Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge the bottomless barrel

President Biden should take a different approach. I watched him on TV with the "same old - same old" about "When will we learn?", "We need laws for this", "We need laws for that", which seemed pointed at the Republican politicians. Instead, he needs to have an all-networks broadcast that is directed at the everyday American, showing pictures of the carnage, and ask them: "Is this the America you want?" He then needs to tell the people that, no matter how you vote, every single one of you must contact your representative, at every political level, and tell those politicians that they must do something about it if they want to get your vote again. Polls show that the vast majority of Americans want a change. Maybe it's time for the President to get them riled up.

Of course what you say artie, is a possibility. But I think most people who would see a photo of a gun shot victim would think of the death by gun first, then maybe that the shooter was nuts.

Good points, ryck, and they were shared by the former basketball coach of Duke University, Mike Krzyzewski, who said to politicians "You shouldn't vote for the party, you should vote for the people that you serve. … And you should have the guts, the courage, and it's your duty. … What the hell are you doing? Like, you need an automatic weapon? You gotta be kidding me. You gotta be kidding me. It's disgusting."

We're probably both correct, Ira...along "party lines."

Most Americans, those whose voices are unheard unheeded, already want some action and would see it your way, and the rest, the minority which drives policy, are either rabidly uneducable or smugly unwilling to deal with reality and would see it my way.

Or both, or worse.

The problem is more complex and intractable than that. It is CULTURAL and anyone with experience as a change agent knows the hardest thing to change is culture. Culture is not rational or thought out, it just IS -- and at the gut level. Culture is the "we", "our kind", "everyone knows". It isn't chosen, it is inculcated in us by the society we live in and when someone or something attempts to change any aspect of that culture we naturally feel threatened. We are living in one of those historical nexuses where we are dealing with changes every day brought on by factors beyond our control such as the increasingly rapid development of technology, climate change, rebalancing of power among nations, and societal changes such as gay marriage, LGBTQ status, etc. Some of us feel competent and confident enough to take on and even embrace change but apparently, a nearly equal number feel change of any kind is a personal threat to all their way of life, if not their very existence.

The issue of guns and gun control is inextricably intertwined with the antipathy toward change of any sort. (Maybe with an M16 and a few thousand rounds of ammunition, you can secure your own reality and keep change at bay.) It isn't rational and therefore irrational, to believe their minds will be changed by rational argument. When I worked as a "change agent" training engineers on a new and different way of working, I found change was only possible when I could convince the resistors they would personally and individually benefit from the change. But that is as far as my thinking goes. How do you convince a gun owner that they will personally benefit by giving up what they believe to be their only means of keeping the big bad world at bay? Util then we will only take their guns from their cold dead fingers and that is NOT a solution.

I think you've given us a sociologist's polite definition of "rabidly uneducable."

So maybe the question is how do you convince the politicians that a change is necessary? They are the source of legislation for change. Yes, some of these politicians represent gun owners, but if the polls are to be believed, a majority of voters want changes in gun laws and that transforms into a majority of politicians whom they represent.

So now do you say that the NRA is louder than a majority of voters? Maybe we need public funding of elections so that money from lobbyists is irrelevant. I read somewhere that once a senator is elected, s/he needs to raise $15,000 every day in office to have "adequate" re-election financing.

Some 50 years ago, Senator John Tower (R Tex) told me he had to raise $50,000 before lunch every work day to adequately finance his re-election campaign. I hate to think what it must take today.

I was raised on a ranch in Texas and got a 20 gauge Remington pump for my 12th birthday. My father insisted that before I could go hunting with him or even shoot my new gun, I had to join the NRA where I was inculcated with the Ten Commandments of Gun Safety. I don't think my attitude or concern about gun safety has changed over the intervening 70+ years, but the NRA at some point drifted off the good graze into the weeds and after, years of waiting for them to return to their roots, I finally gave up hope and canceled my membership. As of 2022, the NRA's finances are in major dis-array and less irresistible than they were. But whatever you think of the NRA, they are politically cagey and have focused their remaining influence on key GOP senators and governors. In some cases because the targeted individual is not that bright and is easily influenced (Senator Ted Cruze and Governor Gregg Abbot of Texas), or like Mitch McConnell, they hold key positions in congress and are from a state where a substantial portion of the population still relies on their gun to put meat in the pot. (Mitch McConnell may have to retire before any substantive legislation can be passed as he is a wily old fox and firmly and his position on gun control is deep-rooted. A recent New York Times column laid the failure of gun legislation squarely at his feet.)

Blaming the NRA for mass shooting events is not going to do anything but allow you to vent. You said, a majority of the American population favors some sort of (hopefully sensible), gun control. What can result in change is making our opinion known in the only forum that really counts, the ballot box. Oppose all efforts to fence the ballot box. Make it easier, not harder to vote. Make election day a holiday. Support candidates who favor command sense gun regulation. Speak out at every opportunity and keep speaking out. Statistically a majority of the obdurate are extroverts who form their opinion based on everyone knows. If they hear enough pro-gun control voices they may begin to question their position and we might actually not only see legislation passed but actually enforced.

Now I am going to try to climb down off of this soapbox before I fall and break my neck.

The trick is getting them from opposite sides of the table to the same side. Right now it's like a traditional union/management negotiation: everyone comes to the table with their "demands" and they duke it out. The two sides in this issue could could learn from a more modern way of negotiating called "Interest Based Bargaining" (IBB).

Essentially IBB needs to be started and supported at the top, and there needs to be a moderator who is very experienced in IBB and can get the two groups past hurdles. The moderator is critical because the two sides come to the table with ingrained views. The process starts with looking for things that the two parties can agree on, that they have in common which, in this case, might be:

We can agree that:

• murdering children must stop.
• mass shootings generally (theatres, grocery stores) must stop
• guns should not get into the hands of the mentally unstable
• our objective is not to violate the 2nd Amendment and "take everyone's guns away"
• illegal gun trafficking must stop
• Et cetera, et cetera

Once the initial list is prepared (more things may be added as the process continues) the moderator will, with the two sides participating, pick an item that is most likely to get to a successful outcome. For example, from the very short list above, it might be "illegal gun trafficking must stop" or "guns should not get into the hands of the mentally unstable". All the preceding is 'IBB Lite' but gets the idea across - the issues will never get resolved as long as the two sides only want to have ideological fights.

It may not apply in the case of gun issues, but in traditional effective labor bargaining you do not usually want to sign off on any issue until all issues are resolved. This allows for modifying or swapping (I'll give you this if you give me that) of issues. It is my experience that Interest Based Bargaining does not allow for that, although there are probably variations that could allow for it. My experience is that the moderator wants to get through the list and there is a reluctance to backtrack, which may not be in the interest of one of the parties.

And you are certainly correct that ideological fights will not accomplish anything, but moving past that seems to be very, very difficult. Alas.

I contend that all of today's congressional business IS interest-based. The individual politicians' self-interest that is. (And seldom corresponds with the interests of the republic.)

I remember the days when the REAL political negotiations took place between a few carefully curated deal-makers over cigars and brandy in the traditional smoke-filled room and carefully hidden from the press. That allowed negotiators on each side to say what they really wanted out of the deal and what they were willing to trade to get it without worrying their words might get out to voters who were innocent of all the facts and implications. This practice was criticized, not because of the results, but because it denied grist for the evening news' mill. Some of those deals were undeniably questionable, but the business of the people got done. Today everything takes place in public under the glare of television lights. So not only do fewer questionable deals not get made, nothing happens but posturing for the camera and a mention on the evening news. As a result, there are few, if any, of those deal-malkers left in either house. Maybe we got better government out of those smoke-filled rooms. Where are the Everett Dirksens and Lyndon Johnsons of the world when we need them?

It is regrettable, but not unexpected, that Fox News (now there's an oxymoron!), unlike all the major networks, will not broadcast the Congressional hearings dealing with Jan. 6. May that crew migrate to Russia so that they can live with Putin.

The New Yorker has reported - - that they're rerunning the Benghazi hearings instead.

Last evening Stephen Colbert revealed an interesting fact: During the first hour of the hearings Fox aired Tucker Carlson without commercials. In other words Fox did not want to take a chance that one of their viewers might channel-surf during the commercial break, happen upon the hearings, and stay there. Imagine - a network with the credo of misinformation, preposterous conspiracy theories, and lies so ingrained that they are willing to take a big financial hit rather than have their viewers hear the truth.

For those who can open this page, read The Jan. 6 hearing dominated the airwaves — except on Fox News from the Washington Post. From the article:

I suspect if Faux News had been around during the Joseph McCarthy hearing in the 1950's, Rupert Murdoch would have been tabled 'un-American' and be out of business.

Hannity is certainly welcome to his opinion. However, my wife and I watched the entire presentation and found it riveting....and we're not American.

He's prepping his moronic audience for what's to come.

Speaking of morons, the GOP seems to require its members to be idiots. Republican Drive to Tilt Courts Against Climate Action Reaches a Crucial Moment After all, the fact that our planet will soon be uninhabitable is unimportant when we have to consider gun control, gay marriage, abortion, you-name-it. At least the Republicans can be happy, when we die from lack of food and water and temperatures are unbearable, that gays can no longer marry. This is fiddling while Earth burns.

On the other hand, destroying our only planet can be good for the economy.