outofsiteThere are many benefits associated with connecting with colleagues off-site. Such an Out Of Site! connected group could:
- Tell each other about professional opportunities
- Recommend favorite places to go
- Invite each other to check out side gigs and interests
- Arrange gatherings, ride-sharing, and let each other know when something happens that others ought to know about.
Who knows what else?
One of the services Culturesmith offers is community-building for professionals. Please have a look below, and sign up for an email list.
We are happy to answer any questions!
Guns in Churches and Schools.
Brandon WilliamsCraig
Response please. Parishioners with concealed guns in churches yes or no? Armed teachers in schools?
SM: No and no.
DI: Obviously no; Texas may be challenging, I would imagine…
JS: Solid no.
SW: Never.
DR: No and no.
LL: No and absolutely NO.
DK: Nope and NOPE
NM: Absolutely no, on both counts. I'd go even farther: and say that I wouldn't attend a church service or a class where I knew someone was carrying.
CBT: Hard no. Working in an elementary school I can see so many ways for having armed adults at school to end badly
KF: No and no!
TG: Church yes, teachers no.
Brandon WilliamsCraig: TG, When you say no to teachers, are you thinking of have armed police on campus?
TG: My objection to having armed teachers relates to the lesson it teaches. Both armed guards in school and armed teachers lead to a generation that is raised on fear and that may well expect to need armed guards everywhere. I’d rather children learn better lessons from their teachers. I would support a quick response armed guard in school if it was kept out of sight.
SC: Emphatic no
CJL: NO. Fuck no!
FD: No. No.
LFM: I don’t know if you can keep guns out of churches... but I’d rather not have them there. Armed teachers in schools? Nope. If anyone ever tells me packing heat is to become part of my job, I’ll quit. Yes, I know guns can be useful in the hands of protectors; no, I don’t like them at all....
TF: No and no. I would move my child if that were the rule at their school.
Brandon WilliamsCraig Follow up: Given https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/29/us/church-shooting-texas/index.html, if an individual begins shooting people in your house of worship or school, what would you want to happen next?
Man shoots and kills 2 inside a Texas church before parishioners fatally shoot…
Man shoots and kills 2 inside a Texas church before parishioners fatally shoot him
TF: the men who started shooting were well trained and experienced. That’s very different from me carrying a gun and even being trained. That’s very different from even being a great hunter. I’m very tired of the argument that we just need to be armed. I’m tired of the testosterone fueled argument. I wish people would talk to people who HAVE been trained and HAVE HAD to shoot or even kill someone as part of their job! It’s very hard , it affects them, it’s not as easy as oh just give a good guy a gun. These are easy answers as to really addressing the multiple, multiple issues that contribute to all this in the first place.
MAB: I have been struggling with the thought of getting a CCL, haven’t been to the gun range in years. Still an internal debate.
SCJ: if you have not been to a gun range in years, I would say no. If you were honing those skills and prepared I would say yes. We don't need folks who get then because they can. We need people who have the practiced skills and confidence that they know they can hit what they aim for.MAB: not planning on being unprepared, like I said it’s n internal debate. Based on will I go back to training, and how often and then would I take the class.
NM: "if an individual begins shooting people in your house of worship or school, what would you want to happen next?" I would want more early warning policies put in place (ex: did the shooter have a history of violence that should have been flagged, etc). On top of healing and solidarity gatherings I'd also want the FBI to aggressively investigate rightwing extremism--esp. if the shooter were a local resident.
AL: Yes. Certainly proper training is needed. It’s a big responsibility and not one to take lightly.
EMT: No and no. What has the world come to and why are we not combating the social behaviors so that there is no need for guns? Growing up this was unheard of for me. Where are we going and who do we all really want to be?
AL: although I disagree with no and no, I think your statement about combating the social behaviors gets to the root of the issue which if conquered would lead to no need.
PF: well speaking of churches, our bible has the story of Cain and Abel as the first murder. Done with a rock. so "what has the world come to" is really answered by we've always done it that way, apparently… Although sure, not always in churches or synagogues or temples.
RH: No
SCJ: Yes and yes if they are well trained and practiced
SW: No matter how well trained people are on maintenance and operation of a gun they have no training in dealing with responding to danger within a crowded situation. Accuracy does not take into account the human factors of peoples' actions and reactions.FO: I’m conflicted. I’m also pretty sure there are some concealed carriers in our midst.
TF: I am sure there are. I just pray that should anything ever happen, there isn’t more carnage of innocent people from a gun fight.
KG: No and no. PK is involved in school security. Believe me when I say that law enforcement wants all y’all to leave those guns (or any weapons really) at home. And, you really don’t want to hear the examples backing up why... :-|
LHR: No (it is not “church” if people are carrying guns... it’s something else). And no. We need to find other ways to prevent mass murders at schools and elsewhere.
CB: NO!
CBA: No, no, a thousand times NO!
AL: I have a good friend who has a pistol range in his back yard. He shoots almost daily and is about as experienced as you can be without being an instructor. He also has a bullet hole in the floor under his dining room table because the gun he was cleaning "wasn't loaded." Every gun owner I know has a story like this, either a friend or themselves. Gun are dangerous, even in the hands of trained, experienced people. I worry that putting guns in the hands of 3.7 million teachers is likely to a lot of kids injured or killed.
DH: Yes to churches if the parishioner gets proper training, has an appropriate concealed firearm permit, and maintains their training; this is an individual decision. A qualified maybe to teachers; they are employees so they must not only comply with the above but follow the laws regarding firearms in schools and their school district policy. A high level of training and commitment is paramount.
DRD: Seconded. The man who shot the gunman recently was not only trained as that churches security detail but also a combat veteran.DSF: Yes to church. Regarding schools: no to armed teachers, yes to armed security presence.
JSW: No!!!
NM: Just a general comment for those supporting arming teachers (or having armed guards): there was an armed guard at Parkland. He did nothing to stop the carnage.
GMF: Brandon, even thinking about bringing guns into a church would make me lose my faith. How can we be humble and vulnerable before God when we are holding a gun prepared to take a life even to protect? Arming ourselves in anticipation of what might happen sets a terrible example for students or whomever we set out to protect.
Jason Fisher: No and no. I take a very hard line on guns. I would like to see the Second Amendment repealed and a raft of new gun laws introduced. Not that I'm optimistic it will happen. I think the Republic would collapse before the 2A is repealed.
AL: Jason Fisher your comments below were very enlightening and well thought out. What would a repeal and new guns laws look like? For clarity, I’m Pro-2A but recognize that although it’s a right of all of us, blanket approval of this right isn’t the answer. One challenge I see is how would all the unregistered weapons get off the streets?
Jason Fisher: AL thank you very much, sir.
For me, the meaning and original purpose of the 2A has been so twisted by the gun lobby and by recent conservative interpretation by the Supreme Court that it is no longer serving the purpose it was meant to. I can elaborate on that if you like, but I won't assume you need me to unless you say. So, I think the only way to remove the stranglehold the gun lobby has on Congress is to repeal the 2A. It could be replaced with something else, or revised instead of repealed, or simply repealed and left at that. Of course, I realize that the chances of this happening are next to nil. But I think it's the only real path to better, more sensible gun regulation.
Assuming the 2A were repealed, I think new gun laws should include: (1) Universal background checks with no loopholes or exceptions (even one-to-one private sales), and much stiffer penalties for circumventing them. (2) Guns should be registered and require permits and safety training, and background checks should be repeated every year, not just when a gun is purchased. (3) Although there is certainly an argument that red flag laws might be abused, I would rather err on the side of safety and have red flag laws in place to alert law enforcement when registered gun owners break or are accused of breaking certain laws, exhibit certain warning signs, etc. There is a risk of going Big Brother on this, but I'm willing for us to try it if it's going to save lives. (4) If we want to go further, I think we could consider imposing some limits on the number and kinds of guns and amount of ammunition that gun owners can legally possess. The Las Vegas shooter legally purchased 47 guns, mainly high-capacity semi-automatic rifles, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, and this raised no alarms at all. That shouldn't happen. If someone has a legitimate reason for such purchases (is there any?), they they ought to be okay answering some questions about it and not mind if law enforcement keeps an eye open. (5) This is just a start; if we all put our heads together, we might come up with some more ideas that would help to reduce gun violence and accidents. For example, requiring or heavily incentivizing gun safes, trigger locks, or biometric weapons.
How to get unregistered weapons off the streets? With the gun fetish and conspiracy theories totally out of control in this country, it wouldn't be easy, but there are a couple of places we could start. Today, guns seized by law enforcement are often sold at auction, and they eventually end up on the street again. Law enforcement should destroy the firearms it seizes instead of selling them. We should also institute a buyback program. It might be mandatory for certain weapons, and optional for others. That bears more thinking about, but a similar buyback program was very successful in Australia. Penalties for withholding or for not registering firearms should be pretty stiff.
In general, we need to start thinking about guns a bit more like how we think of motor vehicles. We take safety training and have to demonstrate competence to earn a license; that license has to be periodically renewed; our right to drive can be suspended when we commit other crimes, such as driving while intoxicated; our vehicles have to registered and (in most places) inspected annually for safety; there are abundant rules of the road for the safe operation of vehicles and active enforcement of them; there are limits in place on the kinds of vehicles we can drive and how to operate them (speed, headlights, seat belts, etc.). All of that is very reasonable, and it seems to me that similar gun control measures are just as reasonable — *if* we can get the obstacle of the 2A out of the way. Until we do, those opposed to sensible (or *any*) gun laws will continue to bray in unison, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" Of course, they totally ignore the part about "well-regulated militias".
What are your thoughts on this, especially as a 2A supporter?
AL: Lots to work through here.
Ultimately, the “shall not be infringed crowd” is a minority just like the “no one needs a gun, so let’s take the all” crowd. Most of us are somewhere in the middle. I like my gun, I want to carry, buy and sell it as I please. I do think this is a right given to me. At the same time, I don’t think 100% of Americans deserve the same opportunity. Hypocritical perhaps, but you list many of the reasons - training, mental stability, history of violence, etc. I believe the mental health crisis in America deserves more attention and would curb the need to remove guns from homes. I could easily support proficiency training. I could easily support more stringent background checks. I could easily support some form of red flag law as long as the penalty for false reporting was severe. We need to ensure that red flag reporting is a true red flag and not a result of a mad ex-spouse, neighbor or co-worker.
As far as the unregistered guns: I don’t see it ever happening. There are too many of guns that were never registered that have been handed down over the years. In addition, there are methods to currently build unregistered weapons on the AR platform. Many of those who build those weapons, do so that there is no record once the “boogaloo” starts.
Another challenge is the variety of gun owners. It ranges from I got grandads gun and I just don’t want to get rid of them to the hunter only to the guy that has one semi auto so he can plink a few cans to the 47 guns guy and everything in between. Society is worried about the AR guy. Many 2A supporters are worried about being able to keep granddads guns. That’s what make the 2A crowd so large.
Again, lots to noodle on. I have said it about many subjects, 4 or 5 reasonable people could sit down with a few adult beverages and a couple of pizzas and work out 98% of the problems this country faces. We wouldn’t please the extremists on either side, but we would please 80% of the Nation. We would get there by giving a little on each side (no bazookas in exchange for more comprehensive background checks etc)
Jason Fisher: AL, these are all very good points (the mental health crisis, the dangers of red flag laws, build-'em-yourself guns), and especially your last one about how sensible people of differing viewpoints could come together to build solutions, if only we were given a chance. That is part of the reason I don't give up on these conversations, even though most of what I say I've said a hundred times before. Every so often I'll encounter someone like yourself, and that is encouraging. It would be very easy to just wipe my hands of the debate. To be honest, I'm not optimistic that (m)any of these changes will happen. I think the total collapse of the Republic is more likely than the repeal of the 2A. That ship has sailed and probably only catastrophe or revolution could turn it around. If murdered children are not enough, then I don't think anything is. You seem very reasonable and willing to compromise, and I appreciate that. I have moved further left the longer this crisis has gone one, but I like to think I'm also reasonable and willing to compromise.
Let me ask you a personal question, if I may. You said you'd like to be able to buy and sell your gun as you please and that you see this as a basic right. Do you think you personally do or should have any obligation to try to be sure that the person you sell it to isn't buying it to do harm? Not *how* you would or could be sure, just *whether* you should try. Would you feel any guilt or responsibility if you heard a few days after selling someone your gun that he had murdered his family and himself with it? This isn't a trick question, and I realize such ethical hypotheticals are inherently difficult, often without any definitive right answer. I'm not setting you up for a zinger; I'm only curious how you feel about it. Please don't feel obligated to answer if you'd rather not.AL: Jason Fisher, valid question that I fully intended to place the answer in my post. I have no issue with a requirement that all fire arms sales be consummated through a licensed dealer who performs the required background checks. In fact, personally I would recommend it (and would do it) to ensure I wasn’t buying a stolen weapon. This would close the so call gun show loophole. This is an acceptable compromise in my opinion. Maybe that doesn’t really give me the ability to “buy and sell as I please.” But it meets my personal definition of having the ability to do so. It’s currently about a $25 and 30 minute expense. It doesn’t guarantee that the purchaser isn’t up to no good, but if I went through that effort, it would eliminate my guilt should a purchaser have ill intentions.
Jason Fisher: Agreed! Closing the loophole would be good enough for me in that regard too. It's not the only thing we need to do, but it's at least one thing we should be *able* to do. Polling shows that a majority of Americans, including a majority of conservatives, is in favor of it. We only need to remind Congress that they work for us and not for the NRA.
AL: The only way we get rid of Congress working for a lobbying group is term limits. That’s an entirely different debate. But, when a member of Congress has been there 30-40 years and all of a sudden when they are running for President they possess all the solutions, they are in fact the problem to start with or they have been there 30-40 years and we now have a problem; they probably created the problem. Hopefully, I hit both sides of the isle with that digression as that was my intention. Again, a different debate.
Jason Fisher: For what it's worth, I'm in favor of term limits and have been for many years. The people have some people to vote out bad representatives too (that's what I really meant by reminding them they work for us), but what with gerrymandering and other forms of voter suppression, it's not easy. And even if you do, sometimes a representative of the other party just takes the same checks from the same lobbyists.
JA: No and no. Trained professional in a visible security role, yes and yes.
JZ: No definitely not.
Catherine Cowart Brigden CCB: Churches yes. Schools no.Jason Fisher Now that's interesting! Why one and not the other?
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher There is a bigger chance for a student to take your weapon. While in a church, most parishioners who are there are there for worship and not likely to want to seize a gun.
Jason Fisher Hmmm. Most students in school are there to study and not likely to want to seize a gun. But then again, school shootings are *much* more common than church shootings, so maybe you have a point.
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher It only takes one.
Jason Fisher Well, that applies to churches too. Or anywhere, really.
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher When you know all of the people who normally attend your church then have the one stranger that looks out of place - i.e. White Settlement, you know there is a small chance of a fellow parishioner taking your gun. If those men had not been armed, the shooter would have killed many more people before the police got there. Is life so disposable that we shouldn’t defend any so we can wait on the police?
Jason Fisher The outcome in White Settlement was clearly about the best anyone can hope for — a skilled firearms instructor killing an attacker with a single shot within six seconds of the attacker opening fire. No question he saved lives! But it's almost never that clean. One of the two parishoners killed was shot while trying to bring his own gun out to defend himself. In Sutherland Springs, a former NRA firearms instructor injured the shooter, but didn't prevent him from killing 26 people and injuring 20 others. Perhaps without the armed challenge, he would have killed 50 people, but we don't know.
But you make a good point that a stranger stands out in a church. At least smaller churches. Shooters in schools are often students who attend the school, people everyone know. So, the greater danger is when a person you *do* know suddenly snaps and starts shooting. That could happen in a church just as easily as in a school, but so far, it's been much more common in schools, probably because teenagers are dealing with such a flood of hormones and aren't mature or fully developed yet. Unfortunately, it is easy for kids (anyone, really) to get guns in this country.
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher Again so we let these people potentially kill everyone in the church while waiting on the police because no one in the church is armed? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Jason Fisher It doesn't make sense to me to have guns in churches *or* schools. Since Columbine, there have been 220 school shootings but only 18 church shootings. Clearly schools are a much bigger problem, but you're okay banning guns from schools. The fact is that with America's love affair with guns, people can potentially kill everyone anywhere. It comes with the guns. If we don't like it, we have to do something about the guns. As a society, we have decided that we are willing to pay that price in order to have virtually unlimited access to guns. So every so often, some unhinged person is going to start shooting people at a school or a church or a workplace. I don't believe the answer to that is *more* guns; I believe the answer is fewer guns and more regulation around them.
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher Most of the shootings are committed by people who cannot legally purchase guns. When a people gives up their guns, the government can come in and do what they will: Germany, USSR, Cambodia, etc.
Jason Fisher I think that's incorrect. According to the following source (which also lists additional sources that agree), 74% of mass shooters since 1982 got their guns through legal means. In the case of the worst mass shooting in US history, the shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, the shooter had 47 guns, all of which were apparently purchased legally with background checks and no red flags at all (I can give you a source for that as well, if you need one).https://www.kunc.org/post/1982-74-percent-mass-shooters-obtained-their-guns-legally#stream/0
kunc.org
Since 1982, 74 Percent Of Mass Shooters Obtained Their Guns…
Since 1982, 74 Percent Of Mass Shooters Obtained Their Guns Legally
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher What about all of the shootings in Chicago, New York, and Baltimore where it is practically illegal to own a gun? This is a morality problem. Criminals by definition don’t follow laws.
Jason Fisher What about all of the shootings in Saint Louis, New Orleans, and Tulsa, which have some of the *weakest* gun laws in the country?
There are some outliers, like Baltimore and Chicago, which do have generally tight gun laws, but we have open borders between states. The guns in Chicago mostly come from Indiana, 30 minutes away, with some of the weakest gun laws in the country. There are a lot of myths (or falsehoods) around Chicago that gun advocates share. Also, New York does not have a high rate of gun violence; it's not even in the top 50 cities by gun violence. It used to be much higher, but tightening gun laws has reduced the violence. As a general rule, states (and countries) with more gun regulation and less gun violence; weaker gun regulation, more gun violence. There are a few exceptions, but this is statistically sound. Many studies have shown this. Take a look at the Gifford Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
Of course criminals don't follow laws, but surely that is not an argument against *having* laws!? One of the arguments you hear from gun advocates is that if you make guns illegal only criminals will have guns. Sure, but that's like saying if you make murder illegal only criminals will murder. It's a tautology.
The fact is: Americans love guns and they are willing to sacrifice *any number of lives* to have them. Toddlers who get their parents' guns and accidentally shoot themselves? Fine! Teenagers who take their parents' guns and murder their classmates? Fine! Suicides? Fine! Workplace and church shootings? Fine! Grudges in the street, road rage, you name it, all fine! Just so long as people can have any kind of gun they want, as many guns as they want, as much ammo they want, without universal background checks or permits or registration or required education. A few places require permits or registration, but not most. We have to have to permits and registration to drive, for heaven's sake, or even to own a dog, but not for guns. Oh no, because everyone knows that the key to a well-regulated militia is no permits or registration.
Forgive the frustration, but I have debated this issue with many people for many years. I doubt you're going to have an argument that I haven't heard and debunked many times before. These same talking points for guns come up again and again. They aren't sound arguments. I wish gun advocates would stop repeating them and just admit they love their guns and they are willing to accept the price we are pay in human lives to have them.
lawcenter.giffords.org
Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard
Giffords Law Center's Annual Gun Law Scorecard
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher People are Going to kill other people. More gun laws is not going to stop them. If they don’t use guns, they will use knives. If they don’t use knives, they will use clubs. We are fallen beings who sin. Punish the law breakers, not the law abiders.
Jason Fisher Yes, a determined murderer will choose whatever weapon is available. But no one can kill 58 people and wound more than 400 more from a distance of more than 1,000 feet with a knife, as the Las Vegas shooter did with his 47 guns and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Knife attacks do occur, but there are usually far fewer victims, and they are less often fatal. Murderers *choose* guns for a reason: they are more lethal and they are easy to get. If knives were just as good, we'd see just as many mass "knifings" as we do mass shootings. Make the guns less available and you'll have fewer victims, period. Even if the same number of mass attacks occurred, fewer people would die. I think that's a good goal.
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher So who should own guns?
Jason Fisher Ideally, not very many people. Only the ones who really need them.
The majority of people who own guns today do not need them. They may claim they are self-defense, but studies show that the overwhelming majority of gun owners never use a gun in self-defense. Certain vocations call for the use of guns — e.g., law enforcement. I'm not so worried about them, because those jobs come with a lot of training and oversight. And certain other people have more need than others because of what they do or where they live — e.g., farmers, forest rangers.
I am not totally opposed to hunting for food, though I don't see any reason for trophy hunting, and I don't believe the Constitution guarantees anyone a right to guns for hunting or sport or collecting.
Overall, I am not automatically opposed to private citizens owning guns, but I would like more and better regulation on them and some limits. No one can convince me there is any good reason to be able to buy 47 guns legally, especially semi-automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines. I think we ought to have required universal background checks (repeated every year), safety classes, permits, registration, red flag laws, and some limits on kinds and numbers of weapons and ammunition.
We have well over one gun for every man, woman, and child in this country, which I think is far too many. Canada's rate of civilian gun ownership is roughly one gun for every three people, and Canada seems to be getting by just fine with that. Germany gets by with only one gun for every five people. Denmark, only one gun for every ten people. And of course, the gold standard, Japan, with only one gun for every 300 people. Note that these are just per-capita averages; the actual number of people who own guns in these countries may be lower because some of them own more than one (but they don't usually own 47).
I don't see any reason we shouldn't try to reduce the number of guns in this country. They have become a golden calf.
What do you think?
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher Who should determine who really needs them?
Catherine Cowart Brigden Also, it’s nobody’s business how many guns a person can own. If someone breaks the law punish them, not those who don’t break the law. No one will ever be able to prevent crime. There is evil in the world.
Jason Fisher I think it *is* our business. Fewer guns would mean fewer deaths, period. I'm in favor of that. If you disagree, maybe you can show me how there would be just as many deaths if there were fewer guns and they were more difficult to get. I don't simply accept that "there is evil in the world", so oh well, people are just going to shoot each other and there's nothing we can do about it. We do punish people when they break the law — when we can. Unfortunately, many of these killers end their rampages by killing themselves so that they cannot be punished. You might say they'll get their punishment in the afterlife. That is not good enough for me.
You can't prevent crime? Of course you can! Not *every* crime, of course, but most of our laws are about preventing crime. Why do we have metal detectors at airports if not to prevent crime?
This is a difficult issue to untangle. Yes, it might be challenge to write and enforce the right kinds of laws. But we could make a good-faith attempt if we would give up our obsession with guns and approach this as the public health and safety crisis that it is. We regulate the use of vehicles far more than we do guns. It just doesn't make sense to me that we should be content to have nearly 400 million guns floating around in America, mostly unknown. About 200,000 legal guns a year are stolen; guns are one of the top things stolen from homes and vehicles. That number would surely go down if there were fewer guns out there to steal in the first place.
Catherine Cowart Brigden Jason Fisher We are starting to go over ground that has already been plowed. I’m glad that we can respectfully disagree.
Jason Fisher Me too. :)Brandon WilliamsCraig Thank you both. This is one of the clearest and most respectful representations of the classic positions in the gun rights/regulation argument stream I have seen in one place in a long time. May I transfer it to my website?
Jason Fisher Thanks, Brandon. No objections from me. :)
Jason Fisher Oh, and if you put this up on your website, would you mind letting me know and sharing a link, or if you share it on Facebook, you can tag me. Just so I know it's there. Thanks! :)
Catherine Cowart Brigden Brandon WilliamsCraig, yes, you may. [heart]JDB: You’re in TX so...
Brandon WilliamsCraig: JDB, yes, yes I am. Born and raised.
JDB: I’m glad you’re proud of Baja Oklahoma :-)
DRW: Church- no. I would never attend again. And schools, absolutely not.
DCdP: No and no. Guns should not be allowed anywhere.
SFN: Why do you ask?
Brandon WilliamsCraig: SFN, I am a martial artist. I do my best to understand violence in order to minimze it under most circumstances. If someone walked with a drawn weapon into the classroom or Sanctuary where I am learning and worshipping, I would want to put them down as quickly as possible. Can't do that without a weapon on my person. On the other hand, I don't trust the majority of other people with weapons and want more regulations and fewer guns everywhere.
JDB: How about sane gun laws instead of either?
LZ: Apparently those are actual questions now, when they never used to be. Our society is seriously f'd up.
Brandon WilliamsCraig Definitely. But...now what?
.
US Popular Vote
[cnn.com]
Oregon Democratic Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill Wednesday that would grant the state's electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote, her office confirmed.
Brandon WilliamsCraig
January 15 at 3:25 PM ·
Texas next!
Fred Dews: Hope we abolish it someday. A relic that never worked as intended.
Allen Lambright: Fred Dews why do you say that?
Fred Dews: Allen Lambright Because it hasn't. It was designed in an era when the wise men who created it didn't anticipate party faction would divide them, which after Washington's presidency faction immediately did, rendering the elite filtering theory of the EC already antiquated.
Two elections, 1800 and 1824, were thrown to the House because of EC failings.
In 5 elections, the popular vote winner lost b/c of the EC (1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, 2016).
The "but it protects the interests of small states" argument is largely just an ex post facto justification of why the founders created it in the first place. Hamilton had that somewhat in mind, but the real divide in 1787 was slave and non-slave states, not big vs small.
The EC actually does NOTHING to promote the electoral interests of small states anyway. How many times do the presidential candidates visit Delaware, or Montana? There are more Republican voters in California than in Montana, and more Democratic voters in Texas than in Delaware. So, abolishing the EC and opening the presidential election back up to a direct election would mean candidates would go everywhere they thought they could get votes--including the small states they rarely, if ever, visit.
It is, in my view, useless, archaic, and undemocratic.
Allen Lambright: Fred Dews great explanation
Brandon WilliamsCraig: Fred Dews Beautifully and briefly put. Facebook is a private graveyard for discussions of real ideas. May I move this to my public website?
Fred Dews: Brandon WilliamsCraig Thanks. Yes.
Allen Lambright: Doesn’t the winner of the state’s popular vote get to decide who is represented at the electoral college? Or is this agreement (not law) changing that? I’m trying to grasp how a candidate would spend more time in Oregon? I would spend more time in the most populated states.
Caleb Grayson: don’t need the college where they can choose to not go with the votes of their constituents, but do need the electoral vote system.
it’d be interesting to see something like a midwest coalition where if you win the majority of popular votes from say NE KS ND SD then you get electoral all 4 states even if you lost in one of them.
but it’s stupid if a small state gives their electoral votes proportional to their popular votes. it just guts their political power.
John Abbe Last June. Just a few more states to go, but they will be tough. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State
nationalpopularvote.com
Integrity PornPornography is generated cynically and consumed obsessively because it gratifies a compelling urge to see reflected in the outside world the extreme intensity of inner fantasy. For many it is addictive, self perpetuating because it cannot still the urge by fulfilling the need it pretends to address. This is not to say that it does not please, only that it never deeply satisfies. As in other addictions, one wants more of that which acts as a substitute until the use of the substitute becomes evidence that real satisfaction is in fact impossible, and settling seems like the best possible result.
While persons moved by the often exploitive depiction of sexual acts, for example, often make and watch sexual pornography, even that kind of porn is not in the end only about sex. It is consciously and unconsciously about power: power over another, submission, and the danger that loss of control, obsession, compulsion, and addiction represent. It may have helpful consequences as well. I am merely pointing out what it does. I will moralize down below.
In the culture in general, the term "porn" has come to refer as well to any obsessively consumed media product designed for consumption by a special interest group. Gardening Porn, for instance, might refer to planting videos, seeding shot from many angles and with endless commentary rendered with manic enthusiasm.
(1)I would like to propose a new category which I will call Integrity Porn. By no means beginning with, but definitely moved front and center by The West Wing television series, #IntegrityPorn is that genre of media product which targets those desperate to participate vicariously in the reassuring sense that, even under exaggerated and unrelenting pressure, leadership can be altruistic and mighty at the same time. The Madam Secretary franchise is an even better example of integrity porn, as it reproduces the formula with fewer variations, provides tidy TV-length resolutions to extremely complex issues, proposing to the civic imagination that being smart, principled, and warm-hearted is not only possible, but that it is the key to instant success in politically fraught situations.
#TrueConfession time. I am a consumer of Integrity porn. I watch these shows, the opposite of but not antidote to emotional and physical violence porn like House of Cards and Game of Thrones. I return to them, in part, because of the voluble sigh of relief uttered deep within my psyche, hammered by an unremitting real world frenzy of cruelty and the violence of realpolitik unfettered by good sense of any kind. Porn can provides a necessary respite from inner tension wrought of frustration that can rise to the level of suffering. I wish to draw to my own attention, however, and that of my fellow consumers the cost of the consumption transaction.
(2)The cost of and problem with any kind of porn is at least two-fold: porn opens the door through which exploitation enters and is normalized, as it provides a simplistic, comforting anesthetic. As I consume integrity porn, the fantasy of leaders goverened by the Golden Rule depresses the essential search for the complex understanding based on direct experience which leads to authentic individual action, a force which can actually change the real world for the better. I vent my frustration vicariously, but I do not act to change the circumstances which cause it. What if, instead of compensatory fantasy, I insist on little pauses to remind myself of this dynamic--not a Thou Shalt Not but a "hang on a second" that allows for enough stillness that reflection becomes possible?
If pornography is generated cynically and consumed obsessively because it gratifies a compelling urge to see reflected in the outside world the extreme intensity of inner fantasy, what does that suggest about the fountain of #Trumporn we see ejaculated from and upon Twitter every day? What does the fact that we click to consume it every day, perhaps many times a day, say about us and about "journalism outlets" (3) who have struggled endlessly with tabloidism that not only "favours stories of a sensational or even fictitious nature over serious news" but offers this "news" as though it were a "compressed portion of drugs, chemicals...compressed into a tablet." (4) To what end am I injesting and regurgitating this professionally processed, regurgitation provoking (whether re-Tweeting in agreement of disagreement), attention dominating drug?
I pause. I rememeber that I choose much of what I put in my mind and mouth. It is my life being spent each moment. Choices have an inescapable moral dimension. Will I choose to spend time in an activity with modest expectations which, nevertheless, incrementaly advances the kind of daily world that is, in fact, more soul satisfying? I might even promise myself and others to do this as an exercise which sharpens my attention and willpower, leads to habits of taking responsibility for my choices, and acts as a commitment to integrity and coherence. I choose a commitment to action that is nonviolent because it is based on direct knowledge of how harm is caused and prevented, and effective because it is learned through practice. This feels a bit like learning a martial art, which is very different from vicarious participation in a media ritual that comforts and gives the relaxing sense that there is somebody out there taking care of business with integrity.
Gardening porn seldom gets your hands dirty. Sexual pornography might get me off, so to speak, but it doesn't get me off the hook of my hunger for real relationships. It cannot bring the feeling of sustainable personal power and reassurance that being chosen by an equal partner can bring. Integrity porn, whether obvious fictional or packaged as a candidate "debate", might release the pressure valve of panic at the degradation of civil society but it sure doesn't get the homeless housed, honest commerce encouraged, the sick cared for, justice done, or guarantee a sane foreign policy. Only you and I together can do that when our vision is clear and our purpose and power are shared--only when we make sure the system works, especially for those whose lifelong cries for honest representation and authentic public service are silenced by the blare of #egojaculations.
(5)2. Image Credit https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ron_Jeremy,_Stormy_Daniels_at_Ron_Jeremy%27s_Birthday_Party_3.jpg
3. Are "journalism outlets" where you buy the cheapest, often damaged, remainders of journalism?
4. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tabloid
5. Original @BDWC modification of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Casa_Rosso_Sex_Show_Amsterdam_Daniel_D._Teoli_Jr..jpg and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/President_Trump_is_joined_by_Vice_President_Pence_for_an_Executive_Order_signing_%2833803971533%29_%282%29.jpg
Please sign in to leave comments here.
Conflict Done Well Aikido Training at SSUMCConflict Done Well begins with martial arts and yoga-based exercises, then aikido movement and concepts, which are then used to learn nonviolent self-defense. To the movements and principles we add language and practice improvisation in order to apply techniques in daily conflicts of all kinds so that restorative justice leadership results. We will be forming a volunteer social justice action team in which you may want to participate. All adult persons of any description, ability, and misgivings are most welcome to join. Teens are warmly invited to ask for parental permission and to join as well.
Please wear clothes in which you can comfortably stretch to your full range of movement and learn at your own pace to keep your balance under stress and rise easily from the floor. If you are able, a sustainability donation is requested after beginning regular attendance, but none is required to begin or continue training. A portion of the donation will go to the St. Stephen community.
Conflict Done Well includes Martial Nonviolence (MNv) training with Brandon WilliamsCraig Ph.D. - 5th dan Aikikai. When the MNv curriculum is adapted for and adopted by a particular community, that is called Peace Practices (PxPx). Here is a video with more information.
Conflict Done Well Aikido Training at SSUMC PollConflict Done Well Aikido Training
at St. Stephen UMC Mesquite, TX
Conflict Done Well begins with martial arts and yoga-based exercises, then aikido movement and concepts, which are then used to learn nonviolent self-defense. To the movements and principles we add language and practice improvisation in order to apply techniques in daily conflicts of all kinds so that restorative justice leadership results. We will be forming a volunteer social justice action team in which you may want to participate. All adult persons of any description, ability, and misgivings are most welcome to join. Teens are warmly invited to ask for parental permission and to join as well.
Please wear clothes in which you can comfortably stretch to your full range of movement and learn at your own pace to keep your balance under stress and rise easily from the floor. If you are able, a sustainability donation is requested after beginning regular attendance, but none is required to begin or continue training. A portion of the donation will go to the St. Stephen community.
Conflict Done Well includes Martial Nonviolence (MNv) training with Brandon WilliamsCraig Ph.D. - 5th dan Aikikai. When the MNv curriculum is adapted for and adopted by a particular community, that is called Peace Practices (PxPx). Here is a video with more information.
Belief about the rightness of Insert System Here establishes an axisBelief about the rightness of Insert System Here establishes the axis on which belief operates on behavior--both positively and negatively. In other word: myth. In this case, the myth of meritocracy. Not either Truth or fakery, but potentially both, simply operating, a powerful tool for moving people and a lens for sensing how people are moved.See https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/12/meritocracy/418074/
"American beliefs about the rightness of meritocratic ideals often leads to the belief that those ideals are what guides society. But research shows that a real commitment to meritocracy requires understanding that America hasn’t gotten there—at least not yet."
To read the full article and work with these ideas on this site, please sign in and visit Marianne Cooper - The False Promise of Meritocracy.
Not Really RepublicansA Facebook Exchange Between Grant and Brandon
Grant Weber
It's really terrible what democrats have done to black people and other minorities throughout history. Great reminder of all the injustice and intimidation they have faced.
Brandon WilliamsCraig
Need to ask a favor, Grant. In many ways, this kind of post is more problematic than the frantic diarrhea profanity or other bomb dropping that is so common but easier to just remove. I've been avoiding direct engagement with you, often deleting my own replies on other posts because they sound condescending to me, and because I am super-swamped at the moment. I also, however, would really like to contribute to the movement on social media, in general, toward respectful, brief (if possible) exchanges which get at important information. For us to have an honest disagreement about something, I'd really appreciate it if you would begin with a clear statement that acts as an invitation to disagree, preferably relevant to the post and accompanied by a link to something reputable which supports your position, avoiding sweeping and stereotypical generalizations. For instance, (clear statement >) [I find Beto admirable precisely because he speaks eloquently in a way that is largely a departure from the racism and classism practiced for generations by all manner of politicians and parties.] Since the video is evidence that I would like others to see what I see in that regard, how would you feel about briefly addressing either the video or my position as though it were informed by hours of study and carefully reasoned, and then provide evidence that tempts me to change my position?
Grant Weber
Hi Brandon, I will do my best to convey my position on this point although I am not as highly educated as you or eloquent a writer. As you mentioned Beto is an eloquent speaker - as was Obama. I find the democrat platform of "social justice warrior" problematic since throughout history democrats have been on the opposing side of social justice. The GOP being the original "progressive" party" hence the name "Grand Old Party" or the party of Lincoln (R) that moved to emancipate the slaves among other issues while the democrats fought to keep blacks as property. The democrat created KKK to intimidate newly freed slaves and white republicans alike (much like today's ANTIFA). The founder of the modern democratic party (Andrew Jackson) was responsible for the Indian wars and Trail of Tears. You have the Republican majority House of Representatives that passed the 15th amendment in 1869 with a majority 144 yeah's to 44 democrat nah's. The 19th amendment, women's suffrage was passed by the Republican party and greatly opposed by the democrats. Democratic President FDR and founder of the modern progressive movement was responsible for the Japanese internment camps and unlawful seizure of Japanese American's private property. Civil rights was pushed forward by the Republican party and once again opposed by the Democrats. Which leads me to the lie about the "Great Party Switch" Less than 1% of democrat politicians switched to the republican party. The same "Dixie-crats" that pushed racists agendas and fought to maintain segregation remained with the Democratic party. Even Hillary Clinton proudly proclaimed her affiliation with Gold Water. Robert Carlyle Byrd was a United States Senator from West Virginia for over 51 years and a Grand Wizard of the the KKK. From 1959 until his death in 2010, a member of the Democratic Party, Byrd previously served as a U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959. Obama Praised Byrd as a role model and cornerstone of the modern Democratic party. There are 2 facts that mislead one into believing the "great switch" theory and that is the majority of the "Dixie-crat" south now does vote republican and the black vote switched from 15% Democrat in the 1930's to now 80% after the 1930's. This actually had nothing to do with politicians switching sides and more to do with FDR's new deal and the black population voting for the party that promised to give them more benefits and also the party with the least resistance since they were often physically threatened for voting Republican in the South. Wrapping up my point, I find it incredibly hypocritical that Democrat politicians use their own party's history of violence and racism to confuse voters. The numbers do not lie. Under Bill Clinton's Presidency Highest number of blacks imprisoned. Under Obama's Presidency highest black unemployment. Sure Beto is an eloquent speaker, but his words like every other democrat leader's words are empty. It is a distraction to mislead a well intended voter base while they continue their agenda of enslaving and segregating minorities, keeping them ever dependent on the government tit in exchange for giving up their freedom.
Brandon WilliamsCraig
I hope that this discussion will not devolve into a competition hinging on seeming more eloquent, and I truly appreciate your measured and thoughtful response. For the better part of a century, the Republican Party had reason to be proud of contributing to gains in the area of human rights, while Democrats compounded their shame. See https://www.thenation.com/.../when-republicans-really.../ for answers to most of your points. Both (all) parties continued to participate in the status quo loving cultural warfare, however, that enslaved persons of color in all but name. Then the Democrats passed the Republicans, if a racing metaphor is appropriate, in the tumble toward helping us become a more representative democracy. This continues to be pushed by the growth of voting blocks of working people struggling against voting restrictions and gerrymandering to secure even a percentage of the opportunities their white peers enjoy--both to be heard and make a living/future for their children. But, where racism is a more deeply rooted illness, the width of systemic injustice is more visible at the level of class. Working people of every description will eventually drive human rights together as we make common cause with people who do not look or sound like us but share the intentionally perpetuated suffering that supports the ultra-wealth of the very few. Also see https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../no-longer.../2015/04/08 What was at one point a party interested in a free republic is now the primary source of enslaving and segregating those now no longer in the minority, keeping them ever distracted from the unregulated corporate catheterization that government Of The People was established to resist. You are right that freedom is the cost, because "the poor" (now including what is left of what once were middle income earners) must contend with more polluted air and water, de-funded schools, imprisonment and less-than-minimum wage jobs, continually shrinking access to healthcare, and are left swinging on the front line every time there is a disaster, even when it is not obviously associated with wealth-industry-driven climate collapse and multiplied by profit-driven planning. Everyone in a seat of power (including me, and Beto O'Rourke) is responsible when the life of any being is sacrificed to increase the power of another. I believe he knows this, and will speak to the changes we need to survive as a species, which the political parties of short term gains are paid to ignore or in the habit of minimizing.thenation.comWhen the Republicans Really Were the Party…
Brandon WilliamsCraig
If you don't accept my evidence, or my obvious biases are too distracting based on what you've been told and come to believe, you might look to any of the thousands of rather loud ex-Republicans (like Tobin E Threadgill, for instance) who are not liberal softies and will be happy to return to the GOP when it is no longer tossing children on the altar of astronomical short term gains for the very few..
The Kind of Corruption That Matters - Making Americanism Great AgainNot just true of "Trump Supporters", who are not a monolithic group, but also true of those who allegedly object to but do not remove him. That widespread often subconscious agreement is why he is still operating, and may survive the felonies of which he has obviously been a part. For "traditional order" substitute "mythology" and you have a more evocative felt sense of the Belief, the #mythopsychology that leads not to "ignoring corruption so much as [being moved by] the kind that really matters" to you. That is why he has Reganesque teflon. He shrugs off rational objections because he is an avatar of the god in the pantheon of #Americanism that demand use of the word "traditional" when referring to the power over specific others that is granted by racist and sexist norms.
From the article at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/08/what-trumps-supporters-think-of-corruption/568147/
"The answer may lie in how Trump and his supporters define corruption. In a forthcoming book entitled How Fascism Works, the Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley makes an intriguing claim. 'Corruption, to the fascist politician,' he suggests, 'is really about the corruption of purity rather than of the law. Officially, the fascist politician’s denunciations of corruption sound like a denunciation of political corruption. But such talk is intended to evoke corruption in the sense of the usurpation of the traditional order.'
Fox’s decision to focus on the Iowa murder rather than Cohen’s guilty plea illustrates Stanley’s point. For many Fox viewers, I suspect, the network isn’t ignoring corruption so much as highlighting the kind that really matters. When Trump instructed Cohen to pay off women with whom he had affairs, he may have been violating the law. But he was upholding traditional gender and class hierarchies. Since time immemorial, powerful men have been cheating on their wives and using their power to evade the consequences.
The Iowa murder, by contrast, signifies the inversion—the corruption—of that 'traditional order.' Throughout American history, few notions have been as sacrosanct as the belief that white women must be protected from nonwhite men. By allegedly murdering Tibbetts, Rivera did not merely violate the law. He did something more subversive: He violated America’s traditional racial and sexual norms."#SumpDefenestration
All the news... (includes older items)
