaps not shocking, given the fallen world we live in: it concerns Nike's decision to make Colin Kaepernick a spokesman for their "Just Do It" advertising campaign. Kaepernick certainly doesn't merit such adulation based on his football career. No, it's his "courageous" decision to disrespect the American flag, in the pursuit of his private political agenda, that has Nike swooning. Many Americans are showing their outrage by destroying their Nike sneakers and gear. I must admit, I'm tempted to do so myself, although such a response smacks of leftist "snowflake" theatrics... What do you think? Should I light the match...or not?
https://apnews.com/f401c92b5a0e4f86b7ce9f2a5ff05dda/Kaepernick-has-new-deal-with-Nike-though-he's-not-in-NFL
Dr. Waddy: On Kaepernick; that situation raises a question I've had for a long time: do those businesses which do so support the left because they think it in their best business interests or because they sincerely agree with it?
ReplyDeleteSurely they must know that the left would disown them if it had the power to do so. They must assume that they can "look good" and avoid leftist blackmail (ala Jesse Jackson's arm twisting)without actually providing the left with really gainful support. Perhaps Nike wants to be taken to task for this move so that they can say to the left "look what a hit we took for you". The majority older Americans who are solid conservatives probably are not significant Nike customers (no knock on younger conservatives meant; you are our country's future).
Kaepernick's stock as a QB was falling after his creditable besting of Alex Smith( a solid QB) on the 49ers and his play in a Super Bowl, as the 49ers became a poor team (and that always reflects on the QB, rightly or wrongly). He would still probably have been sought after at least as a backup until he took his stand. He would have taken a pay cut but an NFL backup still makes great money.
Ok, he has taken a hardball position and may be paying a hardball price. He may never play again. For some such athletes, devoted as they have to have been to achieve such success, this is hard indeed. Perhaps Nike is maintaining his financial prosperity and in any case he knows that he would have had to leave the game as a relatively young man as do all pro footballers.
But he has entered the savage political arena and has invited upon himself and his supporters the consequences. The NFL is a private organization with a right to expect certain behavioral standards of those who accept employment with it. (Public relations are understandably of vital import to a sports giant). When the players contract for their services they agree to comply with these standards. They could shop their talents with the CFL or the new league and who is to say they might not prosper? Consider the story of the AFL in the '60's; their willingness to generously compensate established stars prompted their merger with the reluctant older NFL.
Dr. Waddy: I would suggest you do burn your Nike products.Help to make Nike pay a material price. (I know I will boycott the Neil Armstrong movie because of its anti- American message). Kaepernick has willingly, though perhaps naively, subjected himself to the potentially negative consequences for him which may come from such action. So be it. One is reminded of the story "The Man Without a Country". He invited his exile upon himself though he could not have envisioned what it would be like. Kaepernick's wrongheaded gestures may cost him. He may have set his public well being "upon a cast". Then let him stand the hazard of the mould.
Dr. Waddy: Certainly am with you on this; your linkage of the term "common sense measures" with, well common sense and Constitutional rights is a refreshing counter to the gun grabbers' opportunistic use of it.
ReplyDeleteCommon sense says: there are already zillions of guns in the hands of private citizens. Eliminate, say,70% of them (an impossibility in this free country)and you still have a zillion out there. Men possessed of a degree of common sense sufficient to have created arguably the proven most well conceived government document in world history, made individual gun ownership the SECOND Amendment to our celebrated Bill of Rights and its relationship to the First is most credible. The extension of Chicago style gun control flies in the face of common sense given that city's anarchic plight.
John Lott, cited in the article you posted, has written books graced by extensive and scrupulously documented empirical evidence, in which argues that increased "gun control" is unjust and counterproductive.
Every community has the means, right now, today, tomorrow, to put sufficiently numerous and well armed guardians of our children into every school. The political will to do so is all. Outside of the schools, the arming of willing law abiding citizens must be expedited.
Mass shootings are the product of perhaps well meaning but now proven wrongheaded tolerance of criminality and enactment of murderous dreams by fiends. Widespread reestablished belief in the credibility of God's wrath is the best solution. Attacks on religion and the rights of the law abiding are tragically mistaken.
Jack, I happen to agree that the best defense against mass shootings is spiritual in nature: no one imbued with the belief that they are NOT the center of the world, with an entitlement to do ANYTHING to garner attention and grudging respect from others, would think twice about shooting up a room full of kids. Religion (and morality, more broadly) conveys perspective, and that's what so many modern people lack.
ReplyDeleteAs for Kaepernick, yes, he made his bed, and he can lie in it. Did he sacrifice his career for a principle? Perhaps, but Nike should be celebrating athletes, not social justice warriors. Plus, no one would have objected if Kaepernick merely advocated for his cause of anti-racism and ending police brutality. It was his choice to pair that objective with the denigration of America itself, and that choice did him in.
In the end, it's a free country, and the NFL, Nike, and little ole me all have to make our own decisions about what to say and what to do. But, as always, there are consequences...
I shall, as you recommend, look for some non-Bolshevik sneakers!
Dr. Waddy: Thanx for that perspective; I had not considered Kaepernick's actions in that light. I disagree with him that there is widespread police oppression of black people and I think the fight for equality before the law for all has been won. He could have expressed himself on this without using a method so contemptuous of a country which has afforded him the opportunity to use his talent and efforts to make big, big money . Thanks for taking a stand against Nike's cynical decision. Perhaps they ought to restrict their business to those countries which have been cursed with the Marxist blight which, but for American resolve, would have imposed itself on the world and, as always, spread the poverty and suffering evenly and to all.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Too: Your characterization of those who visit mayhem on others at their pleasure is spot on. If you have not already read it you may enjoy Stanton Samenow's Inside the Criminal Mind, in which he posits a model of that mind which agrees with your comment in relation to many criminals and which I found to be a good working model for those who deal with criminals regularly.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued, Jack -- what's the substance of Samenow's argument, and of your own long experience with the "criminal mind"?
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Clearly, the truly sociopathic mind is capable of any atrocity but my experience suggested to me that they are not all consummate sociopaths. What I saw to be very common among them though was the perception, that, yes, the world revolves around them. "My thing is my thing it don't matter what nobody thinks 'a that." "The rest of these dudes in this joint are low lifes but I ain't". Samenow ably supports his view that criminals, far from lacking in "self esteem" as so many apologists think they do( "self esteem" is a discredited term, I think; "self respect" is far more realistic)instead manifest an excess of self regard. My experience bears that perception out. Yes, especially among the female inmates I worked with, there were some individuals who were truly worthy of the word "pathetic" though society must protect its innocent from them but I think that most criminals must be shown that society will not countenance that which they act out ( in liberal settings, with presumptuous abandon).
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Jack. Yes, I happen to agree that our society suffers from an excess of self-regard. Sadly, what separates those who are institutionalized from those who are not is not necessarily superior morals, but better impulse control and the ability to weigh consequences. Surveys show that there are very few people left who are inclined to honesty and to abiding by the rules, for its own sake. Young people especially will lie, cheat, and steal, and admit to as much, if they feel they can get away with it. It's a depressing state of affairs, and the criminals are just the leading edge of it...
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: I was caught stealing a candy bar from a store when I was 9 in 1956 and I never forgot the shame of it. Gen.Colin Powell once said "we need to restore the sense of shame in this country". Strong parenting and religion are the keys to that, I think. For those who sneer at moral responsibilities and fail to see the connection to the benefits afforded them by citizenship in a prosperous and just society, assured negative consequences then, must be the disincentive, I agree.
ReplyDeleteThe carrot and the stick, Jack! Shame was always the greatest stick of all -- until the 60s taught us that there's no such thing... But I'm preaching to the choir, I realize. :)
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Freud, certainly a 1960's celebrity, started it, I think. I wonder if he and Marx have had a chance to compare notes now.
ReplyDeleteHa! Freud has a lot to answer for, I agree, but part of me thinks that even Freud and Marx would have been pretty disgusted by what they ultimately wrought... They were Victorians, after all.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: The character of DeStogumber in Shaw's Saint Joan, after the madness caused by his witness of Joan's horrid dispatch (which he had enthusiastically advocated) subsides, ruefully declares: "You see, you have actually to view that which you sincerely urge; unless you have felt it assaulting your eyes and searing your nostrils you really can't know what it means". Shaw was post Marx and Freud but mostly pre WWI; I think he was cynically deconstructive but his DeStogumber might have schooled both Freud and Marx had he the opportunity. Shaw probably still retained much of Victorian positivism and maybe Freud too in his yet Germanic intellectual fortress but Marx apparently presumptuously rejected evolved wisdom (I think).
ReplyDeleteI'm no expert on Shaw, Freud, or Marx, and I certainly don't know what was in their hearts, but I do like this DeStogumber fellow! It strikes me that many (limousine) liberals are totally isolated from the policies they seek to impose on the country, and isolated from the so-called oppressed multitudes they seek to aid as well. How many white liberals ever rub shoulders with poor people of color, or with illegal immigrants, for instance? And yet they KNOW who the good guys and bad guys are, because, well, the New York Times tells them so. We could all use a little direct experience from time to time. The real world is a great teacher!
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy: Is it ever. I'm a reenactor and I have enjoyed hiking Civil War battlefields but I'm confident that were I to see but five minutes of the horror of Civil War combat I'd never reenact again. Mea culpa. My grandfather, who was traumatized by his WWI experience, would visit Gettysburg and Shiloh though as would many Civil war vets themselves. Their's is an understanding deeper than mine on such matters. Nancy Pelosi could stand a touch of such reality.
ReplyDeleteJack, the brie and Cabernet set in San Francisco, from which Nancy Pelosi hails, is about as non-corporeal as liberalism gets. Flights of fancy sustain the movement, though, so I say ole Nancy is an ideal standard bearer!
ReplyDelete