It's interesting listening to Americans (citizens of the USA) describe themselves as far as class alliance goes since what is called working class in other countries can be called "middle class" in the States. I think of middle class as those who fall socioeconomically between the working class and upper class. In the United States more people identified themselves as middle class than as lower or "working" class (with insignificant numbers identifying themselves as upper class).
These are trait which I see as being Middle Class:
--Achievement of University education.
--Holding professional qualifications, including academics, lawyers, engineers, politicians and doctors regardless of their leisure or wealth.
--Belief in bourgeois values, such as high rates of house ownership and jobs which are perceived to be "secure."
What brings this about is that there was a story on the News last night about the Rich-Poor gap in Britain. The BBC also has this story on its website as well as Lord Heseltine and Phil Woolas discussing the rich-poor gap.
Oddly enough, I have yet to see similar stories on the US Media outlets. In fact, I find it rather interesting that the US is having so many problems with implementing health care, and has had for nearly a century. Also, I wonder where the US falls in this chart of inequality: above or below the United Kingdom?
Oddly enough, I have a feeling that the US is more unequal than the UK, but can't confirm this. It's nice that the US electorate can be so easily distracted by wedge issues. Even more interesting that the Right can exploit single issues and manipulates religious faith to direct workers into voting for candidates who are a threat to their economic interests.
What I like is the ending comment that the policies needed to address inequality "will always be controversial since they mean neutralising the advantages of wealth. A prospect that those with money and influence will fight hard against."
Showing posts with label wedge issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wedge issues. Show all posts
28 January 2010
10 December 2009
Gun Policy News
I subscribe to gunpolicy news from http://www.gunpolicy.org/ which is like an international version of the gun guys.
One article that caught my interest was an op-ed piece from the LA Times called America's pointless gun fight. It's by Richard Feldman, so he tries to be unbiased about the issue saying that it's both sides who are being unreasonable. I tend to disagree with that, since most of the lack of reason comes from the more radical segment of the pro-gun side who see any attempt to regulate fireams as an infringement on their "gun rights". Feldman does make a very good point:
Mr. Feldman, I think we have sentimental wishes coming from both sides. Looking at how gun control has worked in other jurisdictions is merely an academic exercise. It has some value, but the US gun situation is very unique.
Also, I have a question about the figure that "guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country" which isn't disputing the figure, but a question of how many of those homes would keep the firearms if registration were imposed?
A realistic scenario for gun registration in the US would be that there would be a period of amnesty in which people were given the option of registering their firearms (which would probably be grandfathered in) or legally disposing of them. How many would turn their guns in as part of a gun amnesty or buyback?
My opinion on the reason the gun lobby fears registration has nothing to do with its efficacy as a tool for controlling firearms, but the fact that it WILL reduce the amount of firearms sold. How many people would buy a firearm if it requires a registration process?
It's not about public safety, but how much money the gun companies can make selling firearms and not caring where they end up.
Feldman does end on a very good point:
Does saying that make him anti-gun? Although I already imagine he is seen as a turncoat for having written "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist". Nevermind that he was an executive director of the firearm industry's trade association and a regional political director for the National Rifle Association.
Not from Gunpolicy.org, but from my past reading and collection we have a couple of interesting articles from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting we have a couple of interesting articles that seem to be lost in the dreck: Jeff Cohen's Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment and Howard Friel's How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution: On Second Amendment, Reporters Side With Gun Lobby Against Supreme Court.
These articles deal with how the National Rifle Association has advanced the view that the amendment provides a fundamental right to private gun ownership that cannot be abridged by the passage of gun control laws. In fact, the actual finding that the Second Amendment provided an "individual right" in DC v. Heller did not come through legal precedent, but from a well planned attack by a special interest group, the Cato Institute.
The problem is that the gun debate like other US policy debates seems to be dominated by continuing misinformation, lies and deception used by ideologically shaped skeptics who deny (in this case, climate change, but it can be gun control or whatever). If deniers can convince the public that gun control (climate science, etcetera) is bogus, then there is no need for legal reforms. There is an industry of those who are paid to say that there are gun rights (manmade global warming isn’t happening, etcetera). The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid; however, they have been duped.
Gun control is a wedge issue par excellence in that all sorts of emotive situations and language can be used. Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."
How long will it take before people get fed up with the concept of "gun rights" and wake up?
How many incidents like this one where a NH Man was Charged With Firing AK-47 in a Massachusetts Restaurant:
People didn't need guns to stop this shooter, they just needed to stand up to him and be fearless.
People need to stand up to the US gun lobby and not take it anymore.
(I was trying to figure out how to get the AK-47 story in there)
One article that caught my interest was an op-ed piece from the LA Times called America's pointless gun fight. It's by Richard Feldman, so he tries to be unbiased about the issue saying that it's both sides who are being unreasonable. I tend to disagree with that, since most of the lack of reason comes from the more radical segment of the pro-gun side who see any attempt to regulate fireams as an infringement on their "gun rights". Feldman does make a very good point:
What is missing from The Times' editorial and from the ongoing national debate is the following:
First, we need to recognize that guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country -- like it or not. Any credible discussion of this issue must acknowledge that reality.
Second, gun owners and non-gun owners alike are in universal agreement in this country that violent, predatory criminals should not possess, have access to nor easily obtain firearms.
Third, we all wish that mentally troubled individuals would not own, possess or acquire guns.
Both sides of the debate need to acknowledge they actually agree on several key issues. I am a gun owner, and I do not intend to surrender my rights because of the acts of criminals, mental midgets or a sentimental wish of how things might be somewhere else (The Times muses about Canada's low homicide rate). I am hungry for action that moves our common agenda forward.
Mr. Feldman, I think we have sentimental wishes coming from both sides. Looking at how gun control has worked in other jurisdictions is merely an academic exercise. It has some value, but the US gun situation is very unique.
Also, I have a question about the figure that "guns are present in more than 40% of all homes in this country" which isn't disputing the figure, but a question of how many of those homes would keep the firearms if registration were imposed?
A realistic scenario for gun registration in the US would be that there would be a period of amnesty in which people were given the option of registering their firearms (which would probably be grandfathered in) or legally disposing of them. How many would turn their guns in as part of a gun amnesty or buyback?
My opinion on the reason the gun lobby fears registration has nothing to do with its efficacy as a tool for controlling firearms, but the fact that it WILL reduce the amount of firearms sold. How many people would buy a firearm if it requires a registration process?
It's not about public safety, but how much money the gun companies can make selling firearms and not caring where they end up.
Feldman does end on a very good point:
The bottom line is this: We must stop debating the polemics of guns and instead show wisdom and maturity to begin to resolve the problems of the negligent misuse of guns. Though a cliche, the following is nevertheless true: Guns aren't ever the problem; guns in the wrong hands are always the problem. How we address this problem will determine the future of gun safety in America.
Does saying that make him anti-gun? Although I already imagine he is seen as a turncoat for having written "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist". Nevermind that he was an executive director of the firearm industry's trade association and a regional political director for the National Rifle Association.
Not from Gunpolicy.org, but from my past reading and collection we have a couple of interesting articles from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting we have a couple of interesting articles that seem to be lost in the dreck: Jeff Cohen's Gun Control, the NRA and the Second Amendment and Howard Friel's How the NRA Rewrote the Constitution: On Second Amendment, Reporters Side With Gun Lobby Against Supreme Court.
These articles deal with how the National Rifle Association has advanced the view that the amendment provides a fundamental right to private gun ownership that cannot be abridged by the passage of gun control laws. In fact, the actual finding that the Second Amendment provided an "individual right" in DC v. Heller did not come through legal precedent, but from a well planned attack by a special interest group, the Cato Institute.
The problem is that the gun debate like other US policy debates seems to be dominated by continuing misinformation, lies and deception used by ideologically shaped skeptics who deny (in this case, climate change, but it can be gun control or whatever). If deniers can convince the public that gun control (climate science, etcetera) is bogus, then there is no need for legal reforms. There is an industry of those who are paid to say that there are gun rights (manmade global warming isn’t happening, etcetera). The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid; however, they have been duped.
Gun control is a wedge issue par excellence in that all sorts of emotive situations and language can be used. Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."
How long will it take before people get fed up with the concept of "gun rights" and wake up?
How many incidents like this one where a NH Man was Charged With Firing AK-47 in a Massachusetts Restaurant:
Authorities said Anthony Gobbi, 30, of East Wakefield, N.H., fired an AK-47 into the restaurant's ceiling as patrons ducked for cover. Police said Gobbi became enraged when bartenders at the China Lion restaurant refused to serve him alcohol, believing he was drunk.
Police said that after he was refused service, Gobbi went to his truck, retrieved a handgun and the AK-47, returned to the restaurant and opened fire.
While most patrons ducked for cover, others managed to tackle Gobbi, wrestling him outside as he squeezed off a few more bursts of gunfire, police said. Gobbi was pinned to the ground while others called 911.
People didn't need guns to stop this shooter, they just needed to stand up to him and be fearless.
People need to stand up to the US gun lobby and not take it anymore.
(I was trying to figure out how to get the AK-47 story in there)
18 November 2009
I couldn't say it better myself..
I keep wanting to do a post on using "Wedge Issues" as a distraction. Then, this video turned up in some research I was doing for the previous post.
Song by Tommy Roz. From the description:
Song by Tommy Roz. From the description:
What makes a poor man vote for a rich polititian? All this and more are explored in a singing indictment of America Gone Wild! An entertaining yet forboding parody of the current political and social landscape which suggests that the only thing standing in the way of a second civil war is a third world war. So hold onto your helmets! It looks like it's time for Armegeddon again.
17 November 2009
A Corollary to my previous post.
I have to admit to being curious as to how most Americans can remain ignorant and brainwashed by special interests: especially those that work against their interest.
I was going to call this post "wedge issues" since that is partly how americans can be distracted.
Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."
Ever notice how the gun crowd likes to use their little cliche sayings, which I am not going repeat here. But they are so simple. The use of slogans is referred to as thought-stopping techniques because it does just that. Simple phrases that make one believe.
Until they are examined in detail.
Then they like to give black and white choices and use fear. Such as refutation through emotion: "Well, how will you like it if your girlfirend is raped if guns are removed from the public."
That's why those who support regulations on guns are referred to as "anti-gun". They must not like guns because they will tolerate regulation. That makes those who support regulation "against" us.
This technique is relatively new, but you'll see a lot more of it in the future. Someone will say to his supporters, "These guys work for the enemy, don't believe a word they say. Their lies will only poison your mind."
It's a black and white choice, which makes it easier to remain stuck in their position.
Studies show the brain is wired to get a quick high from reading things that agree with our point of view. The same studies proved that, strangely, we also get a rush from intentionally dismissing information that disagrees, no matter how well supported it is. Therefore, people aren't really going to work too hard to challenge their opinions.
Neither are they going to want to hear they are wrong no matter how well supported the refutation.
I was going to call this post "wedge issues" since that is partly how americans can be distracted.
Brainwashing doesn't take any sci-fi gadgetry or Manchurian Candidate hypnotism bullshit. There are all sorts of tried-and-true techniques that anyone can use to bypass the thinking part of your brain and flip a switch deep inside that says "OBEY."
Ever notice how the gun crowd likes to use their little cliche sayings, which I am not going repeat here. But they are so simple. The use of slogans is referred to as thought-stopping techniques because it does just that. Simple phrases that make one believe.
Until they are examined in detail.
Then they like to give black and white choices and use fear. Such as refutation through emotion: "Well, how will you like it if your girlfirend is raped if guns are removed from the public."
That's why those who support regulations on guns are referred to as "anti-gun". They must not like guns because they will tolerate regulation. That makes those who support regulation "against" us.
This technique is relatively new, but you'll see a lot more of it in the future. Someone will say to his supporters, "These guys work for the enemy, don't believe a word they say. Their lies will only poison your mind."
It's a black and white choice, which makes it easier to remain stuck in their position.
Studies show the brain is wired to get a quick high from reading things that agree with our point of view. The same studies proved that, strangely, we also get a rush from intentionally dismissing information that disagrees, no matter how well supported it is. Therefore, people aren't really going to work too hard to challenge their opinions.
Neither are they going to want to hear they are wrong no matter how well supported the refutation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
