Month: May 2022

By on

I am willing to bite. It doesn’t take a lot of effort for me to believe that anyone willing to go into a school (or store or movie theater or church or any place where large number of people congregate) and shoot strangers has a mental health issue. Republicans are keen on saying it isn’t the gun that is the problem but the person shooting the gun. OK. Fine. What is the mental health solution then?

It gets irritating to hear this response when that person is also unwilling to provide any details on how to make it easier for people to get mental health treatment. Speaking as someone who has been using mental health for some thirty years, I can tell you it isn’t easy. First you absolutely have to have insurance or money. If you don’t have either, you need to apply for some form of assistance — which, unless you are destitute, can be difficult to qualify for. Then, if you do have insurance, there is finding a health care professional that takes your insurance. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes if they do, they only take a limited number of patients who use your insurance. It takes a bit of an effort to come up with a mental health professional to treat you.

Now image yourself in a healthcare crisis having to jump through all these hoops before you can get help. A struggling person is given another struggle to deal with. So, then, how are you going to make make mental health easier to get and less expensive. Oh, and this will cost money. Who exactly is going to pay?

Then there is getting the young man to mental health care. Men are notoriously bad about seeking mental health. They see a stigma associated with it. This means someone is going to have to get scared enough to turn them in or try to convince them to get help. This is where things get hairy. How do you balance the rights of the man with the fears of parents or teachers or friends? Do we have laws that make it even possible? Laws will have to be looked at and changed. What do we do with the young men who are truly dangerous? Do we have institutions to house these young men? And, the all important question, who exactly is going to pay for the process of evaluation and institutionalization? Because you know all this is going to cost money.

When you say it is a mental health problem and offer no way to make mental health more accessible and cheaper, your response is unserious. You are letting yourself off the hook. Mad men are the problem, not guns. OK, so what are you going to do about the mad men? The present system has obviously failed us and needs to be improved in order to catch them. And, by the way, it is going to cost money.

Which, if you ask me, is the real problem here. Republicans can throw that out mental health as a solution after every mass shooting because they are betting that no one will ever call them on how this is done. Which says a lot about both the Republicans and what they think about the American public.

By on

I am pretty much a free speech absolutist. Protecting idiots from free speech seems like a hopeless task. If some grifter is telling you to drink Clorox to prevent you from catching a disease, then I am pretty sure some day you will hear that message or a similar one and drink the Clorox. Besides the impossibility of protecting idiots, I also want to know what people are saying no matter how horrible or wrong it is. Not hearing bull shit, on the other hand, gives me the illusion that everyone in the world is in alignment with me. The ugly truth keeps me more in tune with what is actually going on.

However, this, oddly enough, still keeps me at odds with the people who endlessly whine about the horrors of cancel culture. Nobody has stopped them from talking. Yes banning incorrect and hostile speech is limiting speech. I agree. On the other hand, it clearly isn’t stopping free speech because these cancelled people or their supporters are writing incessantly about the dangers of cancel culture. The most prominent cancelled person in the world is Donald Trump. He still is talking. Journalists still are talking about what Trump says. Trump supporters still are hearing his commands. So, then, how has banning him from the Twitter cancelled him.

What people who are afraid of cancel culture are really saying is that there shouldn’t be any consequence to free speech. For example, they don’t want to be called racist or for people to boycott their businesses or for them to be removed from Twitter because of what they have said. But, isn’t that a fundamental part of free speech? You say something and then I get to react to what you say. What the anti-cancel culturers really want is to be free to say anything they want without repercussions. This is not free speech.

Cancel culture, for me, at least, has created a much more pleasant environment in which to talk. I can’t remember the last time I heard the casual use of racial or ethnic epithets. There was a time in the not so distance past when people said them openly and fearlessly. When I was 17, in the 1974, I took the El train in Chicago with my grandfather. At each stop, he would announce in a loud booming voice the ethnic group who resided near the stop. His designations were horrifyingly politically incorrect. I was mortified but nobody else seem particularly bothered by his narration and that is because there were no repercussions for the person saying them.

People wanted to be nice. I wanted to be nice. Besides, the people who used racial epithets were in every other way nice people, nothing I would say to them would change their mind. Why get into an argument with someone, particularly people who might have power over me, people like relatives or teachers or bosses, when if I can just ignore it and it kind of goes away. Until the next time. The lies we tell ourselves to keep our mouths shut.

Today people are much more careful. Most people, and that includes many people who might like to use racial epithets, know that if they use derogatory language they face consequences. Apparently, it is unpleasant to be called a racist and better to keep one’s mouth shut in order to avoid be called one. Good. I am absolutely fine with that. Let them censor themselves.

You see they are smart enough, or most of them are, to censor themselves. This means they are smart enough to know when they have slipped into racism or a topic that might be considered racist and therefore modulate their behavior accordingly. A new norm has been created about how people should talk with each other. One I much prefer because it saves me from having to hear the rubbish that comes out of their mouths. It also proves, although I suspect that they wouldn’t admit it, they do know what racism is and what is not. They are not some innocent lamb wandering into a field full of cancel culture wolves. They fully understand the situation.

In the meantime, please stop talking about how you are being cancelled. You are absolutely free to say anything you want but, now you are also aware that I don’t have to listen to your bullshit without you hearing my response. The choice is yours.

By on

I ran across the above word the other day and was completely stumped. Like I assume everyone else in the world does, I tried to figure out the meaning through the context. No luck whatsoever. I then used my reader’s dictionary. There was no Horren and no Dously. I tried to look up the word with the dash present, my reader’s dictionary, for some reason, probably user incompetence, would not allow me to look up the word with the dash in the middle.

I pondered it a little more. It came to me in a flash, it is a German phrase. Why it was German, I can not tell you but I was convinced. Well, in case you are wondering, it isn’t a German phrase, nor French for that matter. I tried rereading sentence for context again. No, I was still baffled.

In desperation, I went to Google Search where, miraculously, a word appeared but with no dash in the middle. Horrendously. I didn’t bother to read definition because it couldn’t be right, the word is Horren-dously. There is a dash in the middle. I tried google it again and I got the full word without a dash. I read the definition which was something like done badly or done appallingly.

Smug guy that I am, I thought well that can’t be right. The word Horren-dously came in the middle of the line, not the end of one line and the beginning of another line. That would be the only time I should see horrendously separated like that.

I reread the sentence yet again. The author did mean horrendously.

Damn dash.

By on

I think it is safe to say that nothing practical is being done to stop future mass shootings.

I recall when mass shootings became a more frequent occurrence that we were cautioned from getting used to the violence. People wanted to avoid normalizing mass shootings because once people thought of them as another part of every day life that people would be inured by them and lose the fight to stop them. I think we are long past this point. I know I am.

I haven’t the faintest idea what to do about mass shootings given the realities of our political system. I once thought that reasonable gun laws would solve the problem. By reasonable, I mean making it illegal to own a semi-automatic weapon. I understand and can accept hunting rifles for sport and hand guns for self-defense but semi-automatic weapons we could all agree served no useful purpose for the general population. Apparently, I was wrong. Gun laws can’t be passed and, at this point, seem irrelevant. How are you going to get the semi-automatic weapons already out there without starting a violent reaction from semi-automatic owners. Yet, after each shooting, this becomes the big push from my friends on the left. Despite the absolute certainty that these gun laws are doomed.

If gun control is dead, at least it was designed with the problem in mind. Limit the number of guns in circulation and then you would limit the number of shootings. The right can only offer bromides which which make them feel good but are essentially unserious solutions. The basic premise is that people are the problem and not the gun. There is a certain degree of sense in that notion but then it leaves unanswered how do we stop people from engaging in mass shootings.

What options do my friends on the right offer? They identify it as a mental health problem. But, then, what is the mental health solution?Nothing is offered but the right’s standard concerns regarding modern society? Bible reading, banning violent movies and violent video games, arming everyone to the hilt so they can fight back. If you say every American is free to have a semi-automatic weapon how can you very well force people to read the bible? Your belief in freedom is at war with itself. Also, I believe that some Bible readers have actually been inspired to try their hand at mass shootings after perusing the good book, so Bible reading is hardly a fool-proof solution but potentially dangerous.

I can only laugh when someone suggests that the violence in video games and movies are the problem. They are saying that images of violence are more dangerous than the weapon itself. Aside from being almost impossible to implement, it is demonstrably false — almost every country in the world sees the same violent images without the same result. And you can’t use the excuse of gun access because there are many different ways of killing someone available to these gunless citizens — poison, knives, automobiles and so forth. If the images of violence caused people to kill wouldn’t we also see more non gun murders in those countries? This is clearly not a serious solution.

Arming everyone so they can fight back is an interesting possibility but we already know it isn’t going to work. I know this because we have a well-armed population now. Why aren’t all these well-armed men with guns stopping mass shootings today? Could it be that most people don’t really have the confidence to engage in a gun fight with a crazy man? It’s more than just shooting a gun, it may be finding the guy when you hear shots, it might be the gunman has a hostage, it might be hundreds of different scenarios that complicate a situation which puts an untrained person in a terrible situation. Well-trained professionals make the wrong decisions under this type of pressure, and you want Joe Citizen to coolly kill a gunman. It is possible but, as we have seen, not a very likely outcome. Finally, what about the gunmen. I know they aren’t the most sympathetic of characters but, at least for me, it isn’t always a showdown between good guys and bad guys; sometimes it is really a good guy facing a schizophrenic off his medication. I would like to think we have a better way of dealing with crazy people than letting the person breakdown and shoot innocent victims until someone can stop him by killing him. But, then, need I remind you, I was completely wrong about gun laws.

So, where does, this leave us. Nowhere really. We all know another mass shooting is coming and no one is making a credible attempt to stop them. Mass shootings have become just another accepted part of modern American life. A terrible inconvenience that comes up every once in awhile. The only thing you can do about it is hope you or someone you love aren’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that, my friends, is the terrible truth.

By on

I recently saw a film clip from last year of Bill Maher comparing the U.S and China. Here is the link: https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-china-dominating-us/ China, of course, comes out on top. Maher’s comparison was akin to the praise that European fans of Mussolini gave “At least the trains run on time.” You see, the Chinese are getting things done while the US is mired in trivial disputes. Well, yeah thats what happens when you have a democracy. Democracies are messy businesses because democracies care about their people and have to hear from them before making a move. In China some autocrat makes a decision. Nobody gets to disagree or question it. The Chinese just do what they are told.

Maher did suggest that there might be some middle way between our present chaotic and efficient democracy and the Chinese dictatorship. But what is that middle way? It would have been helpful if Maher had chosen a democracy that is getting things done instead of a dictatorship that is getting things done. With a democracy I could see if he had something to say and an idea of how to make things better. Instead he raves about China. Yes, China. The China that locks people into their apartment blocks, the China that uses Uyghurs as slave labor, the China that is shutting down democracy in Hong Kong, the China that is threatening democratic Taiwan, the China that builds cities where no one wants to live? That is, indeed, the China Maher is talking about.

What’s really frustrating is that I keep hearing the similar comments from a lot of smart people. Particularly, since the reason they are giving up is they believe that the other half of the country are numbskulls undeserving of democracy. They are not going to waste their time persuading idiots to change their minds. This willingness to forego democratic institutions for dictatorial edicts because I am right is troubling. It is as simple as that — I am right and they are wrong. Which is all good and well as long as the dictator agrees with you, but what if he doesn’t.

Another argument is that our democracy isn’t really a perfect democracy. A minority has taken hold of our institutions through antidemocratic processes ( the Electoral College, the Senate, gerrymandering, the filibuster) and that the only way to change them is through dictatorial edict. I agree that the present system is unfair but it is still the system. A system that is difficult to change. Next to impossible to change unless your party elects a President, controls the House, has a super-majority in the Senate, controls a super-majority of the individual states legislatures, and has a working majority on the Supreme Court. And then, and only then, can you think about making big changes to the rules. And even if you have control of all of these institutions, even then, it will be really difficult to get all the changes you want enacted.

So barring a revolution, there is no way a lot of these processes are going to change soon. I hear those mutterers who believe that maybe a revolution is in order here, at least until we can change to a fairer system. Revolutions are bloody and acrimonious and, given the divisions in this country, comes with very real difficulties that does real harm to good people on both sides of the divide. You may think you want a civil war but you really don’t and, unlike the last civil war, there will be two sides who could possess nuclear weapons. Think about it. Who gets the nuclear weapons in this divorce? It may depend on where those warheads are located.

So let’s stop talking about revolution and dictatorships and support democratic institutions because even unfair ones are better than dictatorships. A good example of the benefit of democratic institutions is the storming of the capital on January 6. The rebels thought they could stop the process and change the result of an election. Much to the dismay of the rebels, possessing the capital building, only delayed the process. Enough good people at various points did the right thing and saved us. Keep in the mind this wasn’t one person acting heroically. It was many different people seeing what the right thing to do was and behaving responsibly. A lot of people, with varying degrees of power, following the rule of law, made the decisions for us. This is the biggest strength of democracy. We all play a part and, if change comes, the matter has gone through a lot of duplicate, chaotic and often unnecessary processes but the people have had their say.

Can our democracy be better? Undoubtedly. If Maher has any suggestions on how to make these changes through democratic means, I am all ears. But China is neither a fair comparison nor particularly relevant. China is not a democracy and we can glean little from studying their processes. That they can put up a building overnight is neither something to value nor emulate if it came about from the whim of one person.

This leaves us with a difficult and a messy bunch of often unfair democratic institutions that we need to plow through in order to make changes. Democracy is extremely hard work and, if you are looking for quick changes, it is likely to meet with failure more often than not. Democracy is neither efficient nor particularly fast. It is certainly messy but in the end it is always better than a dictatorship. And I mean always.