Protecting the Sheep from the Wolves

There's nothing much to debunk about this meme, since I will accept the quote as belonging to Ron Paul, without investigation.  He's had a long career and this statement certainly seems to reflect his general views on taxation.  As far as claiming to know the intentions of the Founding Fathers, he is entitled to his opinion.

What I find interesting is the circulation of this Internet meme by conservative groups.  For instance, I saw it shared on the facebook page of this group, called We, the People,Will Be Heard, which seems to be anti-Obama, anti-gun control, anti-liberal. Their tag line is "Sheepdogs educating and protecting the sheep from the wolves." A recent post suggests the group believes that the shootings in Newtown, CT were staged.  

In trying to determine why such a group would choose to share this particular meme, I can only conclude that it has something to do with opposition to President Obama's insistence that spending cuts alone will not fix what ails our economy and his repeated call for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

Ron Paul is a wealthy man. A retired medical doctor and member of congress, most of his income does not come from salaries or even from the sales of books he's written. Most of his money comes from property management groups and investments in gold and silver mining ventures. 

Ours is a capitalistic society -- it's good to be successful and rich -- but I think it's also important to consider how  Ron Paul's proposed tax reforms would benefit him personally, in addition to how they could benefit the nation's economy and the rest of America's working citizens -- because the first is definite and the second is speculative.

"As president, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes," his website says. "And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good."

He would immediately repeal capital gains taxes, which the candidate says "punish you for success" and "interfere with your efforts to hedge against inflation by purchasing gold and silver coins."

He would repeal the 1993 Social Security tax increase, and work in the long run to exempt Social Security benefits from taxation. Paul would drop the corporate tax rate to 15%.

While he would like to move to a flat tax or fair tax, Paul also suggests something of a back-up plan:

"Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution's strict limits on the federal government's power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans," his website says.

It also might be of interest to the folks at We, the People, Will Be Heard to know Ron Paul's reason for choosing not to endorse Mitt Romney over President Obama in the 2012 election:

“I don’t think there’s enough difference between the two candidates, and I assume the victor today will be the status quo,” the former presidential candidate told CNN on Tuesday. “We’re going to continue with basically the same policies that we’ve had for a long time, so I don’t see the election, as the way its turning out, to be very crucial at all.”

6:400:150,000,000

A group called Being Liberal shared this graphic earlier this week. It's received lots of likes and shares, but not so much discussion.  

I wonder if this mean the information shared is accepted as fact? Or that so-called "Liberals" don't mind it so much that some people are very rich?

It wasn't hard to find the source for this meme, though I'm not an economist or a mathematician, so I'm content to take Robert Reich's word for the numbers, since I believe that's where the creator of this meme got them.  

In this article for the San Francisco Chronicle, from Christmas day, 2011, Reich wrote, 

"So the 400 richest Americans, whose total wealth exceeds the combined wealth of the bottom 150 million Americans put together . . . " 

The Internal Revenue Service has a website which provides lots and lots of reports, several of which have to do with the top 400 earners in the United States.  If you care to peruse those reports and dispute Reich's stats, please feel free to do so -- it is beyond my ken.  

Much easier to consider the question posed by the meme:  What do the top 400 American earners do for a living?  (The question of worth, as it relates to money, is fraught with subjectives too complex to address here.  Many people provide valuable services and are not compensated financially at all, perhaps most notably stay-at-home parents and homemakers.)

Forbes Magazine makes it simple to answer the question.

Here's the most recent list of America's top 400 richest individuals, including brief biographical sketches. The list provides the source of each individual's fortune and does indeed make for interesting reading.

Bill Gates is the richest man in America.  Warren Buffet is number 2.  Michael Bloomberg is number 10.  Mark Zuckerberg is 26.  Donald Trump is 128.  Robert Kraft is 206.

So I'll leave you peruse the list and make your own value judgements.

BUT I do feel compelled to share the fact that I counted no fewer than four members of the Walton family in the top 10.  

Here is an interesting article on that subject, if you care to read more.

Consider the Source

This Internet meme appeared January 17th on a facebook page called Tea Party Stand Up, which describes itself as a "NOPC Radio Free Speech Tea Party Republican movement".

Apparently one can listen to the group's program live on Blog Talk Radio Saturdays at 10 pm. EST.

The group's stated mission is "To save America one person at a time!"

Since January 17th, 444 people have 'liked'  this meme and it has been 'shared' 481 times. 

Although I was skeptical of the information presented, I was intimidated by the thought of trying to debunk it.  

The creator of the meme did not feel it necessary to provide an attribution or cite sources for the  statistics, but I would.  It seemed possible that I would invest several hours of research and not be able to offer a credible response, so I moved on.  

But the boldness of this assertion kept niggling at me and I wound up doing the work anyway.

I believe the statement comes from this article by John Fund  which appeared in the National Review Online on December 16, 2012, just two days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The National Review bills itself as offering "Conservative commentary on American politics, news and culture."  It was founded in 1955 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Fund's article is entitled, "The Facts about Mass Shootings" with a tag line of "It's time to address mental health and gun-free zones." 

The main thrust of the article is summarized in this paragraph: 

"Almost all of the public-policy discussion about Newtown has focused on a debate over the need for more gun control. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. We would be better off debating two taboo subjects — the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that “gun-free” zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don’t work." 

In that article, Fund offers statistics collected from various sources to support his assertions. 

For instance, he cites a study by Mother Jones magazine, as having " . . . found that at least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.”  Fund didn't provide a link to the study, or even provide the name the study, which meant I had to locate it myself, but I think he means this one, which offers an interesting interactive map, and does reports a statistic called "Prior Signs of Possible Mental Illness."  

To support his assertion that "gun-free zones" are counter-productive, Fund references a 1999 study by John Lott and William Landes as having found that " . . a common theme of mass shootings is that they occur in places where guns are banned and killers know everyone will be unarmed, such as shopping malls and schools."  

Apparently John Fund spoke with John Lott after the Newtown shooting.  He quotes Lott as saying, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

It was a relief to find the source of the statement so quickly.  I was envisioning having to analyze every  word of this rather convoluted sentence to determine whether or not it was factual, beginning with an attempt to determine the definition of the word "public" and continuing on with an investigation into the gun laws of every state in which there was a public shooting where 3 or more people died -- since 1950, no less.

In one respect, then, the debunking of the meme was complete.  The quote should have been presented like this:  

"With just one single exception . . . every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns." -- John Lott 

but otherwise, the meme's message seems to reflect the viewpoints of both John Lott and John Fund -- and apparently also the viewpoint of the folks at Tea Party Stand Up. 

But I became curious about John Lott and this 1999 study -- are they credible sources?   So I kept reading.  

What I learned is that John Lott is a controversial figure who has published several books, articles and studies. He maintains a prominent social media presence, including this blog.  Just yesterday, he appeared on Glenn Beck's radio show. 

The survey John Fund referenced is available in PDF format and makes for interesting reading.  The abstract states that the results of the study find that ". . . the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws." and "... explain(s) why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity."

Wikipedia's entry for John Lott is extensive and its neutrality has been questioned, but there were several legitimate references cited. A few hours' reading reveals that the credibility of Lott's work has often come into question.  It has been alleged that his work was funded by the NRA, that he created a fake persona to offer favorable reviews of his own work and that his statistical studies are "junk science".   

In John Fund's article (from which I believe this meme's quote was culled) he cited Mother Jones' statistical study relating to mass shootings, which I take to mean that he considers Mother Jones to be as reputable a source as John Lott.  Here's a Mother Jones article from 2003 which does a thorough job explaining the controversies surround Lott's credibility.  He's legitimacy as a scholar has long been in question.

Some might say, "where there's smoke there's fire."  Others might say that the reason Lott has so many detractors is that he speaks a truth which others seek to hide.

No wonder people like to form their opinions based on Internet memes and sound bites.  Choosing to investigate is a lot more work and a lot less cut-and-dried.

Lack of Proper Comparative Context

I found this meme on a facebook page called Americans Against the Republican Party.  The group's tagline is "Saving America from the regressive GOP.

The man pictured is Gene Wilder.  He is dressed as he appeared in the 1971 film, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, directed by Mel Brooks. 

There is a plethora of Internet memes using this photograph.  It doesn't take much effort to create one.  I've seen it used with all sorts of messages -- some liberal, some conservative, many having nothing at all to do with politics -- so I'm fairly certain that it is Willy Wonka rather than Gene Wilder who is being selected as a spokesman. 

I have no idea who first decided that Roald Dahl's classic character would be a good choice for this application, but I find it interesting.  Perhaps because the reader is never quite certain whether the eccentric, enigmatic chocolate maker is good or bad, whether he's telling the truth or lying.  

What's the point of this meme and is it a point worth making? 

First, let's look to see if Republicans have something to complain about. 

According to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which has a wonderfully simple-to-navigate website, the National Debt is defined as: 

". . .  the cumulative amount outstanding that the government has borrowed to finance deficits." 


There is a feature on the website which allows one to look up the National Debt figure of any particular day for the last ten years.  

As of February 14th, just a few days ago, that number was  $16,540,800,290,147.46.

As of Jan 20th, 2009, the day before President Obama took office, the National Debt was recorded as  $10,626,877,048,913.08

So, it would indeed seem that the National Debt has been increased during the Obama administration.  

The text at the bottom of the meme is a bit vague.  We've only had one President Reagan, but we've had two  Presidents Bush and we don't know which one is being referenced.  The first President Bush served immediately following Reagan.  Then came an eight year gap for the Clinton adminstration.  The second President Bush immediately preceded President Obama.    

Fortunately, once again,  Snopes.com came to my rescue, saving me hours of digging, comparing and struggling with mathematical computations involving ridiculously large numbers.

Back in 2011, the chart shown below was apparently circulated by Nancy Pelosi's office. 

A quick perusal tells me that the makers of our Willy Wonka meme could (and probably do?) mean both Presidents Bush.

So what did Snopes.com conclude after its in-depth analysis?

"All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to lack of proper comparative context." 

So there you have it.

Let's All Talk About That

This Internet meme was found on the facebook page of  a group called, Being Liberal which describes itself as ". . . fighting to bring back the true meaning of the word into the mainstream language.  We are PROUD OF BEING LIBERAL!"  As we can easily see, the meme was created by Ola Betiku.

My daughter thought this meme would be a good candidate for debunking.

So let's see what's to be learned.

First, we need to decide who the "you" is in this meme.  Based on current events, I think it's safe to say that this question is primarily  directed at the National Rifle Association's, Wayne LaPierre, who testified recently on Capitol Hill.  There, among other things, he said:

"I think we can also agree that our mental health system is broken. We need to look at the full range of mental health issues, from early detection and treatment, to civil commitment laws, to privacy laws that needlessly prevent mental health records from being included in the National Instant [Criminal Background] Check System."

Although not cited, it seems likely that the $4.3 billion statistic used in the meme was collected from this article which appeared in The Huffington Post in September of 2012.

"Across the country, states facing severe financial shortfalls have cut at least $4.35 billion in public mental health spending from 2009 to 2012, according to the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD). It's the largest reduction in funding since de-institutionalization in the 1960s and '70s. In fiscal year 2012 alone, 31 states that gave their numbers to the association reported cutting more than $840 million."

I was unfamiliar with NASMHPD (pronounced NASH-bid), so I looked it up and learned that it is  a  nation-wide organization which has been around since 1959, representing members of the public mental health delivery system in all 50 states.  

Next I followed the link provided by The Huffington Post and read the NASMHPD report from which the statistics about the spending cuts were drawn.  The report is entitled,  "Proceedings on the State Budget Crisis and the Behavioral Health Treatment Gap: The Impact on Public Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment Systems" and was prepared in March of 2012,  summarizing a Congressional briefing.

So far, so good in terms of fact-checking.  If anything, the creator of the meme is guilty of reducing the spending cuts by half a billion dollars. 

Now for the most difficult task:  determining whether it is factual to credit the Republicans with those spending cuts.  

NASMHPD's report does not point figures at one political party or another, which is not surprising.  The organization operates under a cooperative agreement with the National Governor's Association, clearly a bipartisan group, and was briefing Congress.  Assigning blame would not have furthered its cause.

So where does the idea that Republicans are responsible for the cuts come from? 

I found this article in The Huffington Post earlier this week, which discusses the fact that some legislators are currently introducing or supporting programs aimed at addressing mental health issues, claiming these measures as being integral to the solution to our nation's problem with gun violence.  

The author of the article, Alana Horowitz, points out that some of these legislators have not been supportive of spending money on mental health programs in the past. She questions their motives for doing so now. 

Here is one example she offers:  

"Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R)  this week proposed nearly $29 million in state funding on mental health initiatives to combat gun violence.

"Just gun control alone may or may not address [violence]. If you've got someone with a severe mental illness that's causing them to take irrational actions like this, banning a certain type of firearms may just move them to some other weapon, some other explosive," he told CBS58 in December. "It really begs the question: what are we doing to address mental illness?"

But Wisconsin, under Walker, has slashed funding for mental health services in recent years. Between 2009 and 2011, Wisconsin cut $107.1 million in mental health funding. Walker did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment.

Like most of the lawmakers mentioned, Walker has received a high rating from the National Rifle Association."

Is it fair to assume that having a high rating from the NRA means that a legislator is influenced by the NRA?  

Is it fair to say that most of the legislators who have received endorsements from the NRA are Republicans?  

Here's an info-graphic from an article I found at ThinkProgress:

Not every state shown here is typically categorized as a "Red" state, but many are.  Does that mean Republicans are primarily responsible for the cuts?

On Capitol Hill there is a long on-going Mental Health Caucus.  Its stated purpose is to work ". . . in a bipartisan manner to inform, educate, and advocate to Members of Congress and the public on a variety of mental health issues . . ."  

Its membership is overwhelmingly Democratic.  Does that mean that most Republicans are indifferent to mental health issues and therefore might be more prone to cut funding for mental health programs?

And what Republicans wanting to repeal "Obamacare" and cuts to Medicaid funding for mental health programs?  If I attempt to try to make heads or tails of those debates in this forum, we'll be here til the cows come home.

So what's the verdict on this meme? 

It scores well in terms of the hard numbers it presents and it makes a persuasive case for the argument that the current flurry of enthusiastic support by Republicans might be disingenuous and might have a lot to do with the NRA.  

BUT. 

I wish this meme ended with something more than just an invitation to "all talk about" the cuts to mental health funding allegedly made by Republicans.  

What does mental illness have to do with gun violence?  Why are we all of a sudden talking about mental illness in relation to gun laws?

The NRA often tells us that most gun owners are law abiding citizens who do not commit acts of violence with their guns, and they are absolutely right to say so, because it is true.

 It is also true that most people who suffer from mental illness are not violent.

 In fact, according to the National Institute of Mental Health,  " . . . mental illness contributes very little to the overall rate of violence in the community. Most people with  SMI (severe mental illness) are not violent, and most violent acts are not committed by people with SMI. In fact, people with SMI are actually at higher risk of being victims of violence than perpetrators.. . .The most common form of violence associated with mental illness is not against others, but rather, against oneself."

Shootings such as the one which occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School throw a spotlight on a problem which plagues our society.  In sorrow and fear, people demand action.   As I've said here before, no one on any side of the argument believes that it is OK for innocent people to die in public places. 

I found this in a 2011 report from the National Alliance on Mental Illness:


"Unfortunately, the public often focuses on mental illness only when high visibility tragedies of the
magnitude of Tucson or Virginia Tech occur. However, less visible tragedies take place everyday
in our communities—suicides, homelessness, arrests, incarceration, school drop-out and more.
These personal tragedies also occur because of our failure to provide access to effective mental
health services and supports." 


I think we need to keep in mind that the 'less visible tragedies' are as important as those which splash across the national news media from time to time.

Discussion on this topic is too often reduced to polarizing, self-serving, vitriolic debate.  

Lots of pledges have been made in the aftermath of the tragedy at Newtown.  Many people are promising not to rest until changes are made.  Many say they will 'do anything' to keep such an event from happening again. 

What if everyone would start by acknowledging these two simple facts:  

1.  Because a person who commits a mass murderer is mentally ill, it does not naturally follow that all mentally ill people are mass murderers.

2.  Because a mass murder is committed with a gun, it does not naturally follow that all gun owners are mass murderers.

Or would that be too much to ask?

Too Many Children

This Internet meme comes courtesy of a facebook page charmingly entitled, "Hate Liberals? Bite Me." which describes itself as  "A page to vent about the GOP, the Teanderthals and other useless conservatives, racists, homophobes and women-haters."

This is an in-your-face meme, designed to provoke a strong reaction.  

It seems, tragically, to be factual in describing the circumstances surrounding the child's death.  

The gun's provenance does not seem as definitely proven as the meme proclaims.  According to the Akron Beacon Journal, in its reporting of the story on January 24th,  detectives were still working to track its history:

"Where the trail of Terrance Allen’s gun started, like the trail of the 1,200 other guns seized since 2011, is part of the ongoing course police are charting. Nice’s goal, he said, is to one day see harsher sentences for illegal gun possession.

“Terrance is the typical guy we see,” Nice said. “It’s not the hunters or the registered gun owners that we’re seeing. It’s criminals. That’s why we want to know how they got the gun, where the got the gun and why they’re not in jail.”

The meme's claim that "a background check could have saved a life", therefore, is speculation and not a matter of fact.

I don't enjoy visiting this group's facebook page and I don't like looking at this meme.  It is inflammatory, provocative and manipulative.

But yet, I can't bring myself to argue with it. Can you?

To quote Gabby Giffords, "Too many children are dying."

Things Liberals Hate

I don't like labels, and I don't join groups.  

I am not a Democrat, for example, even though for the past several elections I have voted mostly for Democratic candidates.  I am not a feminist, even though I recently donated money to Planned Parenthood.  I am not an atheist or an agnostic, even though I am not a member of any other organized religious group.  

And, honestly, I don't consider myself  "A Liberal", either, though after reading the preceding paragraph, I suppose most people would. 

I am a contributing member of a few select not-for-profit groups such as the botanic garden and an independent film house -- and I do have a AAA membership -- but by and large, the only labels I will embrace are inherent:  mother, daughter, sister, wife, American, etc.

What does this personal reflection have to do with the above Internet meme?  Nothing, really, except that I found it on the facebook page of  a group called "Things Liberals Hate", and since I do hate it quite a bit, I feel compelled to consider that I might be (whether I want to admit it or not), after all, "A Liberal".  

Let's see what we find out by deconstructing this meme.

The man pictured is Michael Bloomberg.  (Now there's a man with a LOT of labels!)  Currently he is Mayor of New York City.  

The text at the top of the meme refers to the ban on large size sugary drinks which Mayor Bloomberg has champions and the New York City Board of Health has approved.  This ban goes into effect next month. 

The text at the bottom of the meme refers to a program called CATCH (Connecting Adolescents To Comprehensive Healthcare) which was introduced into a small number of New York City schools last fall. 

At the risk of coming off as both a Liberal and a Feminist,  I will refrain from writing my opinions on the subjects of sugary drinks and contraception as they relate to public health and stick to the facts as they are misstated in this meme. 

The ban on drinks is actually, in a way, more aggressive than this meme suggests.  The measure will limit the sale of individual sized sugary drinks to 16 oz rather than 32 oz. Critics complain that it is not effective because there are so many beverages un-regulated.  Even Bloomberg acknowledges that the measure is primarily symbolic:

“All we’re doing here is educating. It forces you to see the difference.” Limiting the serving size forces people to consider how much they’re ingesting. 

The meme's description of the CATCH program  is wrong on all three counts.  Abortion pills are not being given to 12-year-olds in New York City schools without parental consent.  

First, CATCH is a program offered in a small number of high schools, where there are extremely few, if any at all, 12-year-olds. 

Secondly, the pill being made available by CATCH is Plan B One-Step which the Food and Drug Adminstration defines as:


" . . . effective in decreasing the chance of pregnancy if taken within 3 days after unprotected sexual intercourse.  The product contains higher levels of a hormone found in some types of daily use oral hormonal contraceptive pills and works in a similar way to birth control pills."

RU 486, the so-called 'abortion pill'  is not being offered.  The difference between the two is fairly obvious:  the first prevents pregnancy and the second terminates a pregnancy. 

Finally, parents are given a tool to opt out of having their children receive any or all of the various contraceptive measures available in New York City schools.   There is a simple "opt out" form that if returned by the parent or guardian of children under 18 would prevent the school nurse from distributing contraceptive measures to a particular child. 

This group, Things Liberals Hate, doesn't seem to be New-York-City-centric, so why focus attention on the Mayor?  

I  surmise that the group would like to discredit Michael Bloomberg because he founded the nation-wide coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns and his Super PAC openly opposes legislators who support the NRA's anti gun control measures.

After several hours spent reading and reflecting, I have determined that the reason I hate this meme is not that I am a Liberal. (Another label avoided, thank goodness.)

I hate it because it is provocative, misleading, manipulative and inaccurate. Like all such pieces of propaganda, it insults the intelligence of its audience by assuming that those targeted will be too lazy to check things out for themselves.

Disagreeing with Bloomberg's public health policies is one thing;  agreeing to have the wool pulled over our eyes is something else.

An Offense to Keep Arms

Do you all know who Joseph Story was? I didn't before this morning, so I'm grateful to the Tea Party for providing the impetus for me to learn about him.  He was a Massachusetts lawyer who served in the state legislature and the Congress.  In 1810, at the age of 32, he was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Madison, where he remained  a member until his death in 1845.

The words in this meme are directly and easily attributable to Joseph Story, but his sentence is intentionally truncated to allow it to stand alone out of context.

The context for the quotation was included in Story's 1840 work, Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States. 

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia."

Reading only a few paragraphs, it is clear to see that Story's primary concern about the Second Amendment was question of whether the militia should be replaced with a standing army:

"The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia.  The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}

              The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject.  The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.  It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.  The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.  And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations.  How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.  There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."

I think Joseph Story's words on the subject of gun rights in the United States provide an interesting additional dimension to the currently raging debate.

I also think it's safe to say that the Tea Party is not interested in disbanding the standing armies of the United States.  So one would think they surely wouldn't want anyone reading too much Joseph Story, right?

This meme was shared four days ago and has received 27,700 'likes', 17,591 'shares' and 1539 comments.  Clearly, this is a hot topic.

The comments are spirited, indeed.  Many are writing to support the right to bear arms, many are writing to support gun control measures.  Many are against President Obama and many are for him.

None of the comments I read asks who Joseph Story was or questions the context of his words or expresses any intellectual curiosity whatsoever.

All of the comments I read were written by people who firmly entrenched in their positions.  No one on either side wants  to participate in open and honest dialog.  Everyone seems to enjoy pounding fists and pointing fingers.

The person who created this Internet meme is betting on the fact that we are too intellectually lazy to do any thinking for ourselves.  Of course we will believe whatever we are told.  Of course we will not question. Of course we will be manipulated.

Based on the response this meme has drawn over the last few days, I'd say that's a good bet.

The Truth About Guns

I found this Internet meme on the facebook page of a group called Teabonics, which offers this explanation of its mission:  "Welcome to Teabonics where we call out the hypocrisy of the GOP."

Thanks to these folks, I've spent the better part of today reading about guns in America. As a result, my head and heart both ache. I feel agitated, frustrated and angry.  Anyone who believes this is a simple issue is misinformed and needs to get educated.


Sticking to the facts for a moment, my research reveals that the meme is essentially accurate.  I am deeply endebted to Adam Winkler for his excellent article, "The Secret History of Guns". 


The photo shows members of The Black Panther Party standing on the steps of California State Capitol building in May of 1967.  

They were assembled to protest the Mulford Act, which  Governor Ronald Reagan did in fact sign  into law. The law prohibited the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city.  

I have not yet found a specific reference to the NRA's position on that particular California law, but in the 1960's the organization did support more restrictive gun laws, culminating with its support of the 1968 federal Gun Control Act.  Explaining that endorsement,  the NRA stated, "While certain features of the law . . . appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

The Black Panthers had grown impatient with the non-violent measures of Martin Luther King's civil rights movement.  They formed armed police patrols and learned to use the letter of the law to protect black citizens from police brutality.   In 1966, it was legal in California to carry a loaded weapon in the street, so long as it was registered, not concealed and not pointed in a threatening manner.  The Black Panthers followed the letter of the law and the white establishment felt threatened enough to propose legislation forbidding any citizen the right to carry a loaded weapon in public.  

OK.  So now that we know what it's all about, why would Teabonics consider this meme to be useful in furthering its goal of calling out the hypocrisy of the GOP?

Well, simply put, if it was good enough for Reagan, shouldn't it be good enough for today's Republicans?

Sadly, the issue is far more complex than this meme would have us believe.

Adam Winkler's article includes this particularly fascinating paragraph:

"The new NRA was not only responding to the wave of gun-control laws enacted to disarm black radicals; it also shared some of the Panthers’ views about firearms. Both groups valued guns primarily as a means of self-defense. Both thought people had a right to carry guns in public places, where a person was easily victimized, and not just in the privacy of the home. They also shared a profound mistrust of law enforcement. (For years, the NRA has demonized government agents, like those in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the federal agency that enforces gun laws, as “jack-booted government thugs.” Wayne LaPierre, the current executive vice president, warned members in 1995 that anyone who wears a badge has “the government’s go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.”) For both the Panthers in 1967 and the new NRA after 1977, law-enforcement officers were too often representatives of an uncaring government bent on disarming ordinary citizens."

Doesn't it  seem that the Black Panthers were reacting  exactly as many of today's gun rights activists believe they should be allowed to react when government oversteps its bounds?  

The more I learn about gun violence and gun control, the more sickened and disheartened I become.  I would like to stick my head in the sand, letting others fight it out, hoping for the best. I don't want to know any more;  I just want it to go away.

The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school was a tipping point and I am glad to see the nation energized and engaged in meaningful dialog . BUT -- speaking of hypocrisy --  it should not be worse to see white elementary school children gunned down than it is to see black inner city teens gunned down, but somehow, to this nation, it is.   If I find this reality infuriating, I can only imagine what black people feel.

Despite our imperfections, hypocrisies and obsession with sound bites, can we make something good from something so evil?   Can we work together to make changes that protect all our citizens from gun violence?

I am afraid that the answer to those questions is No.  The dialog is not open and respectful.  People on all sides are fearful and there is too much propaganda and too many lies are told.

But this meme -- it's not a lie.  

It's one version of the truth. 

Big Government

This Internet meme is so easily debunked that I feel somewhat embarrassed choosing to write about it, but I suppose it's still important to remind people that Thomas Jefferson is one of the most often mis-quoted figures in American history.  

According to the historians at Monticello, "Neither this quotation nor any of its variant forms has been found in the writings of Thomas Jefferson."  So that's that.  End of blog entry.  I am free to get on with the rest of my day -- unless we want to talk a bit about why such a meme would be created and disseminated.  

I found this meme on a facebook page called Political Follies, shared from a blog of the same name.   No mission statement is given, but the content is consistently anti-Obama, anti-Democrat, anti-liberal.  

In such an environment, why quote Thomas Jefferson?

I suppose because he is one of our nation's 'founding fathers' and therefore perceived as an infallible authority on the way the United States should be run.  

The inference to be derived from this particular misquote is that Jefferson was in favor of smaller government and therefore, if alive today, he would be opposed to President Obama's administration because it favors larger government.  Apparently the opinion expressed would have less import without the Jeffersonion seal of approval.

Studying Jefferson a bit, it does seem that he generally favored decentralized power, but  he was able to put aside his qualms about employing the power of the federal government when it was expedient to do so -- like when he wanted to purchase the Louisiana territory.

Everyone knows that Thomas Jefferson is responsible for putting into words some of our nations most cherished principles --  ". . . all men are created equal. . . " being chief among them -- yet he owned slaves all his life and advocated the forced relocation of North America's indigenous peoples.  

The more one learns about Thomas Jefferson, the more clear it becomes that he was a complex individual living in complicated times, and that his viewpoints evolved in response to changing circumstances.  

I do not pretend to know for whom Jefferson would have voted in this past November's election or whether or not he would support a ban on semi-automatic weapons, but I am confident that he would give careful consideration before casting his vote or taking a stand on any issue. 

I am also confident that he would pay no heed  to groups who create Internet memes like the one pictured above, nor to those individuals who 'like' and 'share' such folderol indiscriminately and irresponsibly.

Trying to fit an idea of Jefferson's into a visual sound bite is like trying to catch the ocean in a tea cup:
those who try succeed only in revealing their own limitations.

Liberal Bias?

This blog was conceived with the intent of fostering a spirit of inquiry and independent thought, encouraging the habit of not accepting information without considering its veracity.

It is not my intent to forward any political agenda. I envisioned discussing both liberal and conservative memes and expected that I would find outrageous distortions of facts by both sides.

What I have so far found is that while the anti-conservative groups tend to create Internet memes that are every bit as critical (and in some cases down right nasty) as the anti-liberals, they more often use words of their own to express these opinions.

Even the most rabid groups tend to package their vitriol in modern lingo and pop culture images, rather than quoting from the past to make their point today. Plenty of outrageous freedom of expression, but not much blatant distortion of other people's words.

I will keep looking each day, and I hope others will feel free to call my attention to any liberal memes that need debunking,  but in the meantime, I'm going to keep working on those I do find, whatever their agenda.

Cognitive Dissonance

I saw this Internet meme on the facebook page of a group called, Conservative Women Rock, where it had been shared from the page of a group called Uncles Sam's Misguided Children.  

Although the President is not directly quoted in this image, clearly the creators of this Internet meme want the viewer to understand that the President has espoused the two views shown in the top portion:  that football is too dangerous for young men and that young women should be in combat. 

The conclusion drawn at the bottom of the meme is that a person who is capable of espousing both those views suffers from "cognitive dissonance", which must be some sort of a disease or a disorder -- at any rate, something very undesirable -  and that typically someone afflicted with is condition is comparable with homeless people (because who else but homeless people push shopping carts through parks at night, right?) Or something like that, anyway.  

So let's start at the top and work our way down. 

First, did the President say that football is too dangerous for young men? Here's what the he said in an interview with The New Republic:

"I'm a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I'd have to think long and hard before I let him play football. And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won't have to examine our consciences quite as much.

I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they're grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies. You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That's something that I'd like to see the NCAA think about." 

And what is his position on military women serving in the military? Here are his comments as reported by the Department of Defense:

“Today, by moving to open more military positions -- including ground combat units -- to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens,” the president said in a statement. “This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today’s military.”

More than 150 women have died in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the president noted, calling them “patriots whose sacrifices show that valor knows no gender.”

(Myself, I think whoever coined the phrase, "valor knows no gender" deserves a raise; that's pretty good stuff.)

So the President is a football fan who loves the sport but thinks it will probably change gradually to reduce some of the violence. And if he had a son, he would think long and hard before letting him play football.

And the President supports the decision made by the armed forces to open more military positions (including ground combat units) to women and acknowledges that women have rendered courageous and patriotic service to the U.S. military.  

Based on the direct quotes on these two topics, we could change the words at the top left of the meme to read, "I'm a big football fan. . .", and the ones at the top right to read, ". . . valor has no gender."  That would sure change the tone a bit, wouldn't it?

But for the sake of this discussion, let's give the meme's creators a pass on the veracity of the top two statements as presented and move on to the bottom portion, which is much more complicated and confusing.

There's this mention of "cognitive dissonance".  Not being a psychologist, I had to look that up.

Here's what I found out:  it's not a disease or a disorder or even a condition.  It is theory.  A very interesting and important theory in social psychology, well tested and generally regarded as viable.

The theory, which was introduced by Leon Festinger in 1956 seeks to explain why people of strong convictions are so resistant to changing their beliefs even in the face of undeniable contradictory evidence.

Festinger explained that dissonance is uncomfortable and that people take various measures to alleviate this discomfort: 

"The person may try to change one or more of the beliefs, opinions, or behaviors involved in the dissonance; to acquire new information or beliefs that will increase the existing consonance and, thus, cause the total dissonance to be reduced; or to forget or reduce the importance of those cognitions that are in a dissonant relationship." (Festinger et al. 1956)

If you do a Google search on the term "cognitive dissonance", the site which comes up first, predictably, is Wikipedia, which begins their article on the theory with this statement:  "In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the feeling of discomfort when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions."

(I must say that the words which came  immediately to my mind when I read the phrase, "two or more conflicting ideas" were F.Scott Fitzgerald's, from his 1936 essay, "The Crack Up":  "Before I go on with this short history, let me make a general observation -- the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."  But since I am unaware of Fitzgerald having conducting any scientific research on this theory, we'll leave it as an aside for now.)

So here we are, still left with this Internet meme staring us in the face.  I will now leave it to you to judge the motives of its creators and the veracity of its claims.

Do you believe the President is suffering from a chronic condition called Cognitive Dissonance?

Are all parents who think twice about allowing their sons to play football also suffering from the same affliction?  How about the rest of the folks in the Defense Department who were in on the decision to allow women to serve in combat positions?

One explanation of cognitive dissonance which I read gave the example of Aesop's fable "The Fox and the Grapes" as an example of behavior explained by this theory.  The hungry fox strongly desires the grapes but cannot reach them no matter how hard he tries.  The sense of failure is dissonant with the desire for the grapes.  This makes him feel uncomfortable.  Since he cannot change the fact that he cannot get the grapes, he changes his attitude toward the grapes, converting them from objects of desire to objects of disdain.  

Is it possible that  the two cognitions -- one about football safety and one women serving in combat -- are not dissonant at all?  Is it possible that,  like most cognitions, these two are not sufficiently in conflict to cause any discomfort at all to the President -- or even to people pushing shopping carts through parks at night?

Lastly -- and of most concern to me -- do you take issue with the meme's characterization of homeless people?  Given the fact that whoever created this meme appears to hold President Obama in low esteem, it follows that any comparison with him  reflects an attitude of disdain.

President Obama chose to subject himself to public scrutiny.  He expected to be subject to ridicule.  It comes with the territory, unfortunately. The same cannot be said for those who are "pushing grocery carts through parks at night."

As I said, I'm leaving it up to you to make your own judgement, but for me, the judgement as to this meme's veracity is colored by the creator's choice of metaphor.

Essentially the message boils down to:  "President Obama is as crazy as a homeless person."  I am not OK with that.  What does it say about all those who "like" and "share" this meme that such a message resonates enough to merit endorsement?