Two Questions - Continued (part 3, conclusion)

What Happens When the Basic Building Block is destroyed?

What is happening to the building block?

Over the past 100 years, we’ve moved incrementally away from the historical model of a family.  First, we’ve removed the extended family, then we weakened the historical ties, then we questioned the value of life, and now we argue the family itself is corrupt and out of date.  So, what can possibly go wrong?

Historically, when a child reached adulthood and started their own family they moved out, but not far away.  Today, thanks to modern transportation we routinely migrate hundreds and perhaps thousands of miles away from the parents as we start our new lives.  This migration has always been a part of the American experience, but today we see it on a much larger scale than the past.  We’ve become a nation on the move where those who can afford to – never seem to find a place of permanence.  

Grandparents and cousins are pictures on the wall, not routine visitors and playmates.  Gatherings at the holidays will find some excluded for any of a hundred reasons.  The extended family’s ability to help raise and shape the child in the values of the society is often lost in the mobility of today’s world.

Today we see the erosion of the historical values of society as the newer generations become an adult with values derived from external sources like school and television.  Here the values of the family core are displaced by the values of the writers in the entertainment industry or in the philosophies of the educators.   We’ve left the shaping of the child to those who have no direct interest in his or her success or failure.

I believe the result is a child goes through their development with an incomplete picture of society, how they fit within it, and what are the reasonable moral values of a society that will prosper and grow.  They have become individuals who are focused on remaining individuals and not part of the greater family group.

What happens when the family group disappears?

History tells us the society will end.

Two Questions - Continued (part 2)

What is the basic building block of a society

I’ve scoured the internet, spending minutes of my life searching for something, anything that would suggest I am wrong, but there was nothing.  Most of what I find supports the theory -- that going back to our earliest times the family group has been the basis for society.  It is not the individual, a political party, or even a group of friends.  It is the family.  There are all kinds of cliché about this, starting with “blood is thicker than water,” and moving into “the nuclear family.”  The historical perspective was a core family has a mother, a father, and their children.  From those grow the “extended” family of grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc..  The roles of the parents have had some flexibility, but we will get into that in a bit.

In Ms. Clinton’s appropriation of an African proverb about it taking a village to raise a child she misses the main point of the proverb.  She suggests it is the role of the village to raise and train the child to conform, suggesting that role should be fulfilled by the government.  In looking at historical African village concepts they are generally centered around a single-family group which is a part of a larger tribe.  There is in its center the “alpha” family and then the extended uncles, aunts, cousins and nephews of the chief.  Polygamy was not unheard of and like a pride of lions there would be one chief with multiple wives.  But the point remains in the proverb you can replace “it takes a village” with “it takes a family.”

Modern idealists say children are born innocent and are corrupted by the world.  I’m sorry, but I have to take issue with the premise a child is born innocent or guilty.  I don’t intend to get into the idea of sin or religion, but children are born without knowledge.  A lack of knowledge is not the same thing as innocence.  I believe it is their inherent survival instinct that guides their earliest actions.  They know only what they need or want, and concern for anything else is nonexistent.  If they are hungry or soiled they demand attention, and from those initial demands they begin to develop learned behaviors.  The psychology of child development seems to be fairly well researched, at least within the standards of Western European culture.  There must be a thousand books or websites available to help guide parents into what the experts say is a “normal” development.  My parents had Dr. Spock and today’s parents have a bunch of radicals suggesting just how to make the perfect child.  Of course, all of this is based on rigid (or rigged) research to support the researchers claims.  Behavioral psychology, it seems, has fallen out of favor these days, but I recall the research of Dr. B.F. Skinner who kept his infant daughter in an enclosed box so he could study her in an environment without human interaction/nurturing.

This quote from Dr. John B. Watson helps understand why the behaviorists don’t seem to be in the news too much but it was the progressive thought of the early 20^th century.   What I find intriguing though is how closely it aligns to modern progressive thinking.  The government can shape the individual if they are just allowed to do so.

“Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.”[1]

Historical roles within the family.

Now let’s think about the historical roles within the family, at least as understood in the culture our society is based on (western Europe).

Father – The historical understanding of the Father is as a provider for the family.  He was the hunter, the farmer, the income provider, the manual laborer, and a role-model for the male children.  Looking at the religions that have formed to add a consistent moral basis for societies.  The father has been portrayed as the leader of the family group.  When it came time for decisions to be made the father would be the decider.  Obviously, there is a real spread in the quality of fathers, some being outstanding and others not so much.

Mother – She was the provider of life, the nourisher of the children, the support for her husband, and a provider for the family in his absence or out of necessity.  The mother was both the role model for the female children as well as the provider of most of the early training in the roles the children would grow to fill.  Often, she was the rock of morality that anchored the family unit.  Just as with fathers there will always be exceptional mothers who fulfill their roles in a way that leave others in awe.

Child – Children come into the world as empty vessels.  They know only themselves, and even than they don’t know themselves very well.  How they are to grow and become a part of the family, the community, or the society are all open questions that remain to be answered.  The first and forever most important teachers are the parents.  The child’s view of self, his/her role, his/her value, his/her nature are all derived from and expanded by their relationship with first their parents and then their extended family.  If these lessons are negative ones then the quality of their future learning will be at risk as well.  Members of the extended family may fill in gaps, or help augment the role of parents, but they are unlikely to ever completely replace the shortcomings of a poor parent. 

There is an interesting truth in our humanity.  It is impossible to make blanket statements applying universally across all individuals.  There are outstanding individuals who grow to be good parents despite a lack of strong role models.  There are also individuals who fail to grasp the lessons and examples of good role models and end up being failures in their attempts at being adults and/or parents.  But, that being said, what have we been doing to our concepts of family, and as a result what are the impacts to our society?  

 That is a question for tomorrow.

---

[1] https://www.verywellmind.com/behavioral-psychology-4157183

Two Questions.

As is usually the case I have more questions than I do answers.  I assume this is God’s way of balancing the universe since almost everyone else I know on the internet has more answers than questions.  It is a most curious thing, but observe any mass social media system and you will see far more solutions to a problem than problems themselves.  For example, what is the matter with kids today?  This question is so open-ended as to solicit a hundred different opinions, each and every single opinion captured in a single sentence and offered with complete confidence it is the right answer.

This morning, as I showered and prepared for the errands I must run, two questions came to mind and I think them worth considering.

What is the basic building block of a society?

What happens when that block is destroyed?

I am going to consider these questions today and perhaps share my opinion tomorrow.

What Happens When There Are Too Many Hashtags?

Ann Althouse had this post today, March 25, 2018, where she asks if one #movement is displacing another #movement?  For me it is an interesting question, and kind of speaks to the short attention span of modern society where everything is pushed by the media at hype-emotional levels demanding our attention right now.

The K-Y Jelly is hardly dry on the #metoo movement regarding the evils of powerful men and helpless women when all the sudden we have #marchforourlives demanding we fix the problems of kids being killed in school by a gunman using weapons that look like military guns (but really aren’t).  While we’re at it, I haven’t heard much from the #blacklivesmatter, or #bluelivesmatter groups for a while.  Have they come up with new hashtags to catch our attention?  If so, I’ve missed it.

Then, of course, we have the good old standby #movements, where people are routinely proclaiming their virtue and independence while part of a large group, for example, #notmypresident, #resist, #pussyhats, #berniebros, #I’mwithher, #Ihavevitue&youdon’t, #whatever.

The really cool thing about the hashtag movements is the #mobrule nature of them.  They start quietly, created by some small group or celebrity individual and then they seemingly grow overnight to be the essence of the #frenchrevolution, where the mobs would gather to watch as the nobility was paraded out to the guillotine to be executed.  Before too long they ran out of nobility and had to turn to the middle class as “counter-revolutionaries” just to keep the mobs quiet.

The thing about mob rule though is its disturbing tendency to get out of hand and begin to feed on its masters.  There is no thought of innocence, there is only guilt and the guilt must be avenged to appease the mob.  If, as in the French Revolution, you run out of guilty you really need to find new guilty or the mob is likely to turn on you.

For over two-hundred and thirty years we’ve thought ourselves a nation of laws, but was that true, or just an illusion to keep the mobs relatively small and easy to control?

Since at least the mid-1990’s the mass media has fed on our desire to organize as a mob and condemn the guilty bastard.  How many of us were outraged when OJ was not convicted of the murder the press had us convinced he had committed?  Yet somehow the California prosecutors could not convince a jury with the evidence they had.  Was that the point we began to dismiss this whole “we are a nation of laws” thing?

Thinking about the season we are in it is safe to assume our tendency for mob rule goes much, much, further back than the white Blazer.  Remember the story of Christ’s passion saw the Pharisees round up the mob to condemn Christ to his crucifixion when Pilot asked the crowd who should be released?  The mob cried out for Barabbas, a zealot, and criminal who had been convicted of murder.  The priests had a few plants stir up the crowd, and like our protests of today, most just go along with whoever yells the loudest.

Free Speech?

Today is March 24^th, 2018.  A notable day for me, and a day of protest for many.  But I wonder how many of the actual participants really know what they are protesting against, or protesting for?

With the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the 13 colonies embarked on their second attempt at self-governing.  It became the basis for our government on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the 9^th state to ratify it[1]. The government began to function the following March, and the first order of business for the new Congress was to create a set of amendments to limit government and address concerns about federal power.  The first ten amendments, also known as the bill of rights was ratified by the several states in 1791. 

I’ve written in the past ( here, and  here)  about the amendments but would like to think about the First Amendment again, since it is in the news these days.

There seems to be a misunderstanding among the various groups within our society about what the First Amendment is intended to do, who it is intended to protect, and how “We the People” have developed under previous assumptions. 

To begin, we refer to the First Amendment as our guarantee we have a right to have something called “free speech”, but speech is only one component the founders hoped to establish.  The first thing the Congress established was there would be no official state religion as had been the case in Europe and what had led so many of the original settlers to migrate in the first place.  In the second they set out the right of the people and the press to exchange information (ideas, opinions, and news) without the fear of government creating laws to prevent that.  Finally, it clearly lays out the right to protest government actions that the people find disagreeable.

While the idea of “free” speech was groundbreaking when it was adopted, over the past 40 or so years the left has moved to impose social restrictions on individuals for the political strength that comes with control.  With the advent of online social media offering a two-way exchange of dialogue, it is also obvious that many believe their vitriolic speech is possible without direct consequence.   In both extremes, the individuals who advocate and do these things seem to have lost their way in the role of building a free republic as established by our founders.

---

[1] https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified

Who Cares About the National Debt?

I view myself as a fiscal conservative and believe when our debt level exceeds our ability to pay for it, or other nations lose confidence in our ability to repay -- the government will fail.  But that is not a view held by either party in our Federal Government, so why bother talking about the national debt at all?

For eight years the Republican’s complained about the Obama administrations debt spending, yet once they controlled both the legislature and executive they have done precisely as the past administration.  Over the past six months, I think they increased the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000.92, all while blaming the villainous Democrats.  Of course, the Democrats helped all this with their Trumpmania conspiracy theories that fill the news cycles.

Let’s get real.  You don’t get to govern and then complain about how those other guys are making you spend all this money.  The only question between the Democrats and the Republicans is who gets to benefit from the spending? 

In the past administration, despite all its allusions, deflections and pointless rhetoric about protecting the poorest, it was Wall Street, insurance companies, internet giants, and the bankers who made out like bandits.  Savings accounts earned next to nothing, welfare was pretty much on autopilot, and the unemployment rates slowly came down as people abandoned the workplace.

In this administration, it seems to be the military-industrial complex, the insurance companies, bankers and investment firms that will make all the money despite the allusions, deflections and pointless rhetoric about returning money to the middle class.

I will never again believe a Republican when he or she says they are concerned with the national debt.  The number is, as the Democrats have pointed out, a self-imposed value serving solely as a club to beat over the head and shoulders of your political rival.

In the immortal words of that great economist, social commentator, and philosopher Stan Lee - ‘nough said!

What is the Difference Between Protest and Political Indoctrination?

Here is some food for thought, I saw this a couple of days ago and it has been rattling around my brain as I considered it.  What is the difference between a protest demonstration and state sponsored political indoctrination?

In the 1960s African-Americans and others came together to gain for themselves the individual rights assured all Americans under the Constitution.  In the 1960s and 70s, Americans rose up to protest the US involvement in the war in Vietnam.  In the 1980’s we saw the development of public protest by both the feminists and those who oppose abortion.  The late 1980s saw the rise of protests in China as they sought more individual freedom. Those of us who were adult at the time will remember the lone protestor standing against the might of the Chinese regime as a line of tanks moved forward.

Image from NY Times - Lens

 The 1990s and this century have seen an increasing number of protests, regarding a variety of social ills.  The Right to Life protests continue, as well as protests for equality and the value of various lives/rights. But it seems increasingly many of these protests are taking on the feel not of demonstrations for increased freedom, but rather for increased control of the individual by the state.

Let’s take the latest movement to make the front pages.  The national walkout for gun control (#standforsafety) to commemorate the victims of the Parkland High School massacre.  Students nationwide were organized to walk away from their classes and assemble in protest of the problem of gun violence in schools, but who organized the movement, was it the students, or were they just the visual aids for the real leadership? 

I watched as our local School Superintendent praised the students for their humanity and then organized the county school system to support the movement.  Complete with parental permission slips for the children.  

This opened up the question for me, if the government organizes the demonstration and there is absolutely no individual risk in their protest or perhaps the risk is in not participating, then is it really a protest or is it just another field trip in their political indoctrination program?  In this movement we see its leaders arguing we must take away the rights of the individual to satisfy the desires of the few. 

That we should consider that loss of individual right is a reasonable question to address as we seek to reduce risk.  The way we should go about it is really the question. 

I am not sure I see a big difference between this current protest and the May Day celebrations of the Communist states where people are brought together annually to display the power of the state with big parades.  Speaking of parades…. Wait that’s another subject and I’ve already written about it.

Hey It's Spring

As the days pass it is seems so easy to focus our attention on the daily problems, but as the seasons change it is also inevitable our outlooks change to reflect them.  I imagine this is rooted in the core of our genetic makeup.  We have, since our beginnings, lived intimately with nature.  For that has, is, and will be our source of life.  Today we seem to be in conflict with that essential linkage as we seek to alter and deny our relationship.

As much of the nation again braces for the winter effects of snow and ice, many are finding temperatures climb into the 60s and above.  You can see the trees coming back to summer form with new buds, flowers and leaves.  The plants are beginning to break through the ground as the soil warms.  The animals who’ve sheltered in hibernation are emerging from their slumber, and the mountain streams begin to flow with the melting of the winter snows. 

It is spring, a time when life renews, is reborn, and grows to the fullness of summer.

There will be time tomorrow to worry about the pettiness of the world.  Today it is spring and the earth’s orbit and axis has returned the sun to its place north of the equator.  Its rays will soon enough sweep away the gloom of winter until at its apex we seek for it to return south and allow us to cool enough for sweaters and condemn its absence in the cold.  Welcome back Spring.  Now, show us the warmth of your lengthening days.

The Sun Will Come Up Tomorrow, or will it?

 (with apologies to Charles Strouse)

We are bombard with news about this or that evil thing Trump did, broadcast by those individuals and groups who lost power in the 2016 election.  At the same time, we are inundated with the evil conspiracies of the left by those who seek to support the current administration.  Thankfully or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, there seems to be no limit on the amount of hyperbole and hypocrisy that is allowed and encouraged in today’s “post-truth” world where opinion reigns and facts are considered a hindrance to agenda.

These aspects of our politics are not new.  Today they are simply amplified by the ability to communicate instantly with an audience.  In the days before radio, writers, journalists, and opinion(ists) each had to get past an editor before their product was broadcast.  Then it was printed or broadcast by the town crier.  With the advent of radio and television, when news was only a small portion of a broadcast day the scripts were checked and the news readers rehearsed to tell the correct story, usually without a lot of obvious opinion or bias.  The major U.S. networks at least maintained an illusion of impartiality in their reporting.

Then along came cable, satellite, and the internet and the world changed.  With all those channels and all that air-time, something had to fill up all that empty space.  Why not empty thoughts based on feelings rather than facts?  The elders among us can probably remember the three CNN reporters huddled in a hotel in Bagdad broadcasting the nightly bombings just like Edward R. Murrow of WW2 fame.  What gets lost in our memories is the propaganda nature of these reporters.  In the Second World War Murrow’s broadcasts were supported by the English to show America how they were withstanding the onslaught of the German Luftwaffe.  In CNN’s case, they were supported by the Hussein regime in the hopes of showing how they were withstanding the attacks by the coalition and perhaps tell a compelling story of how innocent lives were being lost due to indiscriminate bombings.  It all made for great theater.  Journalism has now become just that – theater.  Reporters aren’t hired for their writing, their analysis, or their grasp of conflicting ideologies, they are hired for their good looks and good hair.

For eight years the religious right and conservatives, in general, complained about the past administration and its apparent discrimination of their rights versus the progressive agenda.  They were told to sit down and color because the left knew what was right and the people had spoken to who the elected as President.  Today we have a clear reversal of fortune, where the radical left and the liberals are complaining about the apparent discrimination of their rights versus a more conservative agenda, the difference?  Well actually there isn’t any, backing those claims up with factual data is unnecessary.  Those who have the microphones have the loudest voices… they get to choose who you want to believe and as long as you are in lockstep with them you can remain comfortable and smug you are on the right side of the political spectrum.

They say there is a pendulum effect in politics.  What is in, will be out soon enough.  But as I watch the pendulum swing I wonder what happens when it passes the horizontal because of the speed of displacement (change)?

Will the sun still come up?

Coincidence?

The universe is a vast and mysterious place.  The many views of it are found in the multitude of theologies and among the various parts of the science of physics that make up the field of cosmology.  Funny how close cosmology is to cosmetology.  One seeks the answer to the questions of the universe.  The other the answer to the questions of the perfect hairdo.  Both are formidable mysteries that are unlikely to be solved in our time.

But that is not really what I wanted to write about today.

This week I had the recently mandated Medicare “wellness interview” with a Nurse Practitioner named Brandie.  She was a fine girl and undoubtedly a good wife.  (Sorry, my mind is stuck in the 70’s.)  Well anyway, we spent about half the interview talking about how old people tend to fall down, and she wanted to make sure I was aware that I was an old person and likely to fall down if I didn’t have hand grips on my shower and someone to hold me erect as I went out to play golf.

So, what is the big news this week?  Why HRC of course.  She is over in India falling down all over the place as she condemns the stupid middle class of America for picking someone less Democrat than her.  Is this coincidence or karma?  You decide.

For me, I think we need to send nurse Brandie over to talk with Ms. Clinton right now.  I believe her advice would be invaluable, although if history is any indication it would be ignored, and she would have an unfortunate accident, commit suicide, or be gunned down in the street shortly afterward.

A Few Thoughts on Easy Versus Hard (conclusion)

-->

So, let’s wrap this up.

Obviously, I’ve not even scratched the surface on all the potential issues on why we see the apparent increase in violent mass murder of school children in this country.  For example, other than the potential impact of violent first person shooting games, I’ve not talked about how mental illness is diagnosed or treated, nor have I addressed, beyond a superficial level, the role of parents and teachers in guiding young minds towards a level of self-esteem, which is so vital for our maturation.  On the other hand, I have attempted to lay out the simple and I believe inescapable truth this is a much larger problem than the buying, owning and using of guns, and by insisting that is all it is we are unlikely to ever seek out, address, and fix the true root causes.  For debating  those issues require's society to reexamine individual standards and behaviors.

What I do believe is we don’t have a clue with regard to the second order effects of the political choices we have made over the past 75 years or so, and those secondary issues are now rising to the surface in ways we find unpleasant.  
 The young, who are being organized to push a fixed political agenda, have neither the experience nor understanding of the human condition to provide anything more than the emotional appeal they are being exploited for.  The people who are truly behind their involvement are using them for that purpose alone.  The rest of society has been conditioned by the media to accept their sincerity as proof of the “rightness” of their cause.

Today is March 14^th 2018, the day the behind the scenes leadership of the anti-gun movement has chosen as walk out day for high schoolers across the country to show their support that guns should be banned.  It seems the opportune time to point out that a fresh young face, with little experience is always the ideal leader for a movement controlled by some unseen force.  This movement has that, but I wonder how far beyond the symbolic rants it will really go?  They don’t seem to have the focus of say the anti-war movement of the 1960s where there was a real self-interest on the part of the radical leadership to stop a war they may be forced to fight in.

Well enough about this… now on to something else, like maybe cat videos.

A Few Thoughts on Easy Versus Hard (part 6)

Life is finite, precious, and disposable.

We’ve become a society that no longer places a measurable value on life, except when it serves a political agenda.  We can “coo” and “ah” over babies and small children, at the same time that we call for their destruction.

As I noted earlier in this series we’ve become a consumer society where we throw away the broken to get the newest and neatest thing to replace it.  Why are we surprised when people treat life with exactly the same approach? 

Under the guise of choice, we have made the killing of the unborn a woman’s right.  The women and men who support this right now argue they should have an uncontested and government funded ability to destroy the unwanted up to the moment of birth, but why should it stop there?  For that matter, why should it be only a woman’s choice?  In a society where the moral value of life is relative, what imperative says we must keep alive someone who successfully emerges from the womb and takes their first breath?  I am told there are a number of late term abortions where the fetus emerges alive and is killed, so why should we limit woman’s choice once the child is “born?”

Those who support abortion cite the evils of the world a disadvantaged or unwanted child will face and how it is far better for all concerned if the woman makes a choice that is right for her and the life she carries, preferably without interference from third parties.  After all what does a fetus know, and how can they make an “informed” decision on their own life. 

We have become conditioned to be outraged at the loss of life, but only when the media makes a big deal about it.  Activists have created movements suggesting some lives matter more than others to help us become outraged at the loss of life, but again -- only when the media makes a big deal about it.  We are supposed to come together to condemn violence and death, but only when the media highlights it for ratings.  All other times we are told to ignore the man behind the curtain.

Within our major metropolitan centers, we see hundreds of killings a year, yet where is the national outrage against gang violence?  As I noted in the last post about this – it really and truly is about the theater the political media can create to further their agenda and financial interests, it has little to do with a true moral standard that we as a society can agree to. 

One side would have us believe because we have a constitutional right to own a gun we are a terrible nation killing each other with them, the other side suggests if it weren’t for the decay within major cities we wouldn’t have any gun deaths.  Each of these statements are demonstrably false but reflect the fact those who have deep emotions regarding the issue of guns (both against and for) choose emotional points rather than logical and supportable arguments, because logic doesn’t stir the masses to the same degree.

When we began our nation, we had a relatively homogenous Judeo-Christian morality that served as the basis for our laws.  What we see today is a widening rejection of that morality and in turn the rejection of our law.  I believe it is an unfortunate consequence of a widening belief suggesting we each get to choose what is morally acceptable and therefore we get to choose what laws we like, and what laws we reject.  This latter statement is clearly supported by the political polarization of the left in their establishment of “sanctuary cities” springing up in opposition to the deportation of immigrants who’ve entered this country illegally.

When rejection of some laws becomes a widely accepted practice, how long will it be before we question the validity of all laws?  Those who would suggest there is no such thing as a “slippery slope” argue that one small change does not mean we are forsaking all societal standards.  Their support for this assertion is almost always to point to other societies as proof, but we are vastly different from the societies they point to.  In fact, those societies are becoming more like us and are beginning to see the same issues we’ve faced for years.  The “slippery slope” argument almost always comes up when they argue courts have the right to ignore/overturn laws they disagree with, rather than reach agreement those laws should be repealed through the legislative processes of our Republic. 

As we see in the mass shootings and other violent activity – the criminals involved are unconstrained by the law, and perhaps any moral standard.  Does this mean they are mentally ill?  If they have an individual moral compass, and we as a society argue that is okay, what then should restrain them and why should we condemn their actions?

(to be continued)

A Few Thoughts on Easy Versus Hard (Part 5)

It is All Theater

The social media, including all the over the air broadcasts, internet sites, and print mediums are ablaze with celebrity condemnation of the violence we see in the world around us, well kind of ablaze, if you overlook the obvious disparity in approach.

The “Big Stars” in the film industry are happy to jump on the band wagon to condemn gun violence, yet when it comes time to put their money where their mouths are what do we see?  I took a quick look at movies that are in theaters now (including new ones released this week) to see what kind of social commentary the industry is pushing forward to create the utopian world we all desire.  Not surprisingly they seem to directly contradict the moral outrage we hear coming from their lips.  Roughly 47% of the films have guns used in violent situations, 29% have strong, violent, or abusive sexual content, and only 18% seem to be guns or violence free.  That remaining 6% is a movie about an heiress haunted by how her ancestor’s gun killed people and I wasn’t sure how to characterize that one, but it was the only one I saw that seemed to support the industry’s public narrative.

I will be the first to admit I am a cynic, but the last person I ever listen to is someone who tells me how I should believe when it is obvious they don’t have the courage of their own convictions.

In my life-time the movie industry must have fired a trillion fake rounds of ammunition to tell the stories of humanity, teach the moral lessons they thought would be profitable, condemn the violence of the real world, or just because they thought it would be entertaining.  The number of rounds fired does not include all the phaser, laser, or proton cannon shots taken in distant worlds or even in defense of future earths.  In all this fake shooting how many real deaths have occurred that are just chalked up as the cost of doing business?

It is reported that at tonight’s self-congratulatory celebration the big names will be wearing an orange American flag to signal their superiority in the moral battle over gun violence.  In the que for “Movie of the Year” is a tale about the seduction of a minor, the dramatization of the near end of England, the salvation of the British Army, a kind of remake of “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” a standard about a California girl who wants to go to an Eastern College for its culture, an old man meets a young girl, a newspaper publisher’s heroic effort to destroy a President, a mute janitor discovers a nefarious government plot, and finally a woman fights a sheriff over the rape and death of her daughter.  Sadly, guns, violence and seduction of minors seem to play in a fair number of the great films of last year.  Tales of utopia, not so much, but I digress.

Clearly, virtue signaling can make up for so much in an industry that thrives on the glamorization of violence.  I will leave the speculation on whether there is a cumulative effect on young men who spend hours in violent video games up to you.

Sometimes I Can Only Laugh Out Loud.

When I was a young lad I could hunt with my own gun at 16, drink and be drafted at 18, and vote at 21.

Then things changed.

We had a war. Politicians and their experts said if young men can die for their country they should vote – and with the 26^th amendment the voting was changed to 18 years of age

Then politicians and their experts looked at alcohol-related traffic accident rates and said "golly young people aren't ready to drink until they are 21” so the minimum age for drinking was raised by the National Minimum Age for Drinking Act in 1984. (BTW the Center for Disease Control says 4,300 deaths/year still occur from underage drinking)

Today we have the on-going debate as to when young men are mature enough to own a gun and reasonably be expected not to shoot up a school. 

The politicians and their experts now say 21 years old is the age when that occurs.  Even though we can arm 18-year olds with rifles, fully automatic weapons, grenades and grenade launchers, guided and unguided rockets, and tanks with 50-caliber and 120mm weapons (if they have adult supervision). 

I find this amusing since recent history suggests if age is the true variable it should probably be over 64 if we want to account for the violence of people like Stephen Paddock.

Since it seems unlikely we will ever have enough agreement to amend the constitution again how can we ever decide when a whole population is mature enough to do something?  Maybe we should have a test?  Like a driving test or “common sense” test where if the candidate fails he or she receives a “not mature enough” stamp that remains until they are retested at 40.