Consequences of Social Media
What follows is an interesting article about Israel’s incitement laws and the complex relationship between identity and social media, particularly at the intersection of political policy and national defense. A good read:
The Trim Beneath the Fascia
A recent wind-storm took off the metal fascia covering the original, 1949 trim work on our Skokie home.
Letters from an American
One of my favorite, regular reads:
Jan 15
You hear sometimes, now that we know the sordid details of the lives of some of our leading figures, that America has no heroes left.
When I was writing a book about the Wounded Knee Massacre, where heroism was pretty thin on the ground, I gave that a lot of thought. And I came to believe that heroism is neither being perfect, nor doing something spectacular. In fact, it’s just the opposite: it’s regular, flawed human beings choosing to put others before themselves, even at great cost, even if no one will ever know, even as they realize the walls might be closing in around them.
It means sitting down the night before D-Day and writing a letter praising the troops and taking all the blame for the next day’s failure upon yourself, in case things went wrong, as General Dwight D. Eisenhower did.
It means writing in your diary that you “still believe that people are really good at heart,” even while you are hiding in an attic from the men who are soon going to kill you, as Anne Frank did.
It means signing your name to the bottom of the Declaration of Independence in bold print, even though you know you are signing your own death warrant should the British capture you, as John Hancock did.
It means defending your people’s right to practice a religion you don’t share, even though you know you are becoming a dangerously visible target, as Sitting Bull did.
Sometimes it just means sitting down, even when you are told to stand up, as Rosa Parks did.
None of those people woke up one morning and said to themselves that they were about to do something heroic. It’s just that, when they had to, they did what was right.
On April 3, 1968, the night before the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated by a white supremacist, he gave a speech in support of sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee. Since 1966, King had tried to broaden the Civil Rights Movement for racial equality into a larger movement for economic justice. He joined the sanitation workers in Memphis, who were on strike after years of bad pay and such dangerous conditions that two men had been crushed to death in garbage compactors.
After his friend Ralph Abernathy introduced him to the crowd, King had something to say about heroes: “As I listened to Ralph Abernathy and his eloquent and generous introduction and then thought about myself, I wondered who he was talking about.”
Dr. King told the audience that, if God had let him choose any era in which to live, he would have chosen the one in which he had landed. “Now, that’s a strange statement to make,” King went on, “because the world is all messed up. The nation is sick. Trouble is in the land; confusion all around…. But I know, somehow, that only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars.” Dr. King said that he felt blessed to live in an era when people had finally woken up and were working together for freedom and economic justice.
He knew he was in danger as he worked for a racially and economically just America. “I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter…because I’ve been to the mountaintop…. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life…. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!”
People are wrong to say that we have no heroes left.
Just as they have always been, they are all around us, choosing to do the right thing, no matter what.
Wishing you all a day of peace for Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2024.
[Image of the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington, D.C., by Buddy Poland.]
Notes:
Dr. King’s final speech:
Biden renews call for assault weapons ban
President Biden issued the following statement Thursday morning (10/26/23) on the deadly mass shooting in Lewiston:
Once again, our nation is in mourning after yet another senseless and tragic mass shooting. Today, Jill and I are praying for the Americans who’ve lost their lives, for those still in critical care, and for the families, survivors, and community members enduring shock and grief.
I also urge area residents to heed the warnings and guidance of local officials. Numerous Federal law enforcement personnel are on the scene and actively working with state and local partners. As I told Maine Governor Janet Mills, Senators Collins and King, and Congressman Golden last night, I have directed my administration to provide everything that is needed to support the people of Maine. We will continue to be there every step of the way.
For countless Americans who have survived gun violence and been traumatized by it, a shooting such as this reopens deep and painful wounds. Far too many Americans have now had a family member killed or injured as a result of gun violence. That is not normal, and we cannot accept it.
While we have made progress on gun safety through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the two dozen executive actions I’ve taken, and the establishment of the first-ever White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, it’s simply not enough.
Today, in the wake of yet another tragedy, I urge Republican lawmakers in Congress to fulfill their duty to protect the American people. Work with us to pass a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, to enact universal background checks, to require safe storage of guns, and end immunity from liability for gun manufacturers. This is the very least we owe every American who will now bear the scars — physical and mental — of this latest attack.
How Kindness Matters & Can Help You
Self-criticism is often seen as a virtue. But psychologist Kristin Neff says there’s a better path to self-improvement — self-compassion. She says people who practice self-compassion are more conscientious and more likely to take responsibility for their mistakes.
I-pad, not I-panacea
The following entry was written in the Fall of 2013; I neglected to publish it then. Now, 10 years on, I thought I would publish it.
I have been playing with my Ipad with all the joy Lt. Shann Childson musters in the face of a shackled wookie. He's the Imperial officer who confronts Han, Luke and Chewbacca as they enter a Death Star prison command center. "Where are you taking this...thing?" he drolls. As I launch-and-close, launch-and-close applications, I can't help but feel my books leering. Actual books made of actual paper, penned and read--damaged in fact--by none other than yours truly. The books' disdain is palpable.
In full disclosure: I prefer the technology of eras by-gone. I am a fountain pen man, at first an Esterbrook fan, more recently a proud owner of my grandfather's Parker big-red. I prefer Watermann's washable-blue to any cartridged ink, and I would trade a toner cartridge for typewriter ribbon on any given Tuesday. Any wrist bearing a bracelet made of removed typewriter keys is a hand worth cleaving off. So I was born skeptical of the new. But I'm not entirely a luddite, either. I know there's a time for a new pen tip, a software update, a better and improved stapler.
Does reading on an Ipad make sense? The positive: It allows you to zoom in on text, pictures, graphics. You can conduct word searches easily, can launch integrated definitions, related contextual materials. Font changes can help the visually challenged. Some ebooks come with audio in multi-variable speed, in various languages to boot. It simulates movement--graphic organizers, video, line drawings. And of course the Ipad provides many supportive studying technologies--email, internet, video, and all the apps humanity can muster.
The downside: You cannot write on pages easily. Annotation supports memory and a deeper reading of texts; the Ipad was made for superficial skimming. Physically, the Ipad's an unweildly script, isn't as durable or consumable as paper. The Ipad robs the reader of spacial and tactile memory when reading. While expensive and heavier, it's also less environmentally friendly than books. When the power is out, and the battery is dead, learning stops. For readers, it's more physically and mentally demanding. The direct reflective light strains the eyes, isn't well suited for long reading periods; the reflected light of the printed page is softer and easier on our eyes. Because it's a multi-tasking device, it likewise distracts in multiple ways. And then video. It has the distraction of videos and all the apps humanity can muster.
I am of course biased. I do believe that the Ipad will not easily replace books in an English classroom setting, because it can't replicate what books do and do well. Wherever students have their own copy of the text--the poem, the play, the novel or story--the Ipad can't replicate a literary experience. At New Trier's English Department, our students have been technologically one-to-one for over a century. Even today, the Ipad doesn't advantage English students as it might, for example, in a Math, Science, or Geography course. Certainly, the Ipad and it's bosom buddy ebook should replace some traditional texts. (Speilvogel's 4-level World History textbook--I'm looking in your direction!)
While I am glad for students with access to an interactive work-management device, that's all the Ipad is. A tool. Like any tool, it does what it does well. What it doesn't do, it doesn't do. And so for the time being, the Ipad will not replace my books. And for your sake, I hope it doesn't replace all of yours too.
“Who can see the barely perceptible line between the man who can not read at all and the man who does not read at all? The literate who can, but does not, read, and the illiterate who neither does nor can?”
A Season for Building
Staring into the Lake Michigan void.
Author’s note: I wrote this entry 8/2022, but the video is from 8/2023. I am nothing, if not consistent.
Each August, I look back at my summer month of vacation (this is a point of contention between private and public sector workers; the former contends that teachers get three months off, while teachers insist that teachers get 8 weeks at maximum—and if you work summer school at New Trier, as few as two weeks off before school resumes) with trepidation.
Have I wasted my summer? Did I accomplish my goal(s)? Were the (private and public workers agree) precious, golden days spent fruitfully or foolishly?
This summer, I can measure my days in building. I re-built a few birdhouses. I built new stairs for our back porch. I built and maintained a community garden at Madison School. I even built up the stores of canned tomatoes in our basement.
I also managed some relationship building with family. In Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, OH, three days of roller coasters and park food began to relive the constant ache of pandemic quarrentine.
Of course, it wasn’t enough. Even though my reading lists were (mostly) for pleasure. Even though I selfishly stared into the Lake Michigan void from South Beach shoreline in Evanston.
But it was a start.
The (Lost) Art of Making a Mix Tape
Also from the NYT, “How to Make a Playlist” in a digital world.
The 2022 Morning Summer playlist on Spotify, also from the NYT
5 Facts About Guns in America
by Judd Legum
Founder and author of Popular Information, an independent newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism. You can reach him at judd@popular.info.
On Tuesday, an 18-year-old crashed his truck, exchanged fire with police officers, entered an elementary school, and murdered 19 children and two teachers with a semi-automatic rifle. The dead are not statistics.
The incident in Uvalde, Texas took place days after another 18-year-old killed 10 people with a similar weapon in Buffalo, New York. In the first 145 days of 2022, there have been 213 mass shootings, defined as an incident where four or more people are shot or killed.
"Evil will always walk among us," Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick (R) said of the massacre. That is true. But only in the United States does evil have virtually unfettered access to military-style rifles. These weapons are not designed for sport or self-defense; they are designed to kill many people very quickly.
The Uvalde shooting demonstrates how the law can limit access to guns. The shooter bought a semi-automatic rifle on his 18th birthday, when it became legal for him to do so. If the age limit for purchasing a rifle in Texas was 21, yesterday's massacre may not have occurred.
The country could change the catastrophic status quo without infringing on the Second Amendment. Indeed, many such reforms are immensely popular. But a few dozen Republican Senators continue to stand in the way. In the meantime, the death toll mounts.
Here are the key facts about guns in America, pulled from Popular Information's previous reporting on mass shootings.
There are more guns than people in the United States
According to a 2018 Small Arms Survey, the latest data, there are more civilian-owned firearms in the United States than people, with more than 120 guns for every 100 Americans.
The number of guns sold has increased dramatically in recent years. A record 39,695,315 guns were sold to civilians in 2020. By comparison, there were 15 million guns sold in 2011 and 9 million in 1999. 18.9 million guns were sold in 2021, the second-most annual gun sales on record.
Remarkably, this spike has occurred as the number of people interested in owning guns has declined. In 1977, more than 50% of all households in the United States owned a gun. By 2018, just 34% of American households reported having a gun in the home. Gun manufacturers have made up for this decline by selling a larger number of more deadly firearms to a smaller number of people.
More guns = more mass shootings
A 2018 study of 171 countries from 1966 to 2012 found “firearm ownership rates appeared to be a statistically significant predictor of the distribution of public mass shooters worldwide. Many of the nations in this study that ranked highest in firearm ownership rates also ranked highly in public mass shooters per capita.”
The author of the study, University of Alabama professor Adam Lankford, concluded that the "United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators.”
In other words, the United States has a lot of mass shootings because it has a lot of guns. According to the research, reducing the prevalence of guns might reduce the number of mass shootings in the future.
Policies to reduce the number of guns are very popular
A 2018 poll by Guns Down America, a gun-control advocacy group, found that 67% of Americans support stricter gun laws. More striking is that overwhelming majorities, including a majority of Republicans, support positions that are often described as out of the mainstream. This includes support for requiring a license to purchase a handgun (89%), a limit on monthly gun purchases (80%), and a voluntary government gun buyback program (79%). These are all provisions that, taken together, could reduce the number of guns in circulation.
The poll found that advocating for fewer guns in America is a popular political message.
There is also strong support for background checks (94%), and a ban on semi-automatic weapons (78%).
The federal government has safety standards for toy guns, but not real guns
Nearly every product — from toasters to lawnmowers to teddy bears — must comply with standards set by the government to ensure the item is safe for public use. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulates household goods and recreational products. The Food and Drug Administration regulates food and prescription drugs. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulates motor vehicles. But there is one category of products that is not regulated for consumer safety by any government agency: guns and ammunition.
The Second Amendment has been in place since 1788, but the consumer protection exemption for guns came much later, in 1972. A law passed that year explicitly forbids the CPSC from evaluating the safety of guns. As a result, there "is not a single federally mandated safety standard or child-proofing requirement for firearms made in the United States."
The exemption means that the CPSC can regulate toy guns but not actual guns. The agency can mandate a recall of a doll, due to safety concerns, but not a semi-automatic rifle.
The gun industry received special legal protections in 2005
"Most people don’t realize, the only industry in America, billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers," Biden said in April 2001.
That is not precisely true. But Biden is referring to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), signed into law in 2005, which does provide sweeping legal immunity to the gun industry. The PLCAA prevents gun manufacturers from civil liability resulting from "the criminal or lawful misuse" of firearms or ammunition.
But there are a few exceptions to the law, including an "action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner." You can sue a gun manufacturer civilly if the gun malfunctions. But, in nearly every circumstance, you can't sue if the gun functions properly and kills people.
Prior to the PLCAA's passage, in 2000, New York City and 30 other localities sued gun manufacturers, alleging the "industry’s selling practices create a public nuisance by allowing guns to be sold in an illegitimate secondary market where they fall into the hands of criminals."
Had the lawsuit been successful, the gun industry would have to be much more careful about how firearms are marketed and sold. It could have curtailed firearms that are "designed and marketed primarily for killing people, with military-inspired features and advertising."
But the PLCAA was passed to end New York City's lawsuit and others like it. The lawsuits were thrown out of court. While civil litigation has prompted significant reform in the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry, the gun industry is able to continue with business as usual as the body count mounts.
Independent accountability journalism.