Standing at the Confluence of Marketing, Propaganda, and Stupid 4
Dick Polman comments on this weekend’s mass shooting in Santa Barbara, California (emphasis added):
He said it himself, in his social media “manifesto.” He couldn’t score with girls, he thought it was “unfair,” so therefore he would get “retribution” by blasting the girls. Misogyny, entitlement, and the American gun culture – perfect synchronicity.
Read it.
In other news, Joe the Not a Plumber plays the trump card.
May 28, 2014 at 10:30 am
The CDC or NIH should have some of its leaders look to re-starting research as general health inquiries, political decrees be damned. It is, after all, primarily collection of statistics and trying to derive information from them. It would be interesting to use it as a dare to the GOP and and NRA to try and maim public health organizations by attacking more of their funding. I don’t think the vast majority of people in the US are ready to get rid of either the CDC or NIH or any of the other umbrella agencies involved in public health and it could be a huge political liability. More generally speaking, one could challenge the GOP more forcefully, daring its pols to step up their war on all scientific research that potentially produces result they find to be poison to their ideology. Caving in to bullies and gun right fascists all the time isn’t a workable strategy.
May 28, 2014 at 3:10 pm
I think Congress actually banned that sort research for the same reasons Ford didn’t want to talk about the Pinto.
Ah, yes. Here’s a good article: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspx
They banned it in a slimy undercover way by freezing funding.
May 28, 2014 at 3:19 pm
Yeah, I know. In the end, though, the scientific research itself does not inherently say anything for or against gun control. It’s what is done with the results after they are in. Therefore, one might say a strict reading of the wording cannot prevent publicly funded research, you just have to find people with the courage to do it. Then it’s the position of the GOP to challenge them and make it stick. And my personal belief is that now there is now great desire in the majority of the public to honor people who would damage scientific inquiry, one just has to be willing to make that argument, again and again.
May 28, 2014 at 11:24 pm
“And my personal belief is that now there is now great desire in the majority of the public to honor people who would damage scientific inquiry”
There is certainly a great desire among the radical right, which is today the entire right, to honor people who would damage scientific inquiry, as science undermines their core beliefs.
I have a practical test: Whenever someone says, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” reply with “How much damage would X have been able to do with a knife (or a frying pan)?”