Welcome to From Insults to Respect.
Today, while listening to some songs, Bob Dylan’s emotional pleas as he sang “Chimes of Freedom” cried out to my conscience. Its first stanza…
We ducked inside the doorway, thunder crashingAs majestic bells of boltsStruck shadows in the soundSeeming to be the chimes of freedom flashingFlashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fightFlashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flightAn’ for each an’ every underdog soldier in the nightAn’ we gazed upon the chimes of freedom flashing
Bob’s song, it occurred to me, suggested that people vary in the following three ways. You have the type of person who appears to care only for him or her self, and when making connections with others, it is only for self benefits. Moving from that end of the spectrum to someone who we will call Jill, her family and close friends are dear to her, but beyond that, her feelings toward others can be summed up as an emphatic cry of, “Hey, I got my own problems to deal with!” At the other end of the spectrum, we find feelings expressed in words such as those inscribed on a plaque and placed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty–
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
In thinking of all of this, it came to me that Dylan’s “Chimes of Freedom” is the musical version of the Statue of Liberty. As Dylan cries out in the song, we hear his pleas for…
empathy toward the luckless, the abandoned and forsaked, for the outcast, burning constantly at stake, for the kind, for the guardians and protectors of the mind, and the poet and the painter far behind his rightful time, for the disrobed faceless forms of no position, for the tongues with no place to bring their thoughts, for the deaf and blind, for the mute, for the mistreated, mateless mother, the mistitled prostitute, for the misdemeanor outlaw, chased and cheated by pursuit, for the ones condemned to drift or else be kept from drifting, for the searching ones, on their speechless, seeking trail, for the lonesome-hearted lovers with too personal a tale, for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail, for the aching whose wounds cannot be nursed, for the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones an’ worse, and for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe.
Such outpouring of empathy for such a wide range of folks.
When Bob wrote this song, he lived in New York’s Greenwich Village. It is in just that part of the city where heading west down a few side streets you end up facing the grand New York Harbor, with its awe inspiring view of the Statue of Liberty standing guard against a diminishment of what many, but not all, Americans admire.
After jotting down the above ideas and then showing them to my wife and son, they encouraged me to see if I could deepen my thoughts on this theme. I thereby found myself envisioning a circle around each of the three general types of people who have various bands of empathy. 
For those persons who have just self-empathy, I envisioned having a circle just around themselves. For those who have empathy for themselves, as well as close family members and friends, I envisioned having a wider circle that encompasses not only themselves, but also all of these other folks. And those whose empathy extends even beyond not only themselves, close family members and friends, but also all of those other folks we hear about in Dylan’s song, I found myself envisioning each of them wrapped around an even larger circle of people.
With this image in mind, I asked myself whether or not I find myself having an increasing amount of respect for people whose circle encompasses more people, compared to those whose circle encompasses fewer people. It turns out that if the type of person who has empathy just for him or herself has done some awful acts this would significantly lower my level of respect. But what about a person who despite having this very narrow encompassing empathy circle who has not harmed anyone? Now the question about my degree of respect becomes harder for me. Similarly, for those who just have empathy for themselves and close relatives and friends, but don’t hurt others, I find myself having some difficulty answering the level of respect question. Curiously, I do seem to have some additional respect for people who have empathy for all people who don’t go around harming anyone. How about each of you who are reading today’s post?
Now, let’s consider a related question. Regardless of how much respect you feel for each of these three general types of people, when you interact with them, do you think it wise to treat them all with equal respect?
As I personally thought about this, I imagined working in the prison. In such prisons, the convicts are typically informed that to the degree that they treat all the other convicts and prison staff members respectfully, and follow the various other prison rules, they will receive additional privileges, and for those who someday will be released, this will increase their chances of an early release. Convicts having the lowest level of privileges might be provided only a single type of very bland food, have the worse work assignments, and just one hour each day to socialize with other prison convicts. At the next level, convicts might be given a modest choice at meal times, a limited choice of work assignments, etc.
Under these conditions, is it wise for us to treat respectfully even those who have committed the most horrendous crime by avoiding mean, insulting name calling, expressions of disgust, asking, rather than demanding, and saying please and thank you at appropriate times?
It seems to me that by doing so, you decrease the chances of resentments that can blow up into violence, while also increase the probability of making life in prison a more healthy, supportive place for all. Moreover, by creating a more consistent environment in which respectful behavior is practiced, those who are released after serving their time might end up having picked up the habit of treating people respectfully. In fact, it might even, as some psychological theories suggest, increase the likelihood that respect for others will become internalized for ex-cons thereby leading them to expanding their circle of empathy for others.
As a general rule, treating everyone respectfully, in a prison, or out, serves to model this type of behavior, and research suggests this can increase the chances that others will follow suit.
And, finally, I think the golden rule applies well when thinking about these types of issues. If you want others to treat you respectfully, treat others respectfully.
So, there you have it, some thoughts that all spilled out of me after listening to Dylan’s “Chimes of Freedom.” I hope you find value in them, and until next time, may you find ways to be kind to yourself and to others.
My Best,
Jeff







































In several previous post we discussed suggestions for responding to insults in a positive manner. For example, we discussed Abe Lincoln’s wise approach (see 


























Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today, we take up a country-wide emotionally charged conflict between those who believe the Second Amendment allows for what they refer to as some “reasonable restrictions” of arms such as banning AR-15 weapons, and those who believe the amendment provides an inalienable right to own arms with absolutely “no restrictions.” Here’s what the Second Amendment actually states:
The Second Amendment begins by explaining the necessity for the amendment–“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Here we see that the reason why the Framers included this amendment to the Constitution was because of the specific needs of a well regulated militia. This explaining is very different than the other amendments which give no explanation for each of them because each are viewed as “self evident.” For example, consider the wording of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Also notice that this amendment allows for the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Thus, you can’t have people who formed a militia violently attacking the Government with arms and then successfully claim that since it was carried out by a well regulated militia your use of these arms is constitutionally protected. As a result of the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capital, over 800 people have been charged for crimes for their violent acts and more indictments are forthcoming.
Like the First Amendment, the Third Amendment, provides no explanation. Given this “no explanation” style in the other amendments as well, we are left wondering why the Second Amendment veers away from this “no explanation” style. If the Framers just wanted to say all people have the right to carry and bear arms, they could have left out the first part of the amendment that refers to a well regulated militia, and instead have written:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people in a Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This theory is supported by the fact that the Framers were not typically given to providing explanations for why the people have the rights enumerated in the Constitution, and yet they chose to include one in the Second Amendment. Moreover the Framers were clear that only peaceful means could be used to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Bearing arms at such events runs counter to this peaceful intent. Thus, the Framers did not view the bearing of arms as an absolute right, limiting its use when assembling, and petitioning the government. Finally, there are other clauses in the Constitution that in practice are not absolute, and reasonable modifications to their wording have occurred.

People who had access to a handgun could only fire a single shot before reloading. People who had access to a long barrel gun had muskets. A musket fired a single lead ball before it needed to be reloaded to fire another. Black powder was the explosive material used which commonly fouled the musket after repeated firing and they were notoriously inaccurate when aimed at a target. Reloading required that a person carry out the following steps:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications…applies to modern forms of speech… the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
NEW YORK STATE RIFLE &
The Second Amendment guaranteed to “all Americans” the right to bear commonly used arms in public subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions, Heller, 554 U. S., at 581. Those restrictions, for example, limited the intent for which one could carry arms, the manner by which one carried arms, or the exceptional circumstances under which one could not carry arms, such as before justices of the peace and other government officials.
In Justice Alito’s concurring opinion, he wrote, “Our holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”
With regards to the Supreme Court’s decision concerning the type of weapon permitted for self protection, the only weapon mentioned is hand guns. As far as what is permitted with regards to obtaining such weapons, and what other weapons could be used, it states it is subject to certain well defined restrictions.
One set of arguments against the Supreme Court’s decision utilizes well documented statistics indicating the harms of having so many weapons in the hands of people. For example, the Violence Policy Center, in 2015, provided statistics that showed that in 2012, there were 259 justifiable self-defense homicides in which victims turned the tables on the assailant. However, the Center also reported these 259 justifiable homicides should be balanced against the statistics indicating the thefts of about 232,000 guns each year. That’s a ratio of one justifiable homicide for every 896 guns put into the hands of criminals.
Moreover, researchers from Boston University investigated the relationship between gun ownership and gun homicides from 1981-2010 in all 50 states. They said they found a “robust correlation” between the two factors. “This research is the strongest to date to document that states with higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.”
Here we see that countries with far more gun restriction than the United States have a small fraction of gun homicide rates. United Kingdom and Japan, which have the strictest gun restrictions have the tiniest fraction of such homicides. Meanwhile, nearly
Now, keep in mind, if you will, that the reason given by the Supreme Court is for self-protection. The AR-15 weapon is way too dangerous for such a purpose. If one shoots at an assailant in an apartment, the shot can penetrate not only through a wall into a neighbor’s apartment, but right through another wall into another apartment, thus endangering the life there. Moreover, shooting at someone with this weapon outside, risks killing someone more than 200 yards away who happens to be in the line of fire.
Armed bystanders who are not security guards or off-duty police officers successfully ending a violent attack is a very rare occurrence according to the relevant data summarized by the
After shooting 471 people at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas from a hotel room overlooking the festival, the gunman died by suicide before the police arrived to his room. The gunman was in no way defending himself against the victims who were innocently enjoying a music concert. More recently, we have seen the aftermath of one massacre after another in which the shooters used AR-15 guns that occurred in a supermarket, school buildings, and many other places.
But the empirical judgment regarding this issue is not at all difficult. It is backed up by overwhelming evidence that more access to guns in a given population leads to far more deaths. Moreover, there have been zero cases of non-law enforcement officials ever successfully using an AR-15 for self defense, or in defense of other citizens, while that same weapon has been used to murder numerous innocent fellow citizens.
Just as I was finishing up this post, a
Such incidents, which are up 19 percent this year, has led police departments around the country to be among the
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. Today’s post offers an approach for respectfully helping someone experiencing hopelessness during a first-hour counseling session. I commend it to you for I have found it remarkably helpful over my many years providing counseling services.
However, there are some who will not be able to do so because they have very little patience in the presence of anyone feeling hopeless. Such persons might cry out, “Enough with this helplessness crap. Snap out of it and get the hell on with your life for crying out loud!”
That said, it just so happens that some people who begin with the lack of sympathy approach end up seeing it has been far from helpful. They may yet be left harboring some desire to be helpful in some way. If they didn’t end up completely severing any subsequent relationship with the person feeling helpless as a result of their demanding approach, they might, through a turn of mind, come to say, “Well, I guess I have the ability to try a more supportive approach.” Such persons might still be able to utilize the Jamesian approach.
The first two types of situations one can utilize this approach involves a professional counselor or psychotherapist. The client arrives for an appointment. The professional then begins the session by asking the client, “What concerns would you like us to address?” The despondent person might reply,
“I’ve been feeling stressed out and hopeless and I heard I might qualify for disability benefits. I can sure use the extra money.”
You begin by asking the person you hope to help, in a soft, caring manner, “How have you been doing?” Over the course of the next half hour, your job is to listen with all the empathy you can muster, to whatever your counselee wants to share with you.
Listening in a sympathetic manner during the first half hour is time well spent. During this time you will be modeling for the counselee an alternative to how he or she might want to respond to the situations that currently has been leading to angrily insulting oneself. People learn a great deal by observing others. Your job in this first half hour is to be a superb model of reacting to very human mistakes by remaining supportive to the notion that we all goof-up from time to time.
“I’d like to pause here for just a few minutes, if that is ok with you. I would like to tell you a story that many people who are going through a similar experience as you, find helpful. In referring to these experiences as similar to you, I recognize each person’s experience is unique. That said, with us being fellow humans, we can often see certain similarities that might help us make some useful connections with our own unique situation. So, would it be ok if we pause here just for a few minutes so I can tell you this story?”
But as a young man of 25, while studying for his Harvard medical degree, he suddenly dropped out. As he explained the reason, “it was as if something hitherto solid within my breast gave way entirely, and I became a mass of quivering fear. . . . I awoke morning after morning with a horrible dread in the pit of my stomach.”
He said several things: the reading of Renouvier (specially his vindication of the freedom of the will) and Wordsworth, whom he has been feeding on now for a good while; but especially his having given up the notion that all mental disorder is required to have a physical basis. This had become perfectly untrue to him. He saw that the mind did act irrespectively of material coercion, and could be dealt with therefore at first-hand, and this was health to his bones.
We see in the above that at this time James had viewed his distressful experience that led to his departure from medical school as a “mental disorder” that he had to accept as due to something wrong with his body and therefore he could do nothing but accept that he had this condition. Then, his conceptualization began to develop from a physiological pathology model to one that gives at least some freedom to the will.

I wandered lonely as a cloud
This exuberance with being in nature, for Wordsworth, spilled over into his life even when he was not in nature as we see in the following lines:
For oft, when on my couch I lie
Later in his life, William James added another element to his understanding of the disturbing experiences he had as a young man. It was prompted by a quarrel.
But it breaks down importantly as soon as melancholy comes; and even though one be quite free from melancholy one’s self, there is no doubt that healthy-mindedness is inadequate as a philosophical doctrine, because the evil facts which it refuses positively to account for are a genuine portion of reality; and may after all be the best key to life’s significance, and possibly the only openers of our eyes to the deepest levels of truth.
To James, people confront events daily that create feelings of helplessness, pain, sadness, horror, and dread. James argued that the feelings that go along with these kinds of events can lead toward truth. Thus, he counteracts any tendency to assume that those referred to as morbid-minded are automatically inferior to those referred to as “mentally healthy.”
Through being counseled by reading the writings of Renouvier (specially his vindication of the freedom of the will), along with discovering the health promoting effects of spending time in nature and with some people who shared his developing love of nature, he found this was health to his bones. As the years went by, he came to understand that there can be some benefits that come from the experiences many so called healthy-minded people view as morbid-mindedness or, more frequently in today’s culture, “mental illness.”
Here this ten-minute story ends. At its conclusion, gently ask if your counselee would like to share any thoughts or feelings that came about upon hearing about William James’s experiences and ideas about what people today often refer to as having a mental illness. Then, in the few minutes left of the hour, begin again to listen in the caring manner I described above.



“I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They would be carried out in a stretcher, folks. I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell you.”
After another incident of this kind, Mr. Trump, when questioned about it by a reporter, stated, “This guy started screaming by himself, and, I don’t know, roughed up, he should have, maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Then he said, “Violence would help to deter protesters.”
But then he says things like, “In the good old days this doesn’t happen because they used to treat them very, very rough. And when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily.”
Pictures from the demonstration showed two persons dressed as Klansmen while attempting to illustrate that they thought Trump is a racist like Klansmen are. Then, Trump, probably recognizing he is under oath, hedges his statement by saying, “or whatever.” He then says his bodyguard was attacked from behind and they tried to get his gun, but then, again undoubtedly recognizing he is under oath, he claims he doesn’t know if he was carrying a gun, but if he was, they were obviously trying to get it.
I don’t know for sure, but my guess is this testimony, and others like it, when laid out in front of a jury is likely to indicate Trump is willing to make up any story to help his case, but is constrained during his testimony because lying under oath is seriously different then his statements at rallies where he can claim first amendment rights to protect him. Under oath, lying is against the law and a person can be charged with a felony for doing so.
Trump supporters desire that at the rallies they attend for Mr. Trump they get to hear what he has to say without interruptions. They view the interrupters as interfering with this desire when Mr. Trump is trying to speak at the rally, and an interrupter begins shouting. Trump supporters typically would say they believe interrupters are guilty of doing something wrong when they interrupt, and many support violence against the interrupters.
There are fair opportunities for demonstrators from the full spectrum of opinions to put forth their views as people file into the site of the rally and when people leave. As long as this is done peacefully and without interfering with the flow of people into and out of the site, this seems consistent with principles of free speech which is something I personally treasure.

Moreover, once law officers arrive, any effort that you make to avoid the law officers’ arrest will lead to the far more serious charge of resisting arrest. So, those are your options–either you now come peacefully with us as we usher you out of here, or deal with law enforcement. We recommend coming with us. Let’s go.” Then the security officials firmly, but not violently, lead the interrupter away.
Moreover, Mr. Trump’s actions tend to drum up rage against the interrupter, and as we saw in one incident, this led to a Trump supporter sucker punching him. Further, the rage that is produced at the rally, when witnessed on TV, leads to further rage. We saw this happening on March 11, 2016 in Chicago shortly after Trump’s taunting was televised. Trump supporters and protesters clashed so viciously that the event had to be cancelled. Then, the next day, at another rally, this one in Vandalia,
Ohio, a furious man jumped a barrier and rushed the stage. No one was hurt, but Mr. Trump was obviously shaken up from the incident, sweating profusely. The January 6 storming of the Capitol is the most devastating example.
Similarly, if Trump felt those demonstrations in front of Trump Tower should not be happening, he always has the option of calling law enforcement, expressing his concern, and then letting them decide if any laws are being broken, and if so, law enforcement will professionally handle the situation. In the case currently under way, he was clearly not in any danger. He claims he didn’t even know about the incident until the next day. Even if he knew about the incident as it was going on, he was safely in his office numerous floors above the event.