“The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.”
- Thomas Paine, Common Sense1775
The year 2025 marks the 250th anniversary of the publication of Thomas Paine’s 40-page pamphlet Common Sense – a truly catalytic document that was a call to action for the colonies to stand up to the arbitrary authority of the British king.
Interestingly, Paine was not a lawyer, politician, or political science scholar, and his formal schooling ended early in his teens. After working on his father’s farm for a time Paine later became a privateer, a corset maker, and a tax collector. However, he had a keen interest in matters politic and was a shrewd observer and synthesizer, allowing him in time to become an accomplished political philosopher and influential advocate of human rights. He also had the unusual ability to convey complex political topics of importance to others in a manner that they could understand when it was crucial they did - making plain arguments and promoting common sense solutions. He not only wrote Common Sense, but also The American Crisis, The Rights of Man, and may have been involved in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence,
Common Sense 2025 is a collection of five essays which contemplate several topics of interest as we approach the next presidential election in America. Unlike in Paine’s time, we have no autocratic king to unite us in rebellion but rather face a number of issues that confuse and divide us. These essays, organized under the headings of Diversity, Opportunity, Truth, Freedom and Safety, are an effort to apply “common sense” and reason to the present time, with the humility to know well as Paine said in his original version 250 years ago, “time makes more converts than reason”.
The world watches. The issues we are struggling with are “in great measure” those others struggle with as well. What type of example will we provide?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. DIVERSITY page 4 Why Efforts to Preach, Deport and Legislate Diversity Out of America Will, and Should Fail
2. OPPORTUNITY page 9 Socialism, Communism and the American Dream
3. TRUTH page 18 Fool Me Once, Shame On Me. Fool Me Twice - That's Good Business.
4. FREEDOM page 28 Freedom in Modern America
5. SAFETY page 40 Fact and Fiction and the Great American Shootout
DIVERSITY
Why Efforts to Preach, Deport and Legislate Diversity
Out of America Will, and Should Fail
In diversity there is beauty and there is strength. Maya Angelou
In this fraught American presidential election year, the issues of immigration, religious belief, lifestyle choice and ethnicity are on the ballot like perhaps never before. Related, there seems to be nostalgia among a surprisingly large number of Americans for a return to a "traditional white Christian family values" utopia. However, that place has never really existed here - except perhaps in the hearts and minds of those who for a variety of not-all-good reasons so ardently wish it to be true.
We are irreversibly diverse, and vigorous attempts to preach, deport and legislate away that reality will be nothing short of a dystopian disaster.
Only a few of our American families were not at some point immigrants, and while some entered "legally" many did not. As one example, during the late 19th and early 20th century, we allowed millions from Ireland and adjacent regions to
(Photo: Shutterstock)
enter the country with no naturalization process whatsoever. Interestingly, as is the case with undocumented immigrants from south of the U.S. border (e.g. socalled "criminals, drug dealers and rapists") in our time, the demonization of these individuals and families from Ireland fleeing from famine and strife from "nativists" already here was significant in that time as well. A young future president Teddy Roosevelt commented on his Irish colleagues in the New York State Legislature while serving there:
“...the average catholic Irishman of first-generation as represented in this Assembly, is a low, venal, corrupt and unintelligent brute.”
The oft stated "we are a nation of immigrants" is true, and while It's beyond the scope of this short essay to enumerate all the immigrant groups we have vilified in America in the past (more or less all of them), a common denominator is they've all made seminal contributions. As far as those entering the United States from our southern border in this time, while we can't know all their future contributions, if history is predictive, they will be numerous and important. The literally overwhelming majority are not criminals, drug dealers and rapists, as they commit crimes at a rate much lower than American citizens, and they represent a substantial and important part of the United States labor force. As many as 29% of all construction laborers in the U.S are undocumented immigrants, and in Texas that climbs to higher than 40%. So... deport and bus them to Chicago at your own risk, Governor Abbott.
Whether you know it or not, someone in your family is likely to be LBGTQ, as 710% of Americans self-report this lifestyle and as such this is likely and underestimation Since the documentation of homosexuality alone is almost as old as recorded history and has likely been extant since before Homo sapiens even existed, it's doubtful any attempt to legislate or evangelize it away is going to be successful. But a good place to start if you are dead set? How about those dangerous drag shows?
There are more than 370 recognized faith groups in the United States, and at least 20% of us don't believe in God at all. Despite those facts the current Speaker of the House of Representatives has said the separation of church and state is a misnomer, and the Christian Bible should be taught in schools (the latter is now
mandated in several U.S. states). However, the founding fathers would likely have taken issue with both of these points.
Interestingly, the history of early Christianity is one of persecution, but not the type you may have seen in the movies. In the early Christian church, violence against "pagans" and intellectuals who didn't choose to worship the new God was rampant, and a great deal of important historical artifact and important learned literature was destroyed by rampaging Christian soldiers. One famous, but by no means isolated incident, described in Catherine Nixey's book, The Darkening Age involved the 415 AD murder one of the most famous mathematicians and astronomers of her time, Hypatia of Alexandria. Accused of being an idolator due to her scientific instruments and work, she was dragged by Christian monks and magistrates into a church and flayed alive (her skin stripped from her underlying flesh) with broken pieces of pottery. Despite all of this early enthusiasm, other religions and those who choose not to believe persist. Conversion by force or indoctrination in schools to any particular religion - here or anywhere else in the world - seems ill conceived.
Regarding what we term race, suffice it to say 40% of Americans aren't white and with every passing day that number gets larger. As an aside, while different ethnicities are real and persist in America the concept of "race" based on skin color (or anything else for that matter) is actually flawed, as all humans are more
Religious Leaders from Several Faiths (Photo: Public Domain)
than 99% similar genetically. Joseph Graves, Jr., PhD, an evolutionary biologist and commentator on theories of race makes this observation:
“Normal pigmentation variation is influenced by genetic variation in a small set of genes... On the other hand, height, which also varies across the globe, is determined by over 9000 genomic variants... Therefore, we could argue that it makes far more sense to classify biological races in our species by variation in height, than it does variation by skin color.”
So, it seems we're not a melting pot at all in this country - more like a stew. And for this particular dish, it's the variety of flavors, textures and colors that make it work so well. If you try to put a stew in the food processor and homogenize it the result wouldn't at all be the same (and likely a little gross). Likewise, there's no reason to believe homogenizing American societal culture, religious beliefs, gender or lifestyle preferences, ethnicity and skin color will result in anything palatable either.
(Photo: Shutterstock)
It’s never been single-mindedness and consolidation that have moved us forward in America. Many authoritarian states have aspired to this type of utopian model in the past, and some are aspiring to it in the present. However.
historically they haven't tended to do very well. It could be instructive to use the example of human evolution for why that's true. The continual recombination of genetic material from disparate and unrelated individuals has allowed us by chance and natural selection to find patterns of gene expression that survive pandemics, develop our large forebrains and facilitate the persistence of our species. Consistent inbreeding would have resulted in something, well... different.
Diversity therefore has served us well - diversity in thought, culture, habits and preferences and the requisite debate, disagreement and ideally (at times, begrudging) compromise that follows. Democracy that leverages diversity in this way is admittedly messy and at times incredibly uncomfortable - but at its best it is resilient, strong and beautiful.
You can find likely the secret for the genius of this 250-year-old experiment in your own pocket.
Go ahead and look - it's stamped right on the coins you might find there.
“E Pluribus Unum".
Out of many, one.
OPPORTUNITY
Socialism, Communism and the American Dream
When public men indulge themselves in abuse, when they deny others a fair trial, when they resort to innuendo and insinuation, to libel, scandal and suspicion, then our democratic society is outraged, and democracy is baffled. It has no apparatus to deal with the boor, the liar, the lout, and the antidemocrat in general.
J.
William Fulbright
ICYMI… we are neck deep in election season. Accordingly, the “big guns” of political artillery have been moved into position and shells loaded with innuendo and insinuation have been flying across the aisle for months. While this everyfour-year barrage is predictable, this somehow feels less smart bomb and more carpet bomb than in previous cycles. One accusation repeatedly loaded into the warheads of these munitions by some is to claim certain policies of their political opponents are representative of socialism, or even communism. While we all perhaps have a vague idea of what these terms mean, here are the actual definitions:
(Photo: Public Domain)
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
Communism is an economic ideology that advocates for a classless society in which all property and wealth are communally owned instead of being owned by individuals.
These two words have been recently and increasingly lumped together as a new “red scare” tactic, often by those who also seem to be unclear on what they mean. Regardless, in modern political discourse facts no longer matter all that much as long as fear and/or anger can be elicited, and in support of this tactic’s potential effectiveness the term “communism” does strike a deep chord with many. Some of us lived through the cold war and were drilled on how to "duck and cover" under our atomic-bomb-blast-protection school desks in the event of a Soviet attack and others, such as Americans of Cuban descent have intergenerational memory of being victimized by communist revolutions and regimes.
Those firing shells carrying this payload also know calling someone a socialist or communist has a long and “effective” history in international politics. Historically, accusations of socialism and communism were used by right-wing fascist leaders like Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini to create a clear “us versus them” mentality among their populations. And McCarthyism – a term that now means a “campaign or practice that endorses the use of unfair allegations and investigations”, and was an actual episode we should all recall as a black stain on American history - is another example worth revisiting.
Despite the fact the vast majority of accusations of socialist or communist activities levied by the House Committee on Un-American Activities and Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations between 1950 and 1954 were found to be baseless or incredibly overblown, a legion of government employees, army officers, entertainment industry actors and writers, academics, left-wing politicians, labor union activists, and those who were called into hearings simply because they were homosexuals were “blacklisted”, lost their jobs and lived out their lives with undeserved blots on their personal and professional reputations. Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin politician who led these efforts in
the Senate and who gave the set of events its name, was later officially vigorously condemned by his congressional colleagues (and society in general) for his behavior.
(Photo: Shutterstock)
The respected early television journalist, Edward R. Murrow, commented on this period on his show, "See It Now". His words are eerily applicable to the present time as we slide toward our own current age of unreason – again hearing accusations of socialism and communism and witnessing contemporary congressional hearings with no other goal than political grandstanding and persecution:
“No one familiar with the history of this country can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating, but the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been in confusing the public mind, as between the internal and the external threats of Communism. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason…”
To connect a few interesting dots, one of the most important mentors for the Republican candidate for president in this 2024 election cycle was the attorney Roy Cohn. Cohn was disbarred in 1986 by the New York Supreme Court (for “unethical and unprofessional conduct, including misappropriation of clients' funds, lying on a bar application, and falsifying a change to a will”) and died that same year of of AIDS. Cogent to this discussion he represented Joseph McCarthy during his congressional hearings in the early 50’s, and actually took part in some of its interrogations. Later, he became involved in the Trump family business and introduced Donald Trump to Rupert Murdoch, the former Chair of Fox Corporation (parent of Fox News).
So despite contemporary accusations, the unassailable fact is none of the politicians actively campaigning on either side of the upcoming 2024 presidential election are promoting socialism, or communism. None, to be clear, are suggesting there be “social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership”, or a “classless society in which all property and wealth are communally owned instead of being owned by individuals”. To levy such accusations is to invite and promote a new form of McCarthyism. Do we really want to go there again?
What is being suggested; however, by some national leaders and those who would like to lead are a set of social programs which could be described much more accurately as egalitarianism. And here is that definition: Egalitarianism is the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.
Although it sounds great, we can’t give full literal meaning to the Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence - that “all men are created equal”. We simply do not come into the world with equal talents and the same organic abilities to achieve over a lifetime. However, what this phrase intends is in this country we are all considered born with the same, equal “value” and should therefore be provided the same opportunity to maximize whatever potential we have. Importantly, despite the repeated efforts of racists and eugenicists over the past few centuries to convince us otherwise, we all share 99.9% of our DNA as members of the species Homo sapiens and know now beyond any biological and sociological doubt skin color, geographic origin,
ethnicity, religion or language spoken do not and cannot predict human potential. In addition, “talent and organic abilities” are themselves often overrated. While many have made contributions, civilization has not been built on the backs of geniuses and prodigies but rather individual and group efforts of hardworking and persevering “average” people.
Amazingly, in the history of civilization the idea all have equal value and deserve the same opportunity to achieve turns out to be an extremely radical idea, but is an idea at the very core of our American Experiment. How are we doing?
Not that great.
We frequently proclaim the United States as the “land of opportunity” and proudly promote the concept of the “American Dream” – the idea every person has the freedom and opportunity to attain a better life, achieve above and beyond what previous generations have experienced and enjoy the results of those achievements. However, opportunity is applied incredibly unequally in this country, and the American Dream is only aspirational for many. The guarantee of upward mobility - that “you can make it if you try” - has never actually been true for all of us and is true for less of us now than in recent memory.
The following graphic is an example of what has been creatively called a “Great Gatsby Curve”, whereby the GINI coefficient (a measure of income inequality –a higher number means a wider gap in income between the bottom and the top of wage earners) is plotted against intergenerational mobility (the possibility of moving up the income ladder compared to previous generations – a lower number is better). Countries at the lower left corner have the most intergenerational mobility, and those at the top right have the lowest. As you can see, we don’t fare all that well compared to other developed countries, and our position has worsened since the graph was first created in 2012.
Sources: Gini coefficient from the World Bank Development Indicators, latest available. Accessed September 2020; IGE from the World Bank Intergenerational Mobility database (GDIM), 2018. Development Research Group, World Bank
If you divide the U.S. population into five economic groups, the lowest of the five has only a one in three chance of getting to more than one level up in a lifetime. What some republicans, centrists and democrats are striving to do with a number of proposed social policies is to remove some of the economic barriers and offset unpredictable calamities that make upward mobility less likely.
These proposals include subsidization of education and relief of associated debt, government-sponsored healthcare as a right rather than a luxury, worker’s rights to organize and benefit from the fruits of production (e.g. their work), the elimination of racial, religious and gender career and career advancement discrimination, the provision of funding for child and elderly care, and a number of other social welfare programs for those who find themselves so far down the ladder they cannot even see the next rung.
These are neither socialist nor communist philosophies or proposals, they are social programs that attempt to move all Americans closer to equality of opportunity
In the early 1900’s, women’s suffrage, trust-busting, economic reform, maximum-hour and minimum-wage laws, the abolition of child labor, and the direct election of U.S. senators were all initially considered “socialist” ideas we
eventually accepted as helpful to society. More than one hundred years later, are we really back at square one?
There are basically two approaches to social stratification – aristocracy and meritocracy. Aristocracy (or it’s cousin the caste system) implies birth into a social stratum where an individual is destined to remain no matter what, and meritocracy implies one can move up or down based solely on talent and effort. There is no need to discuss aristocracy, as we abandoned that in this country as an organizing concept at the end of the Revolutionary War. However, meritocracy isn’t perfect either - at least not in the way it has recently been promoted in America – what some refer to as a “technocratic” meritocracy.
Most egalitarians believe in a form of meritocracy but in my opinion, America has bastardized this concept over the past few decades. We have implied the only way to be upwardly mobile is to get a college education, or to be directly involved cutting edge science and technology, computing, software, artificial intelligence or similar fields, and there has also been a related implication those who haven’t chosen this technocratic path and haven’t been able to improve their economic situations deserve what they get. The fact is most Americans don’t work in these fields, most don’t choose to attend traditional four-year colleges and as Matthew Crawford said in his book Shopcraft as Soulcraft:
“You can’t hammer a nail on the internet”
Any effort to create a classless society - communism’s stated goal – has been proven by history to be both unrealistic and soul-killing. Related, if we enact social programs as mentioned earlier there should and will still be an unequal set of outcomes and distribution of wealth among Americans, and there will never be perfect mobility. What these programs will do is remove some barriers, make the playing field more level, lessen the blow of unlucky occurrences such as family illness or untimely elderly care issues which can have generational economic consequences, and try to help minority families out of the multigenerational economic opportunity hole slavery and racism have put them into. Along the way; however, I believe we must not only articulate but objectively adhere to the concept all Americans have equal value. We must recognize, as former president Lyndon Johnson once said:
“The society which scorns excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy. Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water.”
I don’t know about you, but while I find philosophical theories interesting, I worry a hell of a lot more about the pipes in my house on a day -to-day basis. Educational support and related debt forgiveness should be provided not only to traditional federal and other student loan programs, but also technical training and the development of new skills and techniques in manual trades and other areas such as farming and ranching. Healthcare benefits and services need to be allocated not only in urban areas where there are opportunities for health systems to benefit from highly reimbursed elective care but also in rural areas, and we must work to move families out of multi-generational places of despair not only in our inner cities, but also places like Appalachia, and along our southern border.
We also all need to spend more time talking to one another, regardless of which economic quintile we do or do not reside within – and bickering with one another in the comments section on Facebook doesn’t count. I agree with Michael Sandel in his book The Tyranny of Merit:
“Focusing only, or mainly, on rising does little to cultivate the social bonds and civic attachments that democracy requires. Even a society more successful than ours at providing upward mobility would need to find ways to enable those who do not rise to flourish in place, and to see themselves as members of a common project. Our failure to do so makes life hard for those who lack meritocratic credentials and makes them doubt they belong.”
What is being promoted by many republicans, centrists and democrats isn’t socialism or communism - it’s an effort to try to create a more effective and cohesive democratic society that works for all of us. Despite all the political rhetoric and division – much of it foisted on us by social media algorithms and
power-hungry career politicians who benefit from cultivating our differences –we all want our pipes to hold water, we all want a chance to define and achieve success for ourselves in whatever form that takes… and we all want, deserve and need to be valued.
TRUTH
Fool Me Once, Shame On Me. Fool Me Twice – That’s Good Business
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."
Mark Twain
The environmental movement was a byproduct of 60’s counterculture, and even though my small hometown in Texas didn’t have much counterculture, as a kid growing up there in the 70's I identified with it. I spent a lot of time outdoors, walking down to a river a few blocks from my house carrying a fishing pole, a pocketknife and a small round paper container of “nightcrawlers”. I would loiter there for hours, sitting and watching the water flow past with its foamy eddy currents swirling magically near the bank in front of me, scanning the surface expectantly for the dark blunt snouts of turtles and on occasion - actually fishing.
I had a hand-drawn version of the “Ecology Flag” on my bedroom wall (based on artist Ron Cobb’s symbol, a mix between an “e” for “environment” and an “o” for “organism” and later developed into a protest flag). I became a strident
(Photo: Public Domain)
and admittedly irritating child “anti-litter” campaigner – at times putting me at odds with my parents and friends, and I had been inspired to take on this role by a famous television ad now known informally as “The Crying Indian”.
In the ad, sponsored by the benevolent-sounding organization “Keep America Beautiful”, an actor portraying an American Indian (who was in fact Sicilian) canoes past factories, steps out on a littered beach and then stands beside a highway where a passenger in a car driving by tosses a bag of litter at his feet. He then turns his head slowly to the camera and a tear rolls down his cheek as the narrator says, “people start pollution, people can stop it”. I loved the ad; however, I wasn’t at all aware at that time it was actually propaganda - an ad funded by those were (and still are) at the root of the environmental problem in an effort to change the way I thought and felt about pollution.
The “Keep America Beautiful” organization was originally funded by the American Can Company and the Owens-Corning Glass Company – two enterprises that at that time produced thousands of tons of non-biodegradable waste each year (when there was little to no recycling). Under the guise of “Keeping America Beautiful”, the actual intent was to shift the blame from the producers of polluting waste to the general public. This was in fact scapegoating - a well-known and effective propaganda ploy. So… as a 10-year-old (and like millions of other Americans) I felt incredibly guilty - driving my parents and
Ecology flag based on Cobb's design (Public Domain)
friends crazy reminding them to not be “litterbugs” while the American Can Company and Owens-Corning kept churning out mountains of bottles, cans, and non-biodegradable packaging and ringing the cash register.
The story of the past and present use of corporate propaganda to change the way we think about things in America to improve or protect profits is incredibly deep and wide (and… sinister); however, I will only touch on a few here. In short - you’ve been fooled, and you continue to be.
Big Tobacco
One of the better-known examples of corporate propaganda is how tobacco companies worked for decades to convince us their products were safe and even healthy when they were absolutely aware they were not. Notably, despite the fact we now understand this – more than 8 million human beings die each year around the globe as a result of their continued use.
As early as 1912, physicians began to suspect a linkage between tobacco and lung cancer and in 1950 a big epidemiology study showed more than 90% of lung cancer patients were smokers. In 1953, a widely cited experiment showed tumors could be created in laboratory animals by painting their skin with cigarette smoke byproducts and in response to growing concern about the relationship between tobacco and disease that same year executives from six of the largest cigarette companies met with the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton at the Plaza Hotel in New York, and put together what is now known as the “Tobacco Industry Playbook”.
Hill & Knowlton created a front group they called the “Tobacco Industry Research Committee”, which in 1954 produced the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” in which they suggested: (1) many possible causes for lung cancer, (2) no agreement on what the cause is, and (3) no proof cigarette smoking was a cause. Over the next 30 years, the tobacco lobby spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create industry-funded research and opinion pieces, lobby legislators and curate bogus conferences in the name of denying or downplaying the role of tobacco in human disease, fight public smoking bans and blame second-hand smoke consequences on faulty ventilation rather than smoking. The efforts are best summed up by the following statement from a tobacco executive in a 1969 industry internal memo:
“Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”
Once it became unquestionably clear the tobacco industry had covered up and misinformed the public about the dangers of it products for decades, in 1998 the largest lawsuit in history was settled between four major companies and 46 U.S. states to reimburse Medicaid and others for the costs associated with tobaccorelated diseases and the coordinated misinformation campaign that fostered the associated misery. When all the dust settles, several hundred billion dollars will be paid out.
Child Labor
There are many corporate propaganda examples to choose from that were and are directed at changing the way we think about and feel about various issues regardless their risk of harm, including the asbestos, lead , and sugar industry stories. One of my personal favorites; however, is the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) efforts to derail a proposed 1924 twentieth amendment to the constitution to limit child labor (yes, it’s true). This effort has been described in the recent book, The Big Myth How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market as an early example of many of the current propaganda techniques to alter public perception – including slippery slope arguments, ad hominem and straw man attacks, the use of repetition, half-truths, misrepresentations, denial of documented evidence and bald-faced lies.
NAM claimed a child labor amendment threatened the “freedom” of both parents and corporate entities – that parents should be free to decide if children should work in factories, and corporations should have the freedom to run their businesses as they saw fit without stifling government regulatory oversight described by NAM at the time as “socialistic” and “Bolshevistic”
7-year-old
(ad hominem attacks). Regarding parental freedom and authority, NAM quoted the Methodist bishop Reverend Warren Candler, who stated the child labor amendment would…
“…discredit and dethrone parents and subvert family government, substituting for parenthood a paternalistic government at Washington and empowering the federal Congress to stand in loco parentis to all the children of the country on the absurd assumption that Congress will be more tenderly concerned for children than their own parents.”
Related, in an early version of astroturfing (a deceptive practice of creating a marketing or public relations campaign falsely claiming unsolicited comments from members of the general public) the Southern Textile Bulletin organized a “committee” for the Protection of Child, Family, School and Church – one linked to and funded by a group called the Farmers States Rights League. The so-called committee then took out advertisements in local newspapers claiming a child
A
"newsie" in 1914 (Library of Congress)
labor amendment would “prevent boys from doing work around the farm, and girls from doing the dishes”. (the slippery slope).
Perhaps most troubling; however, NAM also posited efforts to generalize and require public education for all children (interfering with their ability to go to work) would provide for “erroneous assumptions of equality”… e.g. some Americans were simply destined to live out their lives - starting at elementary school age - in sweatshops, warehouses and factories because that’s all they were capable of doing and they should therefore just learn to live with it.
The proposed constitutional amendment, which would require three-fourths of all states to pass (38/50) was put to a vote for ratification in 1924. The amendment was ratified by 28 states, rejected by 15, and is still technically on the table.
Climate Change (aka, Global Warming)
James Black, a scientist working at Exxon Mobil made a presentation to that company’s management committee in 1977 about what he and others were referring to as “The Greenhouse Effect”, and later wrote up his presentation in a document provided to them on June 6, 1978…
“...CO2, therefore, contributes to warming the lower atmosphere by what has been called the Greenhouse Effect… one recent study predicts that ln 2075 A.D., CO2 concentration will peak at a Level about twice what could be considered normal. This prediction assumes that fossil fuel consumption will grow at a rate of 2% per year until 2025 A.D. after which lt will follow a symmetrical decrease. This growth curve is close to that predicted by Exxon’s Corporate Planning Department.”
A similar memo crossed President Jimmy Carter’s desk in 1977 as well, written by Frank Press, Carter’s chief science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy…
“Fossil fuel combustion has increased at an exponential rate over the last 100 years. As a result, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is now 12 percent above the pre-industrial revolution level and may grow to 1.5 to 2.0 times that level within 60 years. Because of the “greenhouse effect” of atmospheric CO2 the increased concentration will induce a global climatic warming of anywhere from 0.5 to 5°C… The urgency of the problem derives from our inability to shift rapidly to non-fossil fuel sources once the climatic effects become evident not long after the year 2000; the situation could grow out of control before alternate energy sources and other remedial actions become effective.”
The potential for global warming as a result of the increasing use of fossil fuels and a buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was known at least as far back as the 1950’s and the entire lurid story of the coverup and misinformation campaign has been well documented. Included here are just a few highlights of how propaganda has been used to change your mind about this issue.
While the American Petroleum Institute (the major oil company trade organization) initially expressed some concern during the 1980’s about the potential for global warming and what might need to be done about it - as described by a panel of scientists from several of their companies - they disbanded the panel. In the 1990’s the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM… yes, the same one that wanted your 8-year-old to work on the assembly line), created the Global Climate Coalition and spent more than $60 million during that decade to refute global warming. Big Oil went on to hire the PR firm APCO and others (APCO had been responsible for the Crying Indian commercial of my youth), and created another front organization, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, to fund what has its own research to refute the existing science warning of a coming climate catastrophe. A number of other front organizations - an example of astroturfing on a scale that dwarfs the child labor effort - were formed by oil companies and their PR firms to follow such as the American Energy Alliance, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Institute.
In 2002, an important figure in corporate and political propaganda, Frank Luntz, delivered a memorandum entitled “Winning the Global Warming Debate” to President George W. Bush :
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] ... but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. ... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
As a skilled marketer with a unique sense of the power of words to change the framing of issues, Luntz first suggested the use of “climate change” rather than “global warming”. Also to his credit are the use of “death tax” rather than “estate tax” to facilitate republican efforts to limit these efforts, and “energy exploration” rather than “oil drilling”. In 2010, he won the “Lie of the Year” award from PolitiFact for his successful efforts on the behalf of conservative politicians to substitute the words “government takeover” for “healthcare reform”.
While 97% of global climate scientists agree global warming is real, is related to the use of fossil fuels by human beings and threatens the future of humanity a great deal of money is still being spent to discredit them, and fund the 3% who do not. Several billion dollars have been spent over the past 20 years on these efforts to change the way you think and feel about the issue, and to counter scientific truth, with one notable group – the Koch Family Foundation, large supporters of republican candidates and causes - providing more than $150 million to various groups pursuant to those efforts over the past 25 years.
Foundation and other spending to refute global warming from 2003-2015 https://cssn.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/10/Brulle2021_Article_ObstructingActionFoundationFun.pdf
Propaganda science was pioneered in the United States by Edward Bernays, a nephew of the famous psychiatrist Sigmund Freud. The leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich studied Bernays and his methods and used them to brainwash a large swath of Europe into believing the Jewish people were subhuman and worthy of extermination and those with Aryan blood were destined to rule the world. Corporate America also learned these skills with the active help of Bernays, and has used them ever since to convince you that you are responsible for the environmental issues we are now struggling with (if you would just recycle we wouldn’t have micro-plastics in our seafood and in our bloodstreams), to delay legislation moving elementary school children out of factories and into schools (and to prevent them from having intellectual and growth problems due to lead exposure), the cigarettes you smoke and many of the toxins you are exposed to in your place of work aren’t all that bad for you, and global warming with its rising oceans, accelerating wildfires and intensifying storms is all a hoax.
ICYMI, the use of these tools has also been adopted, refined and used with great success by politicians over the past few decades to change the way you think and feel, including the application of slippery slope arguments (“I notice that Stonewall Jackson's coming down. I wonder; is it George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after?”) ad hominem attacks (“Lyin Ted”… “Sleepy Joe”… "Little Marco"... “Crazy Kamala”), straw man attacks (“She’s a radical left person who really wants to have an open border.” … “he’s
a fascist”), denial of documented evidence (“It’s (Covid) going to go away, hopefully at the end of the month. And, if not, hopefully it will be soon after that”... "the president has no impairment"), and bald-faced lies (“the election was stolen”), in addition to all the other tools of the propaganda trade.
I believe and participate in capitalism; however, as a physician I also cling to the idea money is a tool to serve the interests of human beings rather than an asset to acquire by taking advantage of them, and also believe it is hard to enjoy the fruits of this economic model if you are suffering, or dead. For decades, a sub rosa war has been fought between the rights, the health and welfare of the general public and the unfettered “economic rights”, health and "wealthfare" of corporate entities.
While some of my examples here are historical, make no mistake – this battle continues just out of reach of the ability of most of us to sense it. While Americans have regrettably resorted to calling one another “deplorables” and “libtards” in the fog of the ridiculous political war we have been manipulated into (by many of the same techniques I identify above) we are not fools. However, we are being fooled, and to the great pleasure of those who wish to change the way we think and feel to get what they want - no matter how it impacts us - we struggle to recognize and admit it.
FREEDOM
Freedom In Modern America
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
To punish Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party, in 1774 the British Parliament passed The Coercive Acts (what the American colonists not surprisingly called The Intolerable Acts). The laws closed Boston Harbor, dissolved local charter government in Massachusetts, allowed any British official to bypass colonial justice and be tried in Britain, and forced quartering of redcoats in American homes. After almost a decade of “taxation without representation” and street skirmishes with British troops - it's an understatement to say the colonists were not at all amused. Less than a year later, on a warm March day in 1775 the Virginia planter Patrick Henry (1736-1799) rose in the dusty sanctuary of the St. John’s Episcopal Church at the Second Virginia Convention in Richmond, and uttered
Sturgis Buffalo Chip Freedom Field - Buffalo Chip. South Dakota.
the phrase most every American fifth grader can proudly recognize and recite (…at least the last seven words):
“The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
What most fifth graders and beyond may not know; however, is as Henry uttered these last seven words, he took in his hand an ivory paper cutter (letter opener) and thrust it toward his chest. A gesture that if not well known, is quite significant.
The founding fathers were for the most part the educated elite of their time and cleaved to romanticized versions of ancient Greece and Rome as well as the virtues of those societies (casually ignoring idol-worship, “flexible” sexual
Patrick Henry at St. John’s Episcopal Church (Currier and Ives)
practices, sophisticated torture, institutionalized political bribery and human enslavement). For these individuals, Roman examples of bravery, honor and governance were influential and important. So, when Henry thrust his paper opener at his chest he was recalling a very specific and allegorically important moment in Roman history – the suicide of Cato.
Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95-46 BCE, also known as Cato the Younger, or just Cato) was a nemesis of Julius Caesar (100-44 BCE) and his followers, and with others fought against Caesar in the Roman civil war of 49-45 BCE. Cato, a Roman Senator, viewed the war as being fought for representative government (which he favored) versus dictatorship (which he surmised would result from a victory by Caesar). His concerns were objectified, as the victory and subsequent reign of Caesar marked the end of the Roman Republic (the Senate persisted, but as much less of a governing body), and the beginning of the rule of emperors, e.g., The Roman Empire. As Caesar’s troops closed in on Cato’s indefensible position in Utica (on the Mediterranean shore of North Africa in modern-day Tunisia), he had his sword brought to him and committed suicide by stabbing himself in the abdomen.
The importance of Henry’s gesture is it refers to this historical episode - one that explains why he did not utter the words “give me freedom…”, but rather
Patrick Henry's Ivory Paper Opener (Red Hill: Patrick Henry National Memorial)
specifically “give me liberty…”. While you may assume these two terms are interchangeable, they are not. Cato and Henry both knew freedom – while the ideal and natural state of man, was impossible to achieve without liberty. The definition and relationship of these two terms were very clear to our country’s founders - freedom being the “right to act, speak or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint”, and liberty, “freedom from arbitrary or oppressive authority”. It’s important to remember “arbitrary” means “based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system”. So if one agrees to these definitions it’s perhaps clear freedom cannot exist without liberty.
Cato committed suicide to avoid experiencing the death of liberty - represented by the representative Roman Republic – and its replacement by the arbitrary rule of an emperor. And Patrick Henry was willing to die rather than subject himself to the arbitrary rule of the British king for the same reasons. They also knew while dictators and despots had the option to avoid oppression but that it was an effective weapon to control others, and without checks and balances it would eventually be employed. So, what is arbitrary authority and why should we agree with Cato and Henry it precludes liberty and makes freedom less likely?
Rational authority (1) employs preconceived guiding principles (e.g. traditions, rules and laws) that would be considered reasonable for most to whom they apply, (2) is willing to limit freedoms, but only when they infringe on the freedoms of others, (3) acts on the behalf of the individuals they lead, rather than for their own personal benefit, and (4) applies preconceived traditions, rules and laws equally to all. Arbitrary authority, on the other hand, is (1) based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system (such as preconceived traditions, rules and laws), (2) may be unfettered by checks and balances and have absolute authority to act as they wish, (3) may act to benefit themselves or groups of interest rather than the general citizenry, and (4) can change traditions, rules and laws without regard to reason and apply them unequally as they wish.
If we can avoid arbitrary authority and promote liberty, whey they can’t our freedoms be boundless? Why did I include in the list of characteristics of rational leaders the ability to “limit freedoms, but only when they impinge on the
freedoms of others”? Isn’t that arbitrary? Not at all – it’s absolutely necessary for a free society to function well. As Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813), a young Massachusetts lawyer who would become that state’s supreme court chief justice wrote in the Essex Result, it comes down to which rights are “alienable” (capable of being limited by government) versus those that are “inalienable” (should ideally not be limited):
“All men are born equally free. The rights they possess at their births are equal, and of the same kind. Some of those rights are alienable, and may be parted with for an equivalent. Others are unalienable and inherent, and of that importance, that no equivalent can be received in exchange.’
With the notable exception of the freedom of thought we should not expect our freedoms to be unlimited, as we must find ways to strike the right balance between rights and freedoms for all. What we strive for; therefore, is not the freedom to do or say anything we want, whenever we want no matter the consequences - because freedom unfettered always infringes on the freedoms of others. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) (admittedly a slave owner - so quoted here as more of a “do as I say, not as I did” concept) summed it up well:
The Suicide of Cato (Giovan Francesco Barbieri, Musei Di Genova)
“...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”
Let’s take a look at three basic freedoms – the freedom to act, the freedom to speak and the freedom to think.
The Freedom to Act
If we at tacitly agree freedom unfettered always infringes on the freedoms of others, then perhaps we can also agree the most obvious way to infringe on another individual’s rights is by physically acting (or refusing to act) rather than simply speaking or thinking, and as a result this freedom is the most likely target of authority's restrictions.
There has been a long-tenured debate regarding the foundational nature of human beings, as in are we innately good, or innately bad? Throughout history, many have considered this question as well as how it relates to the need for, and form of, governing structures. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke both contemplated and disagreed upon what the likely behaviors of humans in a time before “civilization” they both termed “The State of Nature”. Hobbes viewed man as innately vicious and in need of heavy-handed authoritarian rule, but Locke believed humankind’s innate nature was to seek equality and freedom and this provided for the possibility of a government constituted by many and with the consent of all (ICYMI, our founding fathers chose Locke’s approach over Hobbes’). What both did agree upon; however, was that good or bad we all had the capacity to infringe upon on other’s rights and freedoms in the pursuit of our own and therefore we must have traditions, rules and laws to prevent this when possible.
If someone owns a sports car she may want to drive it 150 mph on the highway, perhaps feeling since she paid handsomely for it and it was designed to be driven fast she should be free to do so. However, this desire to act freely does not pass the test of infringement. Driving at 150 mph puts other’s right to life at risk, and so laws exist to regulate the speed at which we drive. It is reasonable to remind at this juncture most fifth graders also know the right to life (along with liberty
and the pursuit of happiness) is spelled out quite explicitly in the United States Constitution as inalienable.
It is often more contentious when we are compelled by authority to do something we might otherwise choose not to do if we were completely free to act or not act as we wish – such as submit to an annual emissions check on that Maserati, or have our child vaccinated for measles. However, both of these pass the infringement test, and should not be considered the arbitrary mandates of authority, but rather the rules of rational authority “considered reasonable for most to whom they apply”. If you pollute the air or refuse to vaccinate your child for measles (1/4 infected are hospitalized and 1-2/1000 die) you infringe on others’ right to life. Of course, the latter example requires you have faith this and other vaccinations (including Covid) are safe and effective - so as a physician and scientist I will take the liberty of saying they are… and move on.
The Freedom To Speak
Most consider the First Amendment right of free speech immutable and essential to democracy. This amendment, ratified initially as part of the first ten amendments to the constitution Bill of Rights in 1791. However, the actual limits of free speech are being questioned and debated vigorously in the moment.
Free speech protections are heavily rooted in the powerful metaphor of the “Marketplace of Ideas”, promoted by Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935) in his 1919 opinion in the Abrams vs. United States Supreme Court free speech case. The concept is market competition will allow, over time, for the truth of any speech to be evident as it is debated and challenged in public discourse. This efficient market concept makes sense to most Americans living in a competitive capitalist system, but it is one that has lost some of its relevance as the founding fathers’ original concepts of how speech would be presented, debated and challenged was a far cry from the present situation. In 1791 the formal press was small, focused on ideas and veracity and public debate and discussion in town meetings and other informal and more formal settings was common. Even as we moved into the 19th and 20th centuries and prior to the age of social media, the voices promoting ideas were few in number and competed on the basis of speed to market, the power of promoted ideas and most important - truth.
Morgan Weiland, Executive Director of the Stanford Law School Constitutional Law Center and Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, says this model really no longer exists:
“But the marketplace of ideas is a twentieth-century relic. It took root in the context of an expressive ecosystem defined by a handful of homogeneous commercial print and broadcast titans that reflected the views of a narrow and elite slice of the public and sought the aspirational, if unattainable, goals of truth, democratic deliberation, and government accountability facilitated by a press that took those aims as its responsibility.”
Weiland goes on to tell us the metaphor of the “Marketplace of Ideas” has been replaced by “The Free Flow of Information” and there are two critical differences between these two models. First, the business model for the “Market of Ideas” press was to make money by accumulating readers and viewers who trusted them and were impressed by the speed with which they reported the news as well as their efforts to promulgate truth as well as reasoned “ideas” that could be considered and debated. However, the business model of social media news outlets (and ALL news outlets now have a social media component, not just Facebook and X) is now engagement at all costs, and characterization of our individual commercial interests – e.g., understanding which ads and products we are most likely to purchase by keeping us engaged. How are we kept engaged? By information, and lots of it… information indifferent to logic or truth, usually bereft of any tangible ideas and is directed at us by algorithm. Second, where the marketplace put pressure on the press itself to fact check and try its best to discern what was true and what was not before transmitting, all of the impetus is now squarely on us to discern what is true information vs. what is not, and “we” are just not that good at it. Weiland elaborates:
“The (new) metaphor’s logic prioritizes content quantity over quality, privileges information over ideas, removes accountability from the system of expression, and displaces responsibility onto listeners, who are ill-equipped to sort the
informational wheat from the chaff. In the end, truth loses out… Today’s expressive ecosystem dramatically departs from the metaphor’s core assumptions, marked by information overload and replete with misinformation and lies proliferated by speech platforms unable or unwilling to act as “arbiters of truth.”
This new model means we will be increasingly bombarded like never before with misinformation, disinformation, half-truths and outright lies at times, and as a result stress will be placed on whether First Amendment protections no longer apply. One test that remains cogent despite the change from “Marketplace” to “Information Flow” is the concept of imminent danger, and that bar has been set appropriately high, as noted by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (18561941) comments in the 1927 Whitney vs. California free speech case:
“Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. [And] There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent.”
An example of what we are likely to increasingly see related to the new model of maximizing information flow over vetted truth is the presentation of misinformation about covid vaccines and treatments on social media channels. While some claim this misinformation should be protected by the First Amendment, others (myself included) disagree - despite our desire to protect true First Amendment rights. The danger to our society and to human life was imminent - and thousands of lives were lost as a result of what Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has termed laudable “greater expression”expression that led to vaccine hesitancy and unapproved treatments. Let’s be clear, Zuckerberg was not referring to the promotion of substantive ideas to be debated, or the seeking of truth - but rather what Weiland would simply call the “free flow of information”... the truth be damned.
Vincent Blasi, the Corliss Lamont Professor Emeritus of Civil Liberties at Columbia University and a vigorous academic proponent of First Amendment rights, suggested there are several arguments for requiring “imminence” of threat for denying First Amendment protection, including among them (1) remote harm can be refuted over time, (2) time will allow dissipation of energy and will, (3) remote harm can’t really be measured in the present, and (4) so many contingencies can take place to make something harmful or not in the future that it is unpredictable. None of these could be easily applied to the covid social media misinformation situation, and it is easy to see the infringement on the freedoms of others rule was absolutely in effect. By providing me covid misinformation, you put my freedom to life at imminent risk.
The Freedom to Think
Of all the freedoms we aspire to, freedom of thought is the only one I believe worthy of infinite protection, and we should protect mos t assiduously. Virtually all human behaviors (save a handful of reflexes) of action and speech originate in thought, and what we say and do, now and in the future, will determine our fate as a species. However, this freedom is under active attack. I have often told my children (admittedly… usually in a futile attempt to get them to do their homework), “the one thing no one can take away from you is what you learn and what you think as a result”. However, I am increasingly concerned this is a flawed promise.
In George Orwell’s 1984, the citizens of Oceania had two-way large television screens in their homes that both continually transmitted propaganda and also surveilled them for any signs of disagreement, and those who did disagreed were re-educated and the use of oft-repeated slogans and the rewriting of history accompanied “Big Brother’s” use of media. Does any of this sound familiar? Modern social media platforms have poured rocket fuel onto the use of propaganda to change the way we think and feel, and among the risks to all human freedoms, this is perhaps the most dangerous. As I and many others have commented, we are increasingly being programmed by commercial interests, political parties and governments to think and feel in ways that benefit them, regardless of costs or benefits to us and artificial intelligence will assuredly make them more effective.
In the quest for freedom of thought the development of mechanisms to ensure the sharing useful ideas and truthful facts, rather than simply “free information flow” directed at getting you to buy something or vote for some political ideologue are desperately needed in place of the current game of hot potato (with frequent drops) between government, fact-checking organizations and media providers. In addition, educational approaches that teach our children and grandchildren how to think critically and to seek truth in information rather than simply accept it if it confirms their biases will be of increasing importance to maintaining a stable, less polarized and functional democracy.
The founding fathers clearly understood the difference between freedom and liberty. When Patrick Henry uttered his famous words in Richmond, he used the word liberty rather than freedom purposefully, and he was not implying “If I can’t do whatever I want to do I would rather die”, but rather, “I would rather die than be subjected to the arbitrary authority of a king”.
While the word “freedom” is mentioned in the United States Constitution one time, and does not appear in the Declaration of Independence at all, the word “liberty” is used three times in the former and is a front and center consideration (one very important time) in the passage describing our three inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the latter. I posit the founders
Actor John Hurt ("Winston") in the 1984 movie production of Orwell's "1984" (Virgin Films)
also believed while unfettered freedoms always infringe on the freedoms of others and therefore cannot be infinite - liberty could and ideally should be.
While authoritarian regimes may function well for a while – as some seem to be in the present time - historically they all fail, and they do so because by our very nature we choose liberty and freedom and reproducibly reject Hobbes’ characterization of us as well as his authoritarian solution. As Adams suggested, in the present moment, some Americans seem to value “wealth more than liberty”, and some – “the tranquility of blind trusting servitude” to a cult of personality over true freedom. We must choose rational, rather than arbitrary leaders and despite our petty political disagreements we all – republican and democrat, conservative and liberal – must agree to come together to protect and foster liberty. All our freedoms depend on it.
SAFETY
Fact and Fiction and the Great American Shootout
I've been fighting my entire adult life for men and women everywhere to be equal and to be different. But there is one right I would not grant anyone. And that is the right to be indifferent.
Elie Wiesel
Despite the Surgeon General's welcomed announcement today that United States gun violence, now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents, is officially a public health crisis - Americans have long since become desensitized.
And that's not good.
This past weekend (Friday June 21st through Sunday June 23rd, 2024) there were ten mass shootings in this country (using a definition of four or more individuals injured). However, there was no great hue and cry among the masses, extended media coverage or lines of policy makers bellying up to microphones on the congressional or senate floors to lament and demand legislative action. And why not?
Image: Shutterstock
Among a variety of other reasons, there were twelve mass shootings in America the weekend before.
In any other country in the world these events would have absolutely been the top trending news items.
But in America? Meh.
History teaches us desensitization, inurement or habituation to violence and suffering often ends badly - like the Weimar Republic followed by Nazi Germany's gradual acceptance of systematic violence against Jews and others. In contemporary times, careful psychologic and sociologic study has shown desensitization to violence not only often leads to more violence from both individuals and the societies in which they live, but also a lack of activation energy to do anything to prevent it. The political rhetoric itself around this issue may well be responsible in part for the general public's pursuit of indifference and blissful ignorance. There is a constant barrage of information - mixed with misinformation and disinformation - regarding gun violence constantly coming at us via innumerable social media and other propaganda channels. For some, this has led to a psychological throwing up of hands and a decision to just ignore the issue all together as understanding it, a prerequisite for actually doing anything, seems impossible. The problem is thousands of innocent Americans... thousands... just like you, are dying potentially preventable deaths while we collectively "try not to think about it".
Perhaps one way to combat the willingness of individuals to look away from this problem or worse directly at the alternative versions of reality misinformation and disinformation create, is to lay bare the facts. Many citizens living in Weimar and Nazi Germany refused to believe the massacre of European Jews was ongoing, or chose to sublimate the knowledge, until they were confronted with the undeniable facts following liberation.
Here are a few important undeniable facts, and their competing fictions regarding gun violence in America.
Political Fiction 1:
Mental health issues are primarily to blame for American gun violence, and if we just address them more effectively the problem will get better.
Public Health Fact 1:
Only about 4% of all violence in America stems from mental illness, and even less gun violence. While you could reasonably posit anyone choosing to shoot another individual is "not thinking clearly", much more accurate predictors of gun violence in individual Americans include a history of previous violent acts (including domestic), substance abuse, male gender and a personal history of being abused. While some high-profile mass shooters have suffered from mental illness, the majority of mass shootings occur out of momentary anger, desperation or fear in individuals who are not suffering from mental illness, and these emotions are overwhelmingly more likely driven by poverty and hopelessness than psychosis.
It is also perhaps instructive to compare the rates of mental illness and emotional distress in the United States to other developed countries. The fact is the rates of these issues in developed countries around the world are fairly similar - and absolutely not different enough to account for the dramatic difference in rates of gun violence. Yes, we do a relatively poor job of dealing with mental illness in this country, so by all means let's work on that. However, we have a lot of more foundational issues to deal with if you want to decrease the role of anger, desperation and fear in gun violence - like unequal opportunity, poverty and racism, to name a few. I suggest we work on all of them, but that will likely still not solve the problem.
Political Fiction 2:
Guns don't kill people, people do.
Public Health Fact 2:
I had the unfortunate responsibility of filling out a number of death certificates as a surgical trainee and practicing surgeon, including victims of gun violence. So to be accurate, what actually usually leads to the death of individuals who have suffered a gunshot wound is bleeding from, out of or into vital organs of the body. And the death certificate is an interesting way to think about what actually
causes the demise of individuals who suffer from gun violence, as they force the clinician to list - usually around three - of the proximate (closest in relationship) causes of death, starting with the most proximate.
As an example, if someone dies of pneumonia in the intensive care unit, you might list the causes of death, from most proximate to less proximate in the following manner...
1. respiratory failure
2. acute respiratory distress syndrome
3. bacterial or viral pneumonia.
Interestingly, while the infection was indeed likely passed from one human to another, we do not list "another human" as a proximate cause. Certainly, volition is involved when someone pulls the trigger of a gun and may not at all be involved when he coughs in your face. However, the presence of an infection in the community and therefore the individual who transmitted it to you, and exposure to the infectious agent (a virus or bacterium in most cases) is required to become infected. No virus or bacterium circulating in the community, no pneumonia. Regarding exposure to the offending agent for gun violence, there
Image: Politico Europe
are 400 million+ guns extant in the United States - about 120 guns per 100 citizens. Comparably, the closest developed country in the world to us is Canada, at 34.7, and it drops precipitously from there.
The other factor of importance is susceptibility - if I am exposed to the agent, how likely am I to get sick? For infections, one would think about things such as overall underlying health, age and immune status. I addressed susceptibility factors for gun violence above in Public Health Fact 1., and noted in this country these factors, including mental illness, are not dramatically different from a lot of other places. Reducing susceptibility to gun violence is desperately needed, of course, so lets work on mental health, poverty, opportunity, conflict resolution, racism, drug abuse and other factors that make it more likely a human will shoot another human. However, the simple fact is while people are obviously in the loop for gun violence, they are neither the proximate cause nor the offending agent - guns are. Reducing susceptibility is very complex, but reducing exposure is much more straightforward. Fewer bacteria, fewer infections. And the data are crystal clear here and factual - fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. I wrote an essay on this very topic a few years ago, and despite my most ardent wishes, it continues to be cogent.
Political Fiction 3:
If you take guns away from good people, only bad people will have guns.
Public Health Fact 3:
First, I haven't suggested taking guns away from "good people". Second, this argument falls apart fairly quickly with the use of another medical example, such as - "if you outlaw meth, only bad people will have meth." Some bad people will figure out a way to get meth, of course, but that is a relatively bad excuse to give it to everyone. In addition, the data from Australia following the enactment of much more stringent gun laws and the removal of a substantial number of guns from circulation via a buyback program simply do not foot with this argumentmurder and suicide rates have plummeted. Likewise, in Japan, where gun ownership is possible but with extreme restrictions, bad people have not figured out a way to wage violent war on good people, and gun violence is exceedingly rare.
If you haven't figured it out, I tend to take liberal stances on a lot of political issues, including this one. However, I am not suggesting we take guns away
from "all good people". There are many responsible gun owners in America, some of whom are my very good and trusted friends I am fairly certain aren't going to shoot me (I grew up in Texas, after all). What I am suggesting is we make it much harder to own a gun, and the total number of firearms currently in circulation in the United States greatly exceeds the capacity of responsible and trusted friends available to possess one. As a morbid aside, we have so many guns now they have become an important export of sorts - one valuable to such august organizations as Mexican drug cartels (who obtain 70%-90% of their weapons from America).
If we can decrease exposure to the proximate cause agent, by removing as many guns as possible from circulation, we may be able to slow and someday even stop the "epidemic" that I refer to with no humor intended as the "Great American Shootout".
Image: The Quint
Admittedly in 2024 most every adult, in some cases with very little vetting and little to no restriction on how, when or where they have one, has a right to possess a firearm in America. What you don't have in my personal opinion - if you care about this country's future and the lives that populate it - is a right to indifference.
About the Author
Roy Smythe M.D. is currently the Executive Chair of Xilis, Inc., and a Venture Partner for Mubadala Investment Corporation. Formerly, he was the CEO of SomaLogic and the Chief Medical ORicer for Strategy and Partnerships at Royal Philips. He began his career as a physician-scientist, completing residency training at the University of Pennsylvania, becoming Associate Professor of Surgery at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, where he was the recipient of the PhysicianScientist Award, and finally as Professor and Chair of Surgery and the Rita K. and Glen Roney Endowed Chair at Texas A&M College of Medicine and the Baylor Scott & White Healthcare system.
He has been an internationally recognized surgeon, biomedical scientist, academician, health system administrator and healthcare business entrepreneur. As a thought-leader, Dr. Smythe is the author of more than 300 papers, abstracts and essays in academic, literary, humanities and lay publications, a former panel writer for Forbes, DISCOVER Magazine and LinkedIn Pulse and is a frequent speaker on healthcare, life sciences and history topics.
A native of “a small town in Central Texas”, he currently resides with his family in Boulder Colorado.
Ó 2024, William Roy Smythe, M.D., All Rights Reserved
