The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.
To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”4
Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up. Even today, 17 years after this legislative action, the CDC's website lacks specific links to information about preventing firearm-related violence.
I've mentioned it before, but I've really got to learn not to browse through "Facebook" while reading the latest messages from my nieces and nephews. It gets really depressing.
Especially all the messages insisting that a.) the real problem is that "we've kicked God out of our schools, so what do we expect?", and b.) what we really need (aside from more God, that is) is more guns. And anyone who thinks that any form of gun control will do anything except make criminals even bolder is an idiot. Oh, and probably college-educated -- because nothing makes you stupid like higher education; boy am I glad that I never went to college and got my brain ruined.
Oh yeah; it's all Obama's fault ... somehow.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
I've mentioned it before, but I've really got to learn not to browse through "Facebook" while reading the latest messages from my nieces and nephews. It gets really depressing.
Especially all the messages insisting that a.) the real problem is that "we've kicked God out of our schools, so what do we expect?", and b.) what we really need (aside from more God, that is) is more guns. And anyone who thinks that any form of gun control will do anything except make criminals even bolder is an idiot. Oh, and probably college-educated -- because nothing makes you stupid like higher education; boy am I glad that I never went to college and got my brain ruined.
Oh yeah; it's all Obama's fault ... somehow.
Just ask them: What Would Jesus Do?
__________________
The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.
-- Official Bunny Hero
I've mentioned it before, but I've really got to learn not to browse through "Facebook" while reading the latest messages from my nieces and nephews. It gets really depressing.
If you're not interested in any of their posts you can click on the upper right corner of one of their posts (it should show up as a down arrow [v]), then you can click hide. Then it should replace the post with a few options: unhide, change what updates you see from so-and-so, and organize who you see in your news feed.
You can take the latter to pick only the few people you want to follow. If you want to see SOME posts from those relatives, you can use the middle option to tell it to only show "important" (importance determined by some Facebook algorithm).
I use this a lot to get boring people, people who are only acquaintances, etc. out of my feed. Particularly useful for the random acquaintance that has almost every post consist of praising Jesus, for example.
Jason Linkins has an interesting article at Huffington Post. He claims that people who criticize the NRA for its "ineffective" response to the shootings are missing the point. LaPierre's response was actually very effective when you remember what the NRA is: it's a lobbying organization for gun retailers. Period.
According to Linkins, the NRA leadership isn't at all interested in having a sane, reasoned discussion about whether or not gun control of some sort is a good idea, and anyone who thinks they are or should be is missing the point. Their goal and mandate is simple -- to help their clients sell as many guns as possible.
In related news, one of my colleagues, an avid hunter and life-long member of the NRA wrote a very, very pointed letter to the NRA a few days ago, in which he excoriated them for their "disappointing" response, and for their adamant refusal to even make an attempt at engaging in a serious or reasoned discussion regarding the merits of gun control. He has indicated that he's seriously considering giving up his NRA membership.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
Wingnuts were already hoarding weapons because they're convinced that Obama is coming to take away all their guns (and probably redistribute them to the Black Panthers or something).
Never ever underestimate the paranoia of people who really hate Obama. I saw someone on Pinterest or something just today who said that Obama closed their grocery store.
I use this a lot to get boring people, people who are only acquaintances, etc. out of my feed.
A similar thing happened to me tonight, only the other person beat me to the punch.
1. A young 20-something cousin of mine re-posted this picture from a Facebook group called "Christians against Obama's Re-election" (never mind the irony that the election is over and Obama won).
2. I pointed out to her that the context of the original speech makes what Obama said quite different, and posted the following excerpt in response:
Quote:
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt -- it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women -- it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources -- it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It’s time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that’s the vision we will support.
3. I followed up with "Having a different opinion is not an excuse for distorting what someone says, or pulling it out of context. If you're going to dislike someone, then make sure it is for a good reason, not a totally made-up reason."
4. When I checked back several hours later, I found that she had responded in typical redneck fashion:
Quote:
You take shit too serious. It's a post. People post all kinds of stuff thats made up. It's Facebook. What do you care? You always got to get so serious. Guess us dumb WV folk should just keep our mouths shut. I bet your a real lonely person with all your technical bs.
As for "dumb WV folk", I guess in her defensiveness she forgot that I graduated from the same school system in WV that she did.
While I was thinking what to do next, I noticed that all her corny country humor posts and "OMG this is so funny" Youtube videos of cats farting had vanished from my newsfeed. She had saved me the trouble of squelching her posts by unfriending me, which accomplished my same goal, so I was happy.
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
Most people, I believe, are unfamiliar with the experience of being directly contradicted. They are bad at handling it, and would rather brazen out the most painfully stupid deflection than admit error and thank someone for the correction -- convinced that the former line somehow saves face, even though they recognize such tactics as embarrassing shams when they see others doing it.
My niece recently facebooked, with the cover message "Interesting!", some column by Ben Stein, about no prayer in school, crime and natural disasters are caused by irreligiosity, blah dee blah, and all predicated on the still-circulating bullshit about the White House only having a "holiday tree" this Christmas. I posted, with links, a short comment that Stein is not trustworthy, that the stories are known to be false, and that anyone who writes in a column that person A died from Hurricane Katrina because person B didn't pray enough is pretty sick in the head. My niece's response: "So? It's still interesting."
Oh, well. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Even if people rarely admit error at the point of contact, rebuttals can make a difference.
Socially conservative people tend to spread apocryphal stories like that because they are usually designed to perpetuate their biases. Like with urban legends. They're little morality tales used to illustrate their "common sense" observations, so to them, it really doesn't matter all that much whether they're actually true.
They honestly seem to think that that's beside the point because they're emotionally invested in the moral of the story.
You'd think that'd backfire because they're demonstrating that they don't have many actual examples to illustrate their big fat universal truths, but confirmation bias is powerful.
But rebuttals very much do make a difference, if only to make them think twice before talking out their ass like that. It might not go far toward convincing them they're wrong, but it can work to modify their behavior, sort of like hitting them on the nose with a newspaper.
I remember once I emailed out a reply-all rebuttal to one of those chain message things, that was scaring people about HIV positive needles left on cinema seats (complete fabrication). Snopes was by useful.
I never got another chain email, but a couple of my science-studying friends were actually quite appreciative of my stamping out nonsense.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
But rebuttals very much do make a difference, if only to make them think twice before talking out their ass like that. It might not go far toward convincing them they're wrong, but it can work to modify their behavior, sort of like hitting them on the nose with a newspaper.
Funny you should use that analogy. I've often thought of it like taking a rolled-up newspaper and smacking the nose of a barking dog. The mental image is like "What...? I can't believe you did that."
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
Socially conservative people tend to spread apocryphal stories like that because they are usually designed to perpetuate their biases. Like with urban legends. They're little morality tales used to illustrate their "common sense" observations, so to them, it really doesn't matter all that much whether they're actually true.
They honestly seem to think that that's beside the point because they're emotionally invested in the moral of the story.
The idea that what matters is the desired narrative rather than the facts is very old. I find its manifestation in modern culture morbidly fascinating, and it is easier than ever both to debunk and perpetuate that sort of thing. Setting stories in pseudo-factual context (Bill Gates gave this speech!) to lend them credibility used to be very hard to confirm, but it also used to be harder to spread the narratives around. But, for many people both historically and today, it is most definitely the narrative that matters, not the facts, and focusing on how the story was invented, incorrectly attributed, or modified will usually only get you tagged as a contrary nit-picker with an axe to grind. It's only going to make headway as more people start to believe that facts matter. Otherwise you have to address the narrative itself, which is often too complicated for Facebook.
It's the same problem you get with Creationists, climate change denialists, and other myriad woo-peddlers and pseudo-science wackadoos: which will most people bother with, a thorough and complete multi-page rebuttal that challenges some of what they've believed their whole lives, or a bumper sticker that confirms it all?
Most people, I believe, are unfamiliar with the experience of being directly contradicted. They are bad at handling it, and would rather brazen out the most painfully stupid deflection than admit error and thank someone for the correction -- convinced that the former line somehow saves face, even though they recognize such tactics as embarrassing shams when they see others doing it.
I had an acquaintance unfriend me and accuse me of all kinds of stupid stuff on facebook yesterday over my questioning why she posted this picture and something about Obama's hypocrisy.
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith