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:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Let’s begin by taking a look at the major arguments being made by those on both sides. Then I’ll conclude with where I come out in dealing with this conflict.
The Arguments
The ‘Well Regulated Militia” Arguments
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.
Notice that this amendment does not explain any reason for these Government restrictions. Also note that some aspects of this amendment is not absolute. For example, you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, defraud someone, or participate in planning a murder and then claim the government can’t penalize you because you are protected by the amendment’s free speech clause.
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.
The amendment immediately after the Second states:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
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:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Such wording would be consistent with the “no explanation” style used in the other amendments. If, instead, the Framers wanted to indicate only those people in a well regulated militia have a right to bear arms, they could have precisely worded the Second Amendment as follows:
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.
Without such clear wording, we are left with ambiguity. It is nevertheless reasonable to lean toward the following theory: The Framers chose to use the militia clause in the Second Amendment to indicate that it applied to people in a well regulated militia. 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 peacefulmeans 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.
Major Supreme Court Decisions
United States v. Miller, Decided in 1939. There are three major Supreme Court decisions that reveal how the Justices’ views on gun rights developed over the years since the Constitution was ratified. Let’s begin with the U.S. v. Miller case.
sawed off shotgun
Back then, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with militias, the Court observed that [w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.
The Court also opined that the Second Amendment referred to arms of the kind in common use at the time, referring to the time the Amendment was ratified–December 15, 1791. With this in mind, consider the arms that had been in common use in a militia back then.
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:
Reach in the cartridge box with leather casing; it had a long flap to make sure the black powder within the cartridges remained dry. Remove one of the cartridges and bite down on the tail of the cartridge to tear it open.
Half cock the musket by pushing back on the hammer with flint attached (called a dogshead). Push the frizzen forward, opening the pan (or flash pan) and pour a small amount of black powder from the cartridge.
Pull the frizzen back, shutting the pan – the metal lip of the frizzen is now vertical. The weapon is now primed and the musket may be turned around without spilling the powder out of the pan.
Hold the musket with the muzzle pointing up.
Pour the rest of the powder from the cartridge into the barrel.
Insert a lead ball into the barrel.
Push the cartridge paper (called wadding) into the barrel and ram the wadding and ball down the barrel to the other end (breech) where the spark will take place. The charge is now properly seated.
Replace the ramrod in the channel.
Lift the weapon and pull back on the dogshead, fully cocking it.
Raise the musket to a firing position.
Fire the musket.
Such weapons are dramatically different than today’s AR-15 weapon that can fire numerous shots far more powerfully and accurately during the same amount of time that it takes to fire one round with a musket and then to reload.
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller.Decided in 2008. In contrast to the argument that the Second Amendment refers to weapons that were only available at the time when the Second Amendment was ratified, a more recent case before the Supreme Court provided a different interpretation. Relying largely on the history of common law, which often gave people the right to bear arms for self protection, particularly in their own homes, and for hunting, opined that:
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.
At the same time, the Court recognized that,
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose… 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.
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons….
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.
Although Heller concerned the possession of a handgun in the home, the key point that we decided was that “the people,” not just members of the “militia,” have the right to use a firearm to defend themselves. And because many people face a serious risk of lethal violence when they venture outside the homes, we now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.
The definition of a handgun is “a short-barrelled firearm that can be held and used with one hand.
The decision goes on to say,
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.”
Buffalo supermarket shooting victims
Summarizing this section, it provides a description of the dramatic difference between the kinds of weapons in use when the Framers wrote the Second Amendment and an AR-15 weapon. The above quotes from the Supreme Court decisions lays out how the court’s views on gun possession changed over time. First, it referred only to militias. Then, in a more recent decision, it said it refers to even modern guns that are commonly used for self-protection in one’s home. Then, in the most recent decision, it declared the Amendment also permits people to carry guns for protection outside of the home.
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.
Arguments Against the Supreme Courts’s Decision
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.”
In a summary of relevant peer reviewed studies by Scientific America,it found:
Sandy Hook victims
In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.
Further supporting this evidence that more harm than good comes from unrestrictive gun ownership, is well displayed in the following graph.
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 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019.
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.
The mathematics describing the pros and cons of the no restrictions position when it comes to AR-15 is, to my mind, simple to calculate. One would simply add up how many lives were saved by non-law enforcement personnel who used an AR-15 gun to thwart a person seeking to harm someone versus how many lives were lost because citizens can now freely purchase AR-15 weapons.
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 New York Times—12 cases out of 433, and none of these cases involved an armed bystander using an AR-15 weapon. In fact, having more than one armed person at the scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry dire risks. An armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada, Colorado, was himself shot and killed by the police, who mistook him for the gunman.
In contrast to the evidence that AR-15 weapons are not being used by non-law enforcer professionals for self defense or protecting others during an attack, they have been used by mass shooters numerous times. 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.
The counter argument to these statistics is that they don’t include the following theory. Because people desiring to act violently know that so many of our citizens own guns this actually reduces violence. Such violent people, so the argument goes, refrain from acting out their violent desires out of fear that a citizen with a gun will end up killing them. This plainly implies that the more guns in a community, the less violence will occur. However, the statistics dramatically indicate the very opposite occurs.
Justice Stephen Breyer
Interestingly, the dissenting opinion by Justice Breyer in the most recent Court decision made extensive use of many of the same arguments against the 2022 ruling as I made above, but the majority disposes all of them with the following statement:
“…reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text—especially text meant to codify a pre-existing right—is, in our view, more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field. Id., at 790–791 (plurality opinion).”
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.
My Thoughts
Personally, I am convinced that the fewer guns we have in our country, the safer we all would be. At the same time, I recognize that many of our fellow U.S. citizens love owning AR-15 weapons. With this in mind, here is what I view as a reasonable compromise.
Average citizens could purchase such weapons, but when purchased, it would be sent by the seller directly to a licensed gun shooting range of the owners’s choice, where it would be locked up. The owners of these guns could visit their AR-15 whenever they wish, and use them for target shooting, competitive games, and can hug them, and even kiss them to their heart’s content. When they leave the range, the gun would be returned to the range manager who would secure it for safe keeping. For those who already own such weapons, they would be required to turn them in to a licensed shooting range where it would be locked up, but can be used at the range whenever the gun owners wish.
Well, that’s my view on this contentious issue. I hope readers will find that it provides some thoughtful considerations as they go about discussing the topic with others and reflecting on their own judgements.
Just as I was finishing up this post, a news bulletin came on indicating three police offices were shot and killed, and several others were wounded. Such incidents, which are up 19 percent this year, has led police departments around the country to be among the most vocal in pleading for more gun restrictions, explaining they are being outgunned by criminals. So, it is with this punch to the gut story, I close with the wish that all of my fellow citizens have a safe week.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
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.
Helping people experiencing hopelessness can be rather challenging because many of them have no interest in doing anything about it. As the renowned psychologist and philosopher William James explains in a letter to his famous novelist brother, Henry James:
Henry is left of William
To suggest personal will and effort to one “all sicklied o’er” with the sense of weakness, of helpless failure, and of fear, is to suggest the most horrible of things to him. What he craves is to be consoled in his very impotence, to feel the Powers of the Universe recognize and secure him, all passive and failing as he is.
That said, if you find you are engaging with someone experiencing something like this, is there nothing else to be done other than offering your condolences? For your consideration, here’s what I refer to as a Jamesian approach because it is based on some of the writings of William James.
Beyond Just Offering Condolences
Who are capable of trying the approach I have found so helpful?
Most people have the ability to try this Jamesian approach. 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!”
Now, admittedly these unsympathetic people sometimes find, upon confronting someone with their demand, it actually seems to have been helpful. The person who had been feeling helpless becomes enlivened with the demand and can then find themselves improving their functioning and end up thanking the demanding person.
However, some of these demanding people find their approach in the situation with which they were dealing didn’t work and conclude there is nothing else that can be done. These people, totally disgusted with the continuing helpless attitude, very likely will not be able to utilize the Jamesian approach I wish for you to consider.
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.
As for everyone else who thinks they can spend an hour being present with the person feeling helpless and express empathy, while being a good listener in other ways can give the approach I soon will describe a try. I’ve never seen any harm from such attempts.
Three types of situations in which the Jamesian approach can be utilized
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,
“There really is nothing to address. I only came for this appointment because my sister kept urging me to speak to a professional about my situation and I finally gave in. To me this whole appointment is a waste of time. My situation is hopeless.”
Or, the person might respond,
“I’ve been feeling stressed out and hopeless and I heard I might qualify for disability benefits. I can sure use the extra money.”
As you will soon see, neither of these two situations provide any obstacles for utilizing the approach.
The third type of situation the Jamesian approach can be helpful involves nonprofessionals that know someone they care about who has reached that helpless state of mind and are willing to see if they can set up a time to spend an hour with the discouraged individual.
The Jamesian Approach
Phase 1 (first half hour)
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.
If your conselee becomes angry with him or herself, your job is not to convince the person that becoming angry at one’s self is wrong or foolish. Rather, you make sure the person knows you heard what is being said, by making the following type of reply. “I see you are angry about… (summarize what the person said about why he or she is angry)” and then in a soft, caring voice say, “I understand you have been through some very rough experiences.” It is essential during this half hour that you do nothing that can appear to be correcting or constraining the expression of the counselee.
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.
If your counselee finishes earlier than a half hour, begin to ask the following questions. “Please talk to me about when you first began to feel so helpless?” and “I’m interested to hear how you have been functioning since you have been going through this very tough experience. If the functioning question is answered in a sentence or two, you are to invite some additional sharing of the counselee by asking, “Have you been able to go to work?” If yes, ask, “How has that been going?” If there is still time left during the first half hour, also ask the counselee if he or she has been able to do home chores, such as cleaning and making meals. If this hasn’t filled up the first half hour of your one hour session, continue with these additional questions: “How have you been sleeping?” “Have you been staying connected with some people you care about?” With these series of questions, you should have no difficulty passing this half hour of listening in a caring manner.
Phase 2 (second half hour)
Now, in seeking to introduce phase 2, sometimes the counselee is not quite finished sharing what she or he has been going through. If this is an intense part of the distressed person’s experience, I recommend not interrupting. Instead, at the close of the hour you will have to set up another hour session. However, I have found most times you will be able to gently say,
“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?”
It is very rare, from my experience, that the counselee will refuse this request, but if they do so, don’t press the case of the value of hearing the story. Just respond by saying, “Maybe I can share the story with you on another occasion.”
If your counselee agrees to hearing the story, it is ok to read it. Here’s the story.
During William James’s life he became the greatest American psychologist and philosopher of his time, and remains even today enormously well regarded for his wisdom. 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.”
After about 6 years of these dreaded experiences, he suddenly began to feel much improved. Here’s how Will’s father explains it in his letter to his other son, Henry, in March of 1873:
He came in here the other afternoon when I was sitting alone, and after walking the floor in an animated way for a moment, exclaimed “Dear me! What a difference there is between me now and me last spring this time: then so hypochondriacal” (he used that word, though perhaps in substantive form) “and now feeling my mind so cleared up and restored to sanity. It is the difference between life and death.” He had a great effusion. I was afraid of interfering with it, or possibly checking it, but I ventured to ask what especially in his opinion had promoted the change.
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.
William’s Father with his brother Henry on the righ
He came to this understanding from his own counselor in the form of reading the works of the philosopher, Charles Renouvier, especially in the sections that provides a vindication of the freedom of the will. At the same time, he was also reading the poems of William Wordsworth. What did these poems have to do with one who had been so suffering for many years?
Charles Renouvier
Wordsworth’s poems are often about his deep love with being in nature, as we get some sense of from considering some of the lines from “I Wandered Lonely As a Cloud:”
I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o’er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils;
Beside the lake, beneath the trees,
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.
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:
A poet could not but be gay,
In such a jocund company:
I gazed—and gazed—but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought:
For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils.
For William James, he not only read Wordsworth, his reading led him, through an act of will, to go out in nature. The particular scenes he came upon of woods beside a body of water lifted his spirits. It also got him walking, which is well documented to improve health. It also improved his interpersonal relations, for he discovered some people who shared this love of nature, and they often would join him on his nature walks. Sometimes he and his companions would walk in silence, just enjoying the pleasant sounds of birds and the rippling of water. Other times they would enjoy discussing common interests.
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.
Healthy-minded individuals often believe that those who worry are “morbid-minded” and “diseased.” In their defense, some of those referred to as morbid-minded have argued that “the world’s meaning most comes home to us when we lay them most to heart.”
After describing the argument between the so-called “healthy-minded” and the “morbid-minded,” James then states:
In our attitude, not yet abandoned, of impartial onlookers, what are we to say of this quarrel? It seems to me that we are bound to say that morbid-mindedness ranges over the wider scale of experience, and that its survey is the one that overlaps. The method of averting one’s attention from evil, and living in the light of good is splendid as long as it will work. It will work with many persons; it will work far more generally than most of us are ready to suppose; and within the sphere of its successful operation there is nothing to be said against it as a religious solution. 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.”
So, this is a story of one man’s experience of feeling helpless to do anything helpful by an act of his will, and thus spent years in a deeply disturbed state. 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.
Well, I hope this post has provided an approach for beginning a counseling experience with someone suffering from a sense of hopelessness. Until next time, may all of your concerns be addressed with wisdom, love, and kindness.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
In recent news articles, we have learned that a group of people who were demonstrating in front of Trump Tower are suing Trump and his company for damages from what they claim was his security officers’ “wanton and malicious assaults and batteries.” Trump denied under oath knowing anything about the incident until a day after it happened, but his former lawyer Michael Cohen said he was an eye witness to Trump ordering the confrontation, according to newly filed court papers.
Michael Cohen
Cohen is not viewed as the most reliable of witnesses because of his history of lying to Congress about Trump’s business dealings with Russia, for which he served some time in prison. Nevertheless, he now has agreed to make his current testimony under oath on May 17th. He would be risking going to prison again if he is found lying, and he has nothing monetarily to gain from providing his testimony.
Benjamin Dictor
The protesters’ lawyer, Benjamin Dictor, well knows he can’t depend entirely on Cohen’s testimony to win his case. Thus, he will present testimony from the numerous eye witnesses who were present. He is also including deposition excerpts in the court filing that show Trump on numerous occasions encouraging violence, many of which have been impressively documented by the New York Times, (see HERE). To take one example, there are recorded comments he had made about protesters during his 2016 presidential campaign, including a rally where he told attendees that “if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, just knock the crap out of them, would you?”
Trump defended his comment by saying, “It was very dangerous, We were threatened. They were going to throw fruit, very violent stuff.” He made his encouragement for violence at a time when no one had thrown anything.
As another example, there is a video clip showing security going through the process of peacefully removing an interrupter at a rally, while Mr. Trump cries,
“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.”
In perhaps the most disturbing example that I have seen before the January 6 attack speech, Mr. Trump is seen defending a guy who had just sucker punched an interrupter who was being peacefully escorted out of an arena. When Mr. Trump was asked about this incident by a reporter, he answered, “He (the guy who sucker punched the protester) obviously loves this country, and maybe he doesn’t like seeing what’s happening to the country.”
To be fair, Mr. Trump sometimes says he doesn’t condone the violence. 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.”
So, if he thinks those were the “good old days,” it sure sounds to me that he wishes we could be discouraging protesters by doing this type of thing today.
In addition to using these publicly available examples of Trump supporting violence, the evidence to be provided to a jury will include numerous examples of his fast and loose, misleading statements about the facts of a case. For example, after stating he didn’t know about the incident until the next day, he then began to defend his bodyguard, Keith Schiller:
“He did nothing wrong. He went out — I didn’t know about it. But he went out, he heard there was a disturbance, and he went out. And he took a 50 cent sign down that was racist. He sees people dressed as Ku Klux Klansmen or whatever. People were probably complaining. He was attacked from behind, and they tried to get his gun, I don’t even know if he was carrying a gun. But if he was, they were obviously trying to get it.”
So, we see here that first he says he didn’t know about the incident until the next day, but then claims he knows the protesters were dressed as Ku Klux Klansmen. 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.
So, this is where the case stands. And now I hear Trump supporters say that Trump is right for encouraging violence against anyone that might dare to protest against him. Let’s examine this position.
The Trump Supporters versus the Trump Rally Interrupters’ Conflict
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.
This conflict statement is my best guess of the perspective of Trump supporters with regard to his position and dealing with rally interrupters. I have derived it from discussions that I personally have had with a few of his supporters, and what I have heard from them during TV interviews.
My Views On Trump’s Violence Advocacy
First of all, at the outset, let me say that I have some sympathy for the Trump supporters regarding their perspective on this conflict. I hold the position that regardless of who the rally is for, those who come to hear the candidate should be able to do so without people interrupting him or her.
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.
Once in the arena, I believe the candidate should be treated civilly. Interrupting the candidate’s speech is not in the interest of the supporters who took the time to get to the site, nor is it in the interest of the interrupters.
Interrupters, by their actions, will only succeed in hardening the positions of the supporters who tend to become infuriated at such interruptions.
That said, I do disagree that there is no better way to deal with rally interrupters than beating them up. These types of interruptions is a commonly resolved problem candidates have been facing for years. The best minds in professional arena security personnel and law enforcement have designed a process to deal with these types of situations. The process varies slightly from place to place, but basically it goes like this:
Typically, whenever someone begins to create a disruption, security officials hustle over and firmly inform the interrupter that if he or she continues to do anything that seeks to disrupt the speaker, he or she will be ushered out of the rally site. This usually takes a few seconds and is sufficient in most cases to settle things down.
If not, several additional security officials are called. When they arrive, they now are an overwhelming presence and are well trained to handle aggressive conduct.
The disrupter is then told, “You now have a choice, either agree to be ushered out of the rally site with us, or law enforcement will be summoned. If law enforcement is summoned, you will be placed in handcuffs, arrested, charged with disturbing the peace, taken to the police station, and you could end up facing a fine and/or imprisonment. 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.
This message to the interrupter takes less than two minutes and in the vast majority of incidents it is sufficient to peacefully resolve this type of situation. In my opinion, Mr. Trump is not doing security any favors when, during this process, he begins to taunt the disrupter.
The effective use of the technique I just described works best when the disrupter is in a state that he or she can think somewhat reasonably. Mr. Trump’s baiting disrupters while the process is going on increases the probability of igniting rage within the interrupter, and the probability of violence goes up. Even well trained security personnel can become injured dealing with this, and the whole process can take far more time to resolve.
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.
In my opinion, we are much better off letting security and law enforcement do their job without wildly throwing out taunts and supporting the days when it was okay to beat up people.
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.
———————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
By now you must have heard about the slap heard around the world, it being so widely discussed on media reports and Internet forums. What I found concerning in these discussions is the absence of what Will Smith could have done differently to deal with his emotional response to his wife’s reaction to a Chris Rock joke other than “he shouldn’t have done it.”
The joke alluded to Smith’s wife, Pinkett Smith, possibly some day appearing in a new “G.I. Jane” movie because of her closely buzzed haircut that looks similar to the star of the first G.I. movie who had her hair buzzed as the cadet in the military role she was playing.
Pinkett Smith has alopecia, an autoimmune disorder that causes a person’s hair to fall out. No doubt she understandably has strong emotional feelings around this.
When Smith’s wife reacted to the joke by giving him a side-eye annoyed look, this, along with the joke, triggered Smith to walk up to the stage and strike Rock. So, that’s one way to respond. What are other alternatives?
Five Ways to Respond to Criticism
To find out how people feel about different styles of responding to criticism, I made a lot of TV shows with a variety of actors.
In each show the actors respond to criticism in different ways. Then I asked others to watch the shows. Together, we discussed their reactions to the way the people in the video recordings handle the criticism.
I soon became very familiar with what people like and respect when it comes to responding to criticism. This helped me to come up with five different ways to handle criticism. I put them in order from the least respected to the most respected. Level one is the least liked. Each higher level is viewed as more mature, likable, and respected by those who watched the video recordings. Let’s take a look at these four levels.
Five Levels of Responding to Criticism
1. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Weeps or sobs with tears or pouts without utilizing at lest a level 4 response
Physically attacks the criticizer
Damages property
2. This level requires displaying one or more of the following:
Insults the criticizer (either with words, hand gestures, the sticking out of a tongue, the rolling of the eyes, or smirks)
Glares at the criticizer
Threatens the criticizer
Punches, kicks, or throws an object without physically hurting someone or damaging anything
Criticizes the criticizer without first fully addressing the original criticism.
3. This level requires displaying one or both of the following:
Displays defensiveness without directly insulting the criticizer (raising voice’s volume or pitch)
Displays a lack of interest either by verbally indicating this, or with nonverbal cues, or complete silence.
4. Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.
5.Level 5. In addition to actions consistent with level 4, people responding to criticism in a manner consistent with level 5 seek ways to use, whenever they disagree with the criticism, a technique known as steering in the direction the criticizer would prefer to go. That is, rather than just disagreeing without being disagreeable, the criticized person seeks to find a new choice of action that creatively utilizes some aspect suggested from the criticism. Steering cannot be incorporated into all situations, but it is an additional goal of the most mature individuals.
People who viewed the responses to criticism video recordings differed in age (from 10 to senior citizens) and the region of the country that they lived (mid-west, east coast, inner city, suburb or small town). Regardless of their age and where they lived, they rated people who displayed responses to criticism in a style consistent with the higher levels as more likable, respected and mature.
What level best matches what Smith did when he slapped Rock?
If your answer is level 1, I agree with you. In thinking about this, those who did the ratings in my studies explained their answer in a variety of ways. Some applied the golden rule, saying “I wouldn’t like it if I said something to somebody and it was perceived as a criticism, that they would strike me.” Others pointed out that you can be arrested for hitting someone and getting embroiled in a whole legal mess.
In a more recent reaction to what Smith did, Rock’s mother, Rose Rock, chimed in, saying in an interview with Live 5 News,
“The slap didn’t only hurt my son. When he slapped Chris, he slapped all of us,” she said, telling the station, “He really slapped me.”
Her point is that you often don’t just hurt the person you strike. Others completely innocent of any perceived wrong doing can be harmed as well.
Example of a Higher Level Response
Other than just saying he shouldn’t have done it, can we, upon looking at the five levels, envision what could have been a better alternative than slapping Rock. Here’s one possibility. He could have walked up to the stage and whispered to Rock, in a caring way, “Hey, brother, my wife is really having a hard time dealing with her hair issue, so, please, if you will, cut out any more jokes about her.”
Such a response would have provided an opportunity for Smith to express what he was feeling. It also probably would have convinced Rock to move on to other completely unrelated matters. In fact, by the time Smith had walked up to the stage, Rock had already begun to move on.
Smith might have still been criticized for interfering with the Oscar Academy’s schedule, but it would have been a brief two or three minute interruption, and I very much doubt such an approach would have been anywhere as harmful as what happened after the smack–having police officers ask Rock whether he wanted to arrest Smith for an assault, numerous media reports condemning his actions, harming Rock’s mom, and a ten-year suspension from attending any Academy event.
So, those are some thoughts for today. I hope you join us again right here at From Insults to Respect.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today, I would like to discuss a topic that has been bothering me for several months–politicians and their followers attacking President Biden for inflation.
Consider a press conference held by Senate Republicans this past July. At that time, they blamed the “insane tax and spending spree of President Biden and the Democrats for six straight months of raging inflation.”
As another example, on 3/10/22 I read this tweet by Florida Republican Rep. Vern Buchanan:
“Inflation just rose to 7.9% – another 40-year high! First they said it was ‘transitory,’ then they blamed supply chain issues, then they claimed inflation ‘is actually a good sign.’ And now it’s Putin’s fault. When will the WH admit they are to blame for #Bidenflation?”
In my research on this topic, I found there is far more nuance that was unfairly left out of the Republican press conference statement, this tweet, and other comments seeking to blame Biden. I’ll provide much of that nuance below. But first, to provide the reader with a sense of why this blaming upsets me, I’m going to share two brief personal stories that illustrate my values when it comes to blaming people.
My Two Stories
Story 1: Last summer I was in the mood to play a round of golf, so I checked the weather report. Seeing there was only a twenty percent chance of rain, I called three of my friends to see if they wanted to join me, informing them of the most recent weather report. They agreed to play.
Unfortunately, just as we stepped up to the first tee, it began to pour. A check on a weather map indicated it was going to pour for a good hour or two, so we decided to head home.
Feeling responsible for getting this group of guys to show up to play, I apologized. Each of my friends made it clear they were not blaming me, saying things like, “It’s not your fault, Jeff.” I very much appreciated and respected those words of support, especially because I know individuals who are quick to blame.
Story 2: One day I was with three friends on the way to a baseball game. The guy that was driving said he knew the way to the ball field, so the rest of us sat back, chatting about old times until we noticed it was getting pretty close to game time.
“How come we’re not there yet,” I enquired, at which point the driver admitted he was lost. We put our heads together, and finally got to the game, but only after the second inning. Obviously, the driver was largely responsible for our being late, although any one of us could have double checked the directions, rather than just assume the driver was not mistaken. In any case, after a few good natured teasing comments, all of us hastened to be supportive of our driver friend, saying things like, “Hey, everyone makes mistakes,” and then sharing incidents in which we were late because we had gotten lost in the past. I respect how we handled the situation.
Researching the Real Causes for the Current Inflation Problems
Dismayed at the blaming of Biden, whom I do believe is trying to do his best during terribly tough circumstances, I did some research on the causes of the current inflation situation. Checking multiple sources, which are readily available for anyone really interested in this issue, this is what I found.
Supply Chain Issues: By all accounts that I can find, shortly after the pandemic struck, and before Biden was sworn in as president, the annual inflation rate for most American purchases had already risen to the highest level in a decade.
Moreover, rising inflation isn’t just hitting the US. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, inflation among its 38 member states is heading higher. As Greg Rosalsky of NPR put it,
“Countries, big and small, conservative-led and progressive-led, are grappling with surging consumer prices as global demand outstrips supply. It’s one big global inflation-fest, and no single leader seems to have the power to stop it.”
The pandemic has disrupted every aspect of the global supply chain, from manufacturing and transportation to logistics, at a time when the pandemic has also sparked a buying spree. The problem is partly due to a decades-old business strategy that aims to keep inventories lean. While factories were on lockdown or navigating Covid-19 restrictions, raw materials were harder to get because of the sudden swell in demand. Shortages of just about everything cropped up, especially workers to unload goods and drive them to their destination. Very simply, the basic principle of economics that states, “when demand out paces supply, prices rise,” is currently in overdrive.
Lack Of Real Competition: About two-thirds of the largest publicly traded US companies reported fatter profit margins in the first nine months of 2021 compared with the same period in 2020, according to the Wall Street Journal. As costs for raw materials, labor, and transportation have increased in response to the pandemic, a lot of big corporations are not only offsetting those costs by raising prices on consumers, they are raising prices even higher, taking advantage of the pressing needs of consumers under pandemic conditions. These corporations can get away with this because Republicans have supported a lax antitrust enforcement policy that has put the concentration of economic power in the hands of a few giants.
Challenging Problem for the Feds: The department in the Federal Government that has the responsibility to guide the US through troubled waters is the Federal Reserve System. Among its most central roles is to promote the effective operation of the U.S. economy and, more generally, the public interest. It conducts the nation’s monetary policy to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy.
Jerome Powell, with impressive credentials, is the chair person of this system. Nominated for the position by former President Donald Trump in 2018, he was confirmed by Democrat and Republican Senators by an 84 to 13 vote. He is still serving in that position under President Biden.
So, the US government has had throughout the pandemic some of the greatest expertise in the country to guide our economic system. Despite this, neither they, nor experts in other countries throughout the world, have been able to prevent inflation woes.
Some Responsibility of the President? Now, my research did find that there are some moves that a president can make that just might have some rather minor effects on inflation. For example, there is a theory that government spending that leads to a larger national debt can be inflationary. But the evidence for this relationship is far from clear. For example, for the five years before the Covid pandemic the national debt was around 20 trillion dollars, while inflation was humming along at a comfortable and sustainable 2 percent. The last time the US had a serious inflation problem began in the mid-1970s and ran through the mid-1980s. It threw the country into a recession and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The national debt at that time was less than 1 trillion dollars. At least with the current bout with inflation, unemployment is currently below 4 precent.
With regards to spending money that raised the national debt, here are the facts. It is true that Biden signed into law a nearly two trillion dollar Covid relief bill at the beginning of his term over the objections of Republicans. This did indeed add to the national debt. But a fair minded person, it seems to me, would note that former Republican President Trump advocated policies that raised the debt significantly more than Biden. First, his tax cut that wasn’t matched with any spending cuts led to a trillion dollar increase in the national debt the following year, as was predicted by all of the major economists. Then came the pandemic during his administration and he quickly signed into law a $2.2 trillion relief package, followed by a $900 billion relief package. When we combine the increase in debt from Trump’s tax program with his pandemic relief spending, we come up with over 4 trillion dollars. All of this money sloshed into the economy before Biden took the oath of office.
During Biden’s presidency, he signed into law two other big spending bills, the first designed to improve infrastructure. The second, the Omnibus bill, is designed to keep the government open and also included aid for Ukraine. These bills were clearly bipartisan, passing the Senate 69-30 for the first, and 68-31 for the second.
If not Blame, How Better to Move Forward?
It seems to me, the extra money Congress approved to deal with the pandemic and signed into law first by Trump and then Biden was a good faith effort to prevent seriously worse outcomes if nothing was done. Rather than blaming either Trump or Biden for the mess, a mess much of the whole world is facing, the responsible thing to do going forward is to focus on what can be done to weather this period of rising prices. Biden has been responsibly doing just that.
His proposal, as expressed during his State of the Union Address, involves capping the cost of insulin to $35 a month and letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. Child care cost, that has been weighing heavily on families, would be cut in half for most families. This would help parents, including millions of women, who left the workforce during the pandemic because they couldn’t afford child care, to be able to get back to work. The enhanced Child Tax Credit, which was beefed up for 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, would be extended.
Additionally, his proposal calls for cutting energy costs for families by an average of $500 per year while also combating climate change. “Let’s provide investments and tax credits to weatherize your homes and businesses to be energy efficient and you get a tax credit for it,” he explained. Finally, his plan does not include having the government go into further debt. Rather, the cost for his proposal would be paid for by modest increases in taxes for people making over $400,000 a year.
Concluding Remarks
After finishing my research, here’s what I came to decide. For me to respect how Republicans are addressing the current inflation levels, rather than blaming anyone, they would either work in a bipartisan manner to quickly pass Biden’s proposals, or come up with a better plan that has the specificity of Biden’s. If alternatively, they respond with vague comments like, If Republicans were in charge we wouldn’t be in this mess, this would leave me with a frown.
In my opinion, the respectable, honorable, kind approach for our leaders to take to deal with the current economic conditions is to respond as my friends did when I invited them to play golf–be supportive of Biden, for we all can agree he has been trying to do his best to help the country get through hard times. Even if Republicans truly believe some of what Biden has done might have been mistakes, to gain my respect they would respond as my friends did when one of us made a mistake and got us lost–recognize we all make mistakes from time to time. In my opinion, it’s time to be cooperatively focussing on coming up with plans to get us out of the mess we are in.
How about you? Do you think it’s fair blaming Biden for the hard times we are facing? Is that really helpful for fellow Americans?
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Back in 2019, I criticized the use of “antipsychotics” and on Facebook someone criticized what I had written saying, “all of the research clearly indicates that the “antipsychotics,” when used by people diagnosed as having schizophrenia, decrease the risk of dying.” I then, very respectfully, asked that he supply me with the references that he is relying on to make his assertion, and within a very brief period, he did just that.
In looking at his list, I noticed immediately that he left out every one of the studies that provided strong evidence published in peer reviewed articles that suggest this class of drugs actually reduces longevity. For example, a 2007 study was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry titled “A Systematic Review of Mortality in Schizophrenia: The Differential Mortality Gap Worsening Over Time.” The authors wrote:
Mental health services have advanced in many parts of the world during the past few decades. Apart from a different mix of community-based care, the introduction of the second-generation antipsychotic medications [also referred to as atypical antipsychotics] in the early 1990s was initially found to be associated with better quality of life and reduced risk of relapse.77–79 More recent trials have questioned the clinical superiority of second-generation antipsychotic medication,80,81 and concern is now widespread about the adverse effects associated with these medications.82 In particular, compared with typical antipsychotics, several of the second-generation antipsychotics are more likely to cause weight gain and metabolic syndrome.83 Because the metabolic syndrome is associated with a 2- to 3-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality and a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality,84 these adverse effects would be expected to contribute to even higher SMRs [Standard Mortality Ratio] in the next few decades.85,86
After summarizing the many studies revealing these types of troubling findings, I then took a look at the studies that were cited by the person who criticized my position, and wrote up my findings (see HERE).
I don’t know where this person obtained his list, but it appeared to me, as I began to study it, that it was probably made by a pharmaceutical industry salesperson who goes to doctors’ offices to convince them to prescribe their drugs. I say this because there are articles on the list that had titles that sounded like they were relevant, but when reading them, they were not. For example, the first study on my critic’s list was published in The Lancet in 2018, and titled “Second-generation Antipsychotic Drugs and Short-term Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Placebo-controlled Randomized Controlled Trials.” It looked at 596 studies, all of which looked at patients that were randomly assigned to either an “antipsychotic” or a placebo for 13 weeks or less. For the patients in this analysis that had been labeled as having schizophrenia, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality between the two comparison groups.
Upon reading this article, I was left puzzled. Why was this article included in my critic’s list. As I have said, his contention was that every research paper published demonstrated “antipsychotics” decrease mortality for schizophrenia labeled individuals, which was not supported in this study.
In another study on the list, “Effectiveness of Antipsychotic Treatments in a Nationwide Cohort of Patients in Community Care After First Hospitalisation Due to Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder: Observational Follow-up Study,” published in 2006 in the British Medical Journal, the most important finding is that patients that were on “antipsychotics” for less than 6 months had a lower rate of dying than those who were on the drug for longer periods. The authors note this in the results section of their article with a single sentence, stating,”Patients who used antipsychotics for less than 6 months had especially low mortality rates.”
However, if you read just the abstract of the article, as many practitioners do because time reading research studies is not billable, you would find no mention of this statistically significant finding, a finding that could have life saving implications.
After completing my review of the various studies on my critic’s list, I concluded that the studies claiming support for the notion that “antipsychotics” increase longevity are seriously flawed and the weight of the evidence indicates they do just the opposite.
Since my analysis, Robert Whitaker, to my mind the premier science writer on psychiatric drugs, published an article in the peer reviewed research journal Psychological Medicine. The article is titled “Do Antipsychotics Protect Against Early Death? A Critical View” (see HERE). The journal is published by Cambridge University Press, and to read it you have to have a subscription to the journal. Fortunately, Whitaker has made his findings available for free HERE.
Whitaker’s article covers much of the same territory as my own, but he adds some insightful additional analyses so worth considering that I want my readers to become aware of its existence. After all, the information addresses life and death issues.
As I have said, Whitaker’s analysis is freely available. However, because he so thoroughly covers the relevant research it is rather long. Therefore, to make his analysis more accessible to a wider audience, below I provide a few of his summary statements.
Whitaker’s Summary Statements
As can be seen in the research summarized to this point, there are compelling reasons to conclude that these drugs contribute to early death. To wit:
Both first-generation and second-generation antipsychotics cause adverse effects that are known to increase the risk of dying from cardiac, respiratory, and endocrine diseases.
Psychiatric users of antipsychotics die at high rates from these somatic illnesses.
Non-psychiatric patients who use these drugs also die at elevated rates from these illnesses.
In both psychiatric and non-psychiatric patients, the use of antipsychotics doubles the risk of death in comparison to matched cohorts of patients who do not take the medications.
Studies of smaller cohorts of schizophrenia patients have found that antipsychotic use is associated with elevated rates of death, with this risk rising with higher doses and polypharmacy.
Suicide rates for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia are dramatically higher in the antipsychotic era than in the pre-antipsychotic era, and this risk soars during the first year after initial treatment with an antipsychotic in the hospital.
…A number of longer-term studies have found higher recovery rates for those off medication. Add in research findings that antipsychotics shrink brain volumes, with this shrinkage associated with cognitive decline and a worsening of negative symptoms, and psychiatry is confronted with an “evidence-based” crisis.
The “antipsychotics lengthen lives” research gave the field a new claim to hang onto and to promote. A treatment for a disease that increases survival…can lay claim to being effective. During a time of doubt, that is a conclusion that provides a sigh of relief—and comfort—for the field.
But as can be seen in this review, that belief arises from research that is flawed in so many ways. There is evidence, time and again, of a process that was designed to justify the long-term use of antipsychotics, rather than honestly assess their impact on mortality.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. Today we take a look at the experience of asking for help, which can be hard for some of us. As we do so, we’ll be utilizing the tremendously popular Beatles song, “Help” in order to bring to light some aspects of the experience in an entertaining manner.
The song was released as a single in the summer of 1965 and rocketed to the number 1 spot, as Beatles songs were apt to do. John Lennon passionately sings lead vocals, while getting ample help from his bandmates Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr.
The song begins with John crying out,
(Help!) I need somebody
(Help!) Not just anybody
(Help!) You know I need someone
(Help!)
Here, I notice that although John is crying out for help, he well recognizes that he doesn’t want it from just anybody. Being selective is wise because some people who might provide assistance can make your life ever worse. Let’s keep that in mind as we move on to consider the song’s other lyrics.
The next lines of the song go like this:
When I was younger so much younger than today
I never needed anybody’s help in any way
But now these days are gone, I’m not so self assured
Now I find I’ve changed my mind and opened up the doors
Here John says in the song that when he was younger he never needed any help. This may appear a bit puzzling for a couple of reasons. First, according to his own statements quoted in various biographies, John received quite a bit of help from his Aunt Mimi while he was growing up. Second, John, when he was younger, invited Paul to join his band presumably because he felt Paul could be helpful. So, he not only got a great deal of help when he was younger, he specifically asked Paul for help. The song’s lyrics up to this point do not reflect this. The puzzle is solved by discovering that John, in the song, is not referring to needing just any type of help. Instead, he is referring to needing one particular type of help, as we learn in the next verse.
Help me if you can, I’m feeling down
And I do appreciate you being ’round
Help me get my feet back on the ground
Won’t you please, please help me?
Here we see that John, in the song, is referring to seeking help for feeling down. In John’s culture, young folks liked viewing themselves as tough and never needing any emotional help. Asking for assistance for this type of problem could be viewed as being a sissy. Given this cultural attitude, it was rather brave of him to come out with a song such as this.
In the next verse, John shares some additional feelings about this.
And now my life has changed in oh so many ways My independence seems to vanish in the haze But every now and then I feel so insecure
I know that I just need you like I’ve never done before
The fear of admitting that you are emotionally feeling down and insecure is understandable given the culture John, and many of the rest of us, are brought up in. Nevertheless, John reveals in this song these feeling to the world. He also tells us he appreciates someone who is around to help him through this.
It was quite an eye opener to me as a boy growing up in Brooklyn. Being the toughest person around was viewed as the ideal. To learn that John could not only boldly reveal feelings of being insecure, and yet he continued to be adored by his fans, meant something important to me.
The song’s popularity is due in part to it relating that even someone as popular as John can feel so down he cries out for help. It led many of us to become aware we are not alone upon having similar feelings. It also reveals that asking for help need not mean we will end up being disrespected. However, as the opening lines of the song suggest, we might not want to ask just anyone for help. How then, do we pick the right person for this type of assistance? Although the song succeeds in raising this enormously important issue, it leaves us to seek out the answer for ourselves.
Typically, if the person you choose really cares about you and is a good empathetic listener, this will be a reliable guide to choosing well. However, taking a few moments to consider whether or not there is a downside to your choice may be worthwhile. To make this point vivid, let me tell you about some scenes from the movie Kramer vs. Kramer.
In it, Dustin Hoffman is playing a character named Ted Kramer who is going through a tough divorce. Because his boss had been a caring and good listener in the past, whenever Ted discussed work related concerns, Ted chooses to share with him how down he is as a result of going through the divorce process. His boss tries to sound interested, but inwardly is bored. As Ted continues over the course of several days to share his emotional difficulties with his boss, more and more boredom arises and he begins to doubt that Ted is going to be able to handle his job responsibilities as well as he had in the past. Ted ends up getting fired.
So, let this be a cautionary tale that motivates you to consider for a few moments whether or not there is a downside to whom you are leaning toward confiding with during hard times.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can clickHERE.
In an earlier post (see HERE) I made some rational arguments for people to consider resolving their conflicts in private whenever possible. For example, I mentioned a research study that found people are more likely to escalate an argument into a fight when spectators are around (“Impression Management and the Escalation of Aggression and Violence,” R. B. Felson, Social Psychology Review, 1982).
Rational arguments are important considerations as we go about choosing how to deal with social problems. So, too are emotional issues. With that in mind, today I thought we would look at the lyrics of Bob Dylan’s song “Let’s Keep It Between Us” that appears on his Springtime in New York album. There we find Bob tenderly explaining his feeling to his darling.
Bob’s Song
Utilizing a melody deeply influenced by the blues, and featuring an impressive intermingling of organ and guitar, the song’s first stanza goes,
Let’s keep it between us These people meddlin’ in our affairs, they’re not our friends Let’s keep it between us Before doors close and our togetherness comes to an end They’ll turn you against me and me against you ’Til we don’t know who to trust Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?
In these words, we see the singer’s utmost concerns. Involving others can lead to some taking sides, leading to confusion and thus their relationship might go kaput.
The next stanza reveals more of the singer’s feelings.
Let’s keep it between us We’ve been through too much tough times that they never shared They’ve had nothing to say to us before Now all of a sudden it’s as if they’ve always cared All we need is honesty A little humility and trust Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?
Those lines, as I interpret them, have to do with feelings that are missing in people who suddenly claim to want to help because they care. They don’t know about the shared tough times the lovers have experienced. Keeping these experiences alive, along with honesty, humility, and trust is sufficient, says Bob, to work through their problems.
Moving on to the next verse, Bob expresses his feelings that he and his darling have their faults, but so too do those seeking to help them.
I know we’re not perfect Then again, neither are they They act like we got to live for them As if there just ain’t no other way And it’s makin’ me kind of tired
Here we see Bob growing weary at seeking to live as others believe is right, while those offering advice have their own lack of perfection.
Let’s see where Bob goes from here in the next verse.
Can we just lay back for a moment Before we wake up and find ourselves in a daze that’s got us out of our minds? There must be something we’re overlooking here We better drop down now and get back behind the lines There’s some things not fit for human ears Some things don’t need to be discussed Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?
In the above stanza, Bob sings, “Can we just lay back for a moment.” Here he’s asking for time to experience the feelings that the two lovers have shared. These feelings, the singer says, don’t need to be discussed, though they may reveal something of value not noticed before. The two lovers’ shared experiences may yet offer some guidance on how to lovingly move forward.
The next few lines Bob expresses concerns about how much one can trust those who learn about the problems with his relationship.
They’ll tell you one thing and me another ’Til we don’t know who to trust Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?
The final two verses express the fear that involving others that lack knowing the true inner feelings of the lovers will be harmful.
Let’s keep it between us Before it all snaps and goes too far If we can’t deal with this by ourselves Tell me we ain’t worse off than they think we are Backseat drivers don’t know the feel of the wheel But they sure know how to make a fuss Oh, darlin’, can we keep it between us?
Can we keep it between us?
Thoughts
Bob’s expressive singing, music, and words powerfully capture some issues relevant to two lovers working through sensitive problems. Taking time to be mindful of the feelings of both partners is essential for maintaining love relationships. Combining them with more rational type arguments are often the most helpful approach.
Although not addressed in the song, in my opinion, there are some occasions in which it might make sense to consider conferring with a respected adviser such as a professional counselor. But a deep listening beforehand of how your partner feels about sharing certain information is an essential part of any process designed to effectively and lovingly resolve conflicts.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional and social intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Recently, I happened to be listening to Paul McCartney’s fine album, Egypt Station, and my emotions were stirred up by the straight away rocker, “Who Cares.” The first stanza, with its driving beat, sets up its theme:
Did you ever get hurt by the words people say And the things that they do when they’re picking on you? Did you ever get sad by the end of the day When they’re making you feel like a rusty old wheel
That’s been left in the rain
As you can readily see, the experience of being insulted is the song’s theme. As Sir Paul describes it:
With “Who Cares”, I was thinking about a song where you actually are talking to the people who may listen to it. And in my case I was imagining young fans, or young people who might hear this, and who are going through some sort of problem where they’re being picked on, being put on.
These days it would be internet bullying, trolls and all that. In my school days, it would have just been bullies and people just generally picking on each other. So I know that has happened all over the world to millions of people.
So my thing was to kind of try and help, try and help, almost kind-of give some sort of advice.
Now it just so happens that this blog has extensively discussed ways to skillfully respond to this type of experience (see HERE, HERE, and HERE for examples). Mastering such skills so they become second nature even in challenging emotionally arousing situations requires opportunities to practice them over an extended period of time in various fun ways. So, today, for all of you Paul McCartney fans, I thought it would be fun to discuss some relevant ideas with this relevant song.
Some Feelings and Thoughts That I Have When Listening To The Song
The opening verse asks if you ever feel hurt and sad when feeling insulted, which, of course, pretty much all of us have. One of Paul’s great talents is coming up with highly relatable songs, and this one is an excellent example.
Now, when we do feel we are being insulted, how do we go about acting wisely? Paul’s song suggests adopting the following attitude:
Who cares what the idiots say Who cares what the idiots do Who cares about the pain in your heart? Who cares about you? I do
This stanza suggests that we view those who are insulting us as if they are idiots, not worth spending any time on, and then we are to turn our attention to someone who cares about us in a positive manner. I remember when I was growing up some adults advocating such a strategy, and undoubtedly it has more merit than some others I can think of. For example, I once worked in a juvenile correctional facility and some of those confined there had, when feeling they had been insulted, violently attacked the insulter. Both of the parties in the exchange ended up physically hurt. Moreover, their physical violence led to the costly consequences of dealing with the justice system. So, relative to the violent approaches, Sir Paul’s is, in my opinion, way preferable.
Although, better than some strategies, here at From Insults To Respect, I’ve been advocating that readers add another tool to their resolving conflicts toolbox to deal with insults. What I mean by this is that I’m not suggesting throwing out of your toolbox the approach Paul’s song describes, for you may, after considering the situation, decide it is the one that makes the best sense. However, by adding to your toolbox the following approach, you may discover that many situations can be handled in a far better manner.
The Alternative Tool
Consider the possible benefits of not concluding right off the bat that the insulter is an idiot. Instead, you seek to transform any disrespect the insulter might have for you into him or her liking and respecting you. This involves taking up the attitude of a detective seeking to find out why the person had decided to seek to insult you, and then using some easy to learn techniques to skillfully respond to what you find out.
So, for example, some guy says something to you that strikes you as an insult. The first thing you do with this alternative approach is to shift into your detective attitude. You notice the guy doesn’t appear truly angry, and maybe he has a little twinkle in his eye. You then recall he throws out similar insults to others in a similar manner. The detective in you now guesses that this guy likes to throw out insults in a playful way to light a little spark in his relationships. Now that you have this theory in mind, instead of walking away with the attitude that this guy is an idiot, you smile at him, showing him you can gracefully take a little kidding without getting defensive. He ends up also smiling.
Consider another example. This time when you receive the insult, the detective in you recognizes that you have angered the person because you did make some type of mistake. Rather than walking away with the attitude that the insulter is an idiot, you decide, instead, to agree in a caring manner that you did make a mistake, express that you are sorry, and ask if there is some way you can make it up to the person. The insulter ends up appreciating that you are willing to take the responsibility for making a mistake, and respects you more for having done so.
One more example should suffice for now. This time, you receive an insult, and the detective in you is unable to quickly come up with the reason. You, therefore, have to do some additional detective work, by saying in a concerned voice, “It looks like I upset you. What did I do?” Then, listening in a caring manner to the insulter, and then summarizing what is said shows the insulter you care enough to take seriously what the issues are, and by doing so you can often quickly turn an angry fellow into someone who greatly likes and respects you.
There are several additional types of situations that lead to insults. Someone might be jealous of you, or the insulter is particularly irritable because of some highly stressful recent experiences.
By familiarizing yourself over the course of a few weeks with the typical reasons why people insult someone, the detective in you can become far better at quickly ascertaining what the reason is in any given situation in which you find yourself being insulted. Then, over a few more weeks, rehearsing several scripts, each one designed to handle the various reasons why someone might insult you, your confidence for handling such situations is enormously improved.
By now you are no doubt getting some idea of what this alternative method is all about. Clearly, it requires more from you than just thinking to yourself that the insulter is an idiot and walking away while reminding yourself of those who truly care about you. However, I contend that once you practice this alternative it becomes very easy to implement, often taking a mere few seconds, and is frequently very rewarding. At the top of this blog you can see how you can receive a free book titled, “Dealing With Criticism” that utilizes America’s favorite comic strips to teach you this alternative in a fun manner. The information you provide for signing up for the free book will never be shared or sold to a 3rd party. This blog and its educational materials are designed to be an open source resource and is completely free.
Getting back to Paul’s song
After the “Who Cares” lyrics that says, “Who cares about you? I do,” the song continues,
‘Cause you’re worth much more A fact you can be sure No need to hide The love you’ve got inside
This is a fine stanza that can help to bolster your pride, thus easing the hurt feelings you might be feeling from an insult. Regardless of what method you decide to use when dealing with an insult, it helps to keep in mind that just because someone insults you doesn’t mean you are a worthless piece of trash. That said, I do think that if you do take the time to learn to be an expert in dealing with these types of situations, it will lead to more people recognizing that you are a very worthwhile individual, and that can further bolster your pride and ease the sting of insults.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
As I write this, it is a few days before Christmas. The season finds me increasing my tips at restaurants. Somehow, in some vague kind of way, I kind of respect myself for doing so. I wonder why?
I’m not alone in increasing tip giving during the Christmas season. I know this first hand because during my Brooklyn College days I drove a taxi a couple of nights each week and during the holiday season people tipped me way better than usual. Is there something about this season that leads us to be more altruistic? There is a research study that suggests this is so.
Written by Mathias Ekström and published in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, the article, “Seasonal Altruism: How Christmas Shapes Unsolicited Charitable Giving,” provides evidence that the month of December is associated with a 14% increase in the probability people will make an unsolicited donation. In the study, half of the December increase in generosity persisted into January. Sadly, by February the increased rate of giving disappeared.
Charles Dickens
So, when Charles Dickens wrote, “I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year,” it appears most people fail to do so.
It is interesting that Ekström believed he was studying “altruism,” but what does that term really mean?
Definitional Issues Regarding the Meaning Of Altruism
In the psychological literature, there are basically two types of helping behaviors. The first is viewed as being activated by social expectations; the other—altruism—is viewed as being activated by self-expectations.
Social expectations are learned in the normal course of socialization. They are activated by explicit or subtle communications from others, or by one’s realization that one’s actions may be revealed to individuals from whom one hopes to earn respect. A crucial component of these social expectations is an implicit backing by social sanctions. Sanctions may be mild, remote, and even improbable.
Altruism, in contrast, is activated by self-expectations. Information about another’s need leads to the activation of internalized values or norms regardless of external reinforcement. Altruism is behavior that is intended solely to benefit others and not to gain material or social rewards.
In natural settings, altruism has been observed in human beings in settings such as disasters, and parents providing for their offspring. The helpers frequently report that they had made their altruistic decision solely based on a simple moral precept. Once the helper realized that someone required aid, and there was some obvious way help can be given, he or she promptly acted without deliberating alternatives.
Why Altruism Is Important
Altruistic behaviors help the human race thrive. The reciprocation of kind deeds help group members to get backup when needed.
It’s a wonderful thing that Christmas promotes altruism, even if it too often lasts only for a few weeks. Does it have to be that way? Here’s hoping we all find a way to honor Christmas throughout the entire upcoming new year.
———————————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
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.
United States v. Miller, Decided in 1939. There are three major Supreme Court decisions that reveal how the Justices’ views on gun rights developed over the years since the Constitution was ratified. Let’s begin with the U.S. v. Miller case.
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:
District of Columbia et al. v. Heller. Decided in 2008. In contrast to the argument that the Second Amendment refers to weapons that were only available at the time when the Second Amendment was ratified, a more recent case before the Supreme Court provided a different interpretation. Relying largely on the history of common law, which often gave people the right to bear arms for self protection, particularly in their own homes, and for hunting, opined that: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 & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL, Decided June 23, 2022. In the most recent gun decision by the Supreme Court, it ruled that: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 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019.
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 New York Times—12 cases out of 433, and none of these cases involved an armed bystander using an AR-15 weapon. In fact, having more than one armed person at the scene who is not a member of law enforcement can create confusion and carry dire risks. An armed bystander who shot and killed an attacker in 2021 in Arvada, Colorado, was himself shot and killed by the police, who mistook him for the gunman.
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 news bulletin came on indicating three police offices were shot and killed, and several others were wounded. 
Such incidents, which are up 19 percent this year, has led police departments around the country to be among the most vocal in pleading for more gun restrictions, explaining they are being outgunned by criminals. So, it is with this punch to the gut story, I close with the wish that all of my fellow citizens have a safe week.
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.
By now you must have heard about the slap heard around the world, it being so widely discussed on media reports and Internet forums. What I found concerning in these discussions is the absence of what Will Smith could have done differently to deal with his emotional response to his wife’s reaction to a Chris Rock joke other than “he shouldn’t have done it.”
The joke alluded to Smith’s wife, Pinkett Smith, possibly some day appearing in a new “G.I. Jane” movie because of her closely buzzed haircut that looks similar to the star of the first G.I. movie who had her hair buzzed as the cadet in the military role she was playing.
4. Level 4 individuals listen to the criticizer in a supportive, warm, friendly style, and then make it clear that they fully understand what was said. Moreover, they put the criticizer at ease by making statements that indicate that the wise learn from criticism. Some time is spent on showing that they are thinking about the criticism. If, after thinking about the criticism the criticism is deemed to be correct, they make a statement frankly indicating, “I can see your ideas have merit and I intend to use them in the future.” If they are not sure if they agree, they make a statement indicating that they are very interested in what was said, plan to think a little more about this over the next few days and then they will be ready to discuss this further. If, after thinking about the criticism, the criticism is deemed to be incorrect, a statement is made designed to disagree without being disagreeable. More specifically, a sense of humor, some listening in a caring way and a few smiles help to traverse rough terrain. As the episode winds down, the criticizer is encouraged to feel comfortable communicating suggestions in the future.
In a more recent reaction to what Smith did, Rock’s mother, Rose Rock, chimed in, saying in an interview with 
Consider a press conference held by Senate Republicans this past July. At that time, they blamed the “insane tax and spending spree of President Biden and the Democrats for six straight months of raging inflation.”
As another example, on 3/10/22 I read this tweet by Florida Republican 
Story 1: Last summer I was in the mood to play a round of golf, so I checked the weather report. Seeing there was only a twenty percent chance of rain, I called three of my friends to see if they wanted to join me, informing them of the most recent weather report. They agreed to play.
We put our heads together, and finally got to the game, but only after the second inning. Obviously, the driver was largely responsible for our being late, although any one of us could have double checked the directions, rather than just assume the driver was not mistaken. In any case, after a few good natured teasing comments, all of us hastened to be supportive of our driver friend, saying things like, “Hey, everyone makes mistakes,” and then sharing incidents in which we were late because we had gotten lost in the past. I respect how we handled the situation.
Dismayed at the blaming of Biden, whom I do believe is trying to do his best during terribly tough circumstances, I did some research on the causes of the current inflation situation. Checking multiple sources, which are readily available for anyone really interested in this issue, this is what I found.
Supply Chain Issues: By all accounts that I can find, shortly after the pandemic struck, and before Biden was sworn in as president, the annual inflation rate for most American purchases had already risen to the highest level in a decade.
Moreover, rising inflation isn’t just hitting the US. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, inflation among its 38 member states is heading higher. As 
Lack Of Real Competition: About two-thirds of the largest publicly traded US companies reported fatter profit margins in the first nine months of 2021 compared with the same period in 2020, 
Challenging Problem for the Feds: The department in the Federal Government that has the responsibility to guide the US through troubled waters is the Federal Reserve System. Among its most central roles is to promote the effective operation of the U.S. economy and, more generally, the public interest. It conducts the nation’s monetary policy to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy.
Jerome Powell, with impressive credentials, is the chair person of this system. Nominated for the position by former President Donald Trump in 2018, he was confirmed by Democrat and Republican Senators by an 84 to 13 vote. He is still serving in that position under President Biden.
The last time the US had a serious inflation problem began in the mid-1970s and ran through the mid-1980s. It threw the country into a recession and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The national debt at that time was less than 1 trillion dollars. At least with the current bout with inflation, unemployment is currently below 4 precent.
First, his tax cut that wasn’t matched with any spending cuts led to a trillion dollar increase in the national debt the following year, as was predicted by all of the major economists. Then came the pandemic during his administration and he quickly signed into law a $2.2 trillion relief package, followed by a $900 billion relief package. When we combine the increase in debt from Trump’s tax program with his pandemic relief spending, we come up with over 4 trillion dollars. All of this money sloshed into the economy before Biden took the oath of office.
His proposal, as expressed during his State of the Union Address, involves capping the cost of insulin to $35 a month and letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. Child care cost, that has been weighing heavily on families, would be cut in half for most families. This would help parents, including millions of women, who left the workforce during the pandemic because they couldn’t afford child care, to be able to get back to work. The enhanced Child Tax Credit, which was beefed up for 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, would be extended.
Back in 2019, I criticized the use of “antipsychotics” and on Facebook someone criticized what I had written saying, “all of the research clearly indicates that the “antipsychotics,” when used by people diagnosed as having schizophrenia, decrease the risk of dying.” I then, very respectfully, asked that he supply me with the references that he is relying on to make his assertion, and within a very brief period, he did just that.
Mental health services have advanced in many parts of the world during the past few decades. Apart from a different mix of community-based care, the introduction of the second-generation antipsychotic medications [also referred to as atypical antipsychotics] in the early 1990s was initially found to be associated with better quality of life and reduced risk of relapse.
I don’t know where this person obtained his list, but it appeared to me, as I began to study it, that it was probably made by a pharmaceutical industry salesperson who goes to doctors’ offices to convince them to prescribe their drugs. I say this because there are articles on the list that had titles that sounded like they were relevant, but when reading them, they were not. For example, the first study on my critic’s list was published in The Lancet in 2018, and titled “
However, if you read just the abstract of the article, as many practitioners do because time reading research studies is not billable, you would find no mention of this statistically significant finding, a finding that could have life saving implications.
The song was released as a single in the summer of 1965 and rocketed to the number 1 spot, as Beatles songs were apt to do. John Lennon passionately sings lead vocals, while getting ample help from his bandmates Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr.
(Help!) I need somebody
First, according to his own statements quoted in various biographies, John received quite a bit of help from his Aunt Mimi while he was growing up. 
Second, John, when he was younger, invited Paul to join his band presumably because he felt Paul could be helpful. So, he not only got a great deal of help when he was younger, he specifically asked Paul for help. The song’s lyrics up to this point do not reflect this. The puzzle is solved by discovering that John, in the song, is not referring to needing just any type of help. Instead, he is referring to needing one particular type of help, as we learn in the next verse.
Help me if you can, I’m feeling down
In John’s culture, young folks liked viewing themselves as tough and never needing any emotional help. Asking for assistance for this type of problem could be viewed as being a sissy. Given this cultural attitude, it was rather brave of him to come out with a song such as this.
It was quite an eye opener to me as a boy growing up in Brooklyn. Being the toughest person around was viewed as the ideal. To learn that John could not only boldly reveal feelings of being insecure, and yet he continued to be adored by his fans, meant something important to me.
It led many of us to become aware we are not alone upon having similar feelings. It also reveals that asking for help need not mean we will end up being disrespected. However, as the opening lines of the song suggest, we might not want to ask just anyone for help. How then, do we pick the right person for this type of assistance? Although the song succeeds in raising this enormously important issue, it leaves us to seek out the answer for ourselves.
In it, Dustin Hoffman is playing a character named Ted Kramer who is going through a tough divorce. Because his boss had been a caring and good listener in the past, whenever Ted discussed work related concerns, Ted chooses to share with him how down he is as a result of going through the divorce process. 
His boss tries to sound interested, but inwardly is bored. As Ted continues over the course of several days to share his emotional difficulties with his boss, more and more boredom arises and he begins to doubt that Ted is going to be able to handle his job responsibilities as well as he had in the past. Ted ends up getting fired.
In an earlier post (see 
With that in mind, today I thought we would look at the lyrics of Bob Dylan’s song “Let’s Keep It Between Us” that appears on his Springtime in New York album. There we find Bob tenderly explaining his feeling to his darling.
Before doors close and our togetherness comes to an end
Let’s keep it between us
I know we’re not perfect
Can we just lay back for a moment
They’ll tell you one thing and me another
Backseat drivers don’t know the feel of the wheel
Bob’s expressive singing, music, and words powerfully capture some issues relevant to two lovers working through sensitive problems. Taking time to be mindful of the feelings of both partners is essential for maintaining love relationships. Combining them with more rational type arguments are often the most helpful approach.
Recently, I happened to be listening to Paul McCartney’s fine album, Egypt Station, and my emotions were stirred up by the straight away rocker, “Who Cares.” The first stanza, with its driving beat, sets up its theme:
With “Who Cares”, I was thinking about a song where you actually are talking to the people who may listen to it. And in my case I was imagining young fans, or young people who might hear this, and who are going through some sort of problem where they’re being picked on, being put on.
Now it just so happens that this blog has extensively discussed ways to skillfully respond to this type of experience (see 
Who cares what the idiots say
For example, I once worked in a juvenile correctional facility and some of those confined there had, when feeling they had been insulted, violently attacked the insulter. Both of the parties in the exchange ended up physically hurt. Moreover, their physical violence led to the costly consequences of dealing with the justice system. So, relative to the violent approaches, Sir Paul’s is, in my opinion, way preferable.
Although, better than some strategies, here at From Insults To Respect, I’ve been advocating that readers add another tool to their resolving conflicts toolbox to deal with insults. What I mean by this is that I’m not suggesting throwing out of your toolbox the approach Paul’s song describes, for you may, after considering the situation, decide it is the one that makes the best sense. However, by adding to your toolbox the following approach, you may discover that many situations can be handled in a far better manner.
Consider the possible benefits of not concluding right off the bat that the insulter is an idiot. Instead, you seek to transform any disrespect the insulter might have for you into him or her liking and respecting you. This involves taking up the attitude of a detective seeking to find out why the person had decided to seek to insult you, and then using some easy to learn techniques to skillfully respond to what you find out.
The first thing you do with this alternative approach is to shift into your detective attitude. You notice the guy doesn’t appear truly angry, and maybe he has a little twinkle in his eye. You then recall he throws out similar insults to others in a similar manner. 
The detective in you now guesses that this guy likes to throw out insults in a playful way to light a little spark in his relationships. Now that you have this theory in mind, instead of walking away with the attitude that this guy is an idiot, you smile at him, showing him you can gracefully take a little kidding without getting defensive. He ends up also smiling.
Consider another example. This time when you receive the insult, the detective in you recognizes that you have angered the person because you did make some type of mistake. Rather than walking away with the attitude that the insulter is an idiot, you decide, instead, to agree in a caring manner that you did make a mistake, express that you are sorry, and ask if there is some way you can make it up to the person. The insulter ends up appreciating that you are willing to take the responsibility for making a mistake, and respects you more for having done so.
Then, listening in a caring manner to the insulter, and then summarizing what is said shows the insulter you care enough to take seriously what the issues are, and by doing so you can often quickly turn an angry fellow into someone who greatly likes and respects you.
‘Cause you’re worth much more
As I write this, it is a few days before Christmas. The season finds me increasing my tips at restaurants. Somehow, in some vague kind of way, I kind of respect myself for doing so. I wonder why?
I know this first hand because during my Brooklyn College days I drove a taxi a couple of nights each week and during the holiday season people tipped me way better than usual. Is there something about this season that leads us to be more altruistic? There is a research study that suggests this is so.
Written by Mathias Ekström and published in the Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 
In the psychological literature, there are basically two types of helping behaviors. The first is viewed as being activated by social expectations; the other—altruism—is viewed as being activated by self-expectations.
Altruism, in contrast, is activated by self-expectations. Information about another’s need leads to the activation of internalized values or norms regardless of external reinforcement. Altruism is behavior that is intended solely to benefit others and not to gain material or social rewards.
