Science Denialism

 Posted for Frank Snow, #6...

Science Denialism is an interesting topic to discuss, especially these days where these exact topics dominate the news and multiple social media platforms daily. “In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.” [1] In other words, choosing to not believe in something that has plentiful scientific research to back it is science denialism... (continues) 

Marcus Aurelius- Jordan Fraley #6

    Marcus Aurelius was known for being one of the greatest emperors of the Roman Empire, but he was not just an emperor. He was also known for being a very influential philosopher whose ideas are still relevant today. Marcus was not a teacher of philosophy like those of Plato and Aristotle he wrote meditations that were meant for himself not too be told to the masses. The book “Meditation” was his personal journal that he wrote in everyday just to help him keep his composure and be a good ruler. Marcus was one of the few rulers in the ancient world who had a strong focus on not becoming drunk by their power and abusing it over their people. 

But to understand Marcus Aurelius you have to know how his life progressed into becoming the emperor. Marcus grew up in the political field from a very early age after being taken in by a prior emperor Hadrian after impressing him. Hadrian adopted Titus Aurelius to be his successor and arranged to had Marcus be adopted under him. At the young age of 17 Marcus began 
working and learning with Titus who would later be known as Pius Antonius in the political field. Through many years Marcus built a name for himself in the Roman political system. He eventually worked his way up to being a consul in the Roman Senate which gave him a lot of authority. 

With Marcus growing up being liked and admired by the emperor it was almost destined for him to eventually become the emperor as well. Marcus grew up in the period of the five good emperors and was the last of them. There was a period in the Roman Empire where there were five continuous emperors who were deemed “good” and did not abuse their power. The emperors Marcus being the fifth were credited with bringing relative peace, stability, and growth to the Roman Empire. During this time period the Empire saw massive expansion of their territories not just gained through violence. 

The five good emperors were Nerva (96-98), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antonius Pius (138-161), and finally Marcus Aurelius (161-180). Marcus Aurelius was credited being the last of the five good emperors because after his death his son Commodus was co- emperor for him. After his death the Empire plunged into chaos with civil wars and many plans to overthrow the government and seize power for themselves. Eventually in 193 Commodus was killed and the throne was seized by Septimius Severus. This was the mark of the last of the good emperors because due to the wars during Commodus rule, he was not considered the sixth. 

Marcus though did not get a death that he deserved by being such an admired ruler as well as the influential philosopher he was his death was not suited. Marcus was not killed in battle but was murdered by his own soldiers. Marcus was known for having a multitude of health-related issues through his life and towards the end of his rule became deathly ill. Eventually when going into the European region Marcus’s own soldiers betrayed and killed him. After that the Roman Empire started to decline with it now being seen that treason and murder of your leaders was acceptable. 

Marcus Aurelius’ time as emperor prior to his death was no cake walk he dealt with what historians basically called twenty years of hell. During Marcus’s rule he faced complications with plagues sweeping the Empire as well as fiscal crisis. The disease that spread was thought to have been a break off of the smallpox virus. This stemmed from like any disease has the ability to spread but Rome was not the cleanest place in the world. That was part of the reason the Empire fell due to poor hygiene and disposing of feces in the streets. Not only were diseases a problem but Marcus was constantly having to deploy troops north to deal with constant Germanic invasions. They were invading the northern parts of Italy but luckily due to his cunning they repelled the invaders and did not lose and territory. 

Now as you can see Marcus Aurelius was what some might call a top tier leader, but he was also the same in the field of philosophy. He was not a self-proclaimed philosopher he merely had a book he wrote for himself to keep himself in line during his rule. His book “Meditations” was like a philosophical bible to that would help keep Marcus in line with what was important. Marcus was one to focus on finding purpose in life and living every moment to the fullest. He mentioned finding what you were passionate about and sticking with it so one day you don’t look back with regrets on things you didn’t do. 

Some of Marcus’s most influential parts of his “Meditations” was to not focus on what you cannot control but focus on what you can. This was a common practice among people who practiced stoicism. Marcus made all of his decisions as emperor with his stoic beliefs in mind he was one of the few who practiced what he preached. These beliefs he had helped him be the emperor he was with a stoic background it allowed him to step back and make clear headed decisions. The foundation of a stoic mind is stepping back from a state of chaos to reach a state of calm. 

Marcus Aurelius’ stoic beliefs and his “Meditations” book have remained influential up into modern day society. The ideas he wrote about appreciating life and finding meaning can be very important into our lives today. Today our lives can be extremely hectic and busy, so it is a good thing to remember to step back and find what is truly important and worth our time. As well as living our days like it is our last meaning live every moment like that is what everyone will remember you by. Thanks to Marcus Aurelius these few meditations can help give someone some perspective and insight into their lives. 

"Is Life Worth Living" by William James || Katie Farrell Final Blog Post

Is Life Worth Living?

    The short answer is that it depends on the liver. The poet James Thomson said, "this life holds nothing good for us, but it ends soon, and nevermore can be." He also said, "you are free to end it when you will." Thomson, along with others, shared the belief that if life is not worth living, you may end it as it will one day end anyways.

    William James, the author of "Is Life Worth Living," says, "what reasons can we plead that may render such a brother or sister willing to take up the burden again." If one considers that life is not worth living, how can we convince them otherwise? 

Is Life Worth Living? by William James

What Does Religion Suggest?

    A large part of our beliefs on this particular topic comes from religion. Those who hold religious ideas may believe that suicide is wrong and mustn't be done. Most religions will believe in a God or Gods that are the creation of all and hold that truth in high value. They will also put their meaning of life in hopes of seeing an unseen world such as heaven.

    Thomas Carlyle says that to see a healthy relationship in the universe, we must rebel against such ideas. Thomson agrees, saying, "who is most wretched in this dolorous place? I think myself, yet I would rather be My miserable self than He, Then He who formed such creatures to his own disgrace… from who it had its being, God and Lord creator of all woe and sin." James believes that when we let go of these firm beliefs, the idea of suicide is no longer monstrous but an immense relief.

    Many believe that religion is an inner need to believe that nature is a sign of something more spiritual and eternal and higher power than that of earth. In saying this, religion could prove life to be just as worthy of living if we are confident in our beliefs and have the patience to see this unseen world.

    Additionally, most religions are based on establishing a relationship with a higher being. With this, you live life in regard to that being. You work towards making a better world, a better life, and being a better person in the name of this being. That goal is what gives you meaning in life. And, in turn, makes life worth living.

    At the same time, if you take away this assurance, this need to believe in something more being out there, you are bound to extinguish the radiance of life, and the suicidal mood will soon set in. 

The Simple Joys in Life

    Walt Whitman wrote a piece on the simple joys of living: "to breathe this air, how delicious; To speak, to walk, to seize something by the hand; To be this incredible God I am!" Whitman chose to focus on the simple pleasures of everything around him: air, sun, and earth. Things we merely take for granted.

    Rousseau spent nine years at Annecy and wrote of his happiness there: "it was in no one assignable things: it was all within myself; it could not leave me for a single instant." Rousseau was able to experience such intense happiness in just how he lived. He even wrote about hard labor and leaving behind people with joy.

    Both of these people wrote about simply finding happiness in the things surrounding them, which is William James's point toward the end. He writes, "Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact."

Hedonistic Calculus

Is life worth living? = (add up all the pleasure) - all the pain

    Think of it as a scale. Does the pleasure outweigh the pain? Or is it the other way around?

    If one lives in constant torture, then life is not worth living, for they would be better off dead. If you think back to Ch. 4 of a little of history, we read that Epicurus believes that death won't be something that happens to you, saying, "death is not an event in life,

    Life is worth living if someone lives in constant joy and happiness. They would have no evidence otherwise. 

What is Happiness?

    Aristotle believed that true happiness did not come from a single incident but from added moments. He also answered the question "how should we live?" by saying that we should seek happiness. 

    But is a life long enough to seek true happiness? Seneca believed it was when faced with the remarks that life was too short; Seneca thought it was not too short. He says, "we are not given a short life, but we make it short, and we are not ill-supplied or wasteful of it. Life is long if you know how to use it."

Camus's Look on Life

    Albert Camus believed that the answer comes from meaning instead of pleasure. He says, "judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy." Similarly, Socrates says that what we sincerely want is not to do something but to be something. Camus believes that happiness is temporary, but the meaning is not. He says that meaning has three-part: coherence, purpose, and significance.

    The purpose is the pursuit of something important, a goal. It is a voluntary struggle. 

    Purpose gives us a reason to keep pushing.

    Significance is the favorable judgment of one's life value. It is the sense that life is worth living.

    Finally, coherence in making sense of the world. It is a structure in which to live. You must be stable in all aspects of your mind and physical beings.

    So how does one achieve this lifestyle? Design a life in which you want to live. Spend your time wisely. Surround yourself with people you can trust. Determine strong personal values and decide on a purpose that works towards aspiring to those values. 

    In saying all this, you might be questioning where you stand altogether. I return to my first answer: it all depends on the liver.

    Looking around at the world and the constant chaos we seem to be in, it is easy to answer the question with a "no." It is just as easy to forget the things that make it worth living. If you give yourself to the nightmares and evil in the world, then it is easy to get trapped in darkness. However, life is what we make it. 

    I do not intend to convince you that life is or isn't worth living. But to instead guide you towards making that choice on your own. To make that choice, you must look around at the life you live and your views on life.  

    If, in the end, you decide that life is not worth living, then you must then choose. Whether to change that. Or live in darkness.

    However, if you initially believe that life is worth living or decide to change it, you must continue working towards that view. You must continue working towards achieving happiness or meaning, or living in a living religion, whichever view you decide.

Sameria Bohanon Section #6 Final Blogpost

 Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History

on Gun Violence in America (42) 

Written by: Kurt Andersen  

Who is Kurt Andersen?

Kurt Andersen is an American writer, specifically, a Novelist radio host essayist and is the author of many New York Times, Best Sellers; in my class we read Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History, and another huge seller Evil Geniuses: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History. Kurt gave up his radio host show, "Studio 360” after 20 years. Today, he is still focusing on his work with writing and bigger things with New York Times.

Gun Violence in America (42)

Kurt Andersen's book Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History specifically covering Chapter 42 about Gun Violence in America. Kurt Andersen grew up on guns all his childhood life. Furthermore, Chapter 42 deeply emphasized the issues with guns in hands of people that don't use guns for the necessary use. They use them to take their anger out on another innocent person, more details we be spoke about as we continue to unfold the Gun Violence issues in America. Within Kurt Andersen's book they still continue to rise with influence and knowledge today.

Beginning with Kurt's childhood, he began with a cap gun and as he grew, he graduated to BB guns and then at his Summer camp, YMCA and at his great uncle's farm he had a .22 rifle. Kurt had fantasies and an obsession with his guns at a young age and memories with his dad and one of his oldest brothers. With his dad they took an old 3-inch pipe and recreated into an "improvised cherry-bomb-powdered mortar." With one of his oldest brother, his brother would want him to " run across the backyard so he could shoot me with a BB gun from 30 yards and watch me crumple in pain to the ground, which he excitedly said at the time “was just like a movie.”

To continue, as Kurt grew and became an adult, "he still enjoys hunting turkey and shooting skeet," as the text in Fantasyland states, "had him feeling little like Daniel Boone or Lord Grantham." To add briefly, Kurt Andersen stated in Chapter 42 about why people use guns for their reasons. As well as, Kurt means people will put themselves in these fantasy characters and can’t escape until they realize this is real life with true consequences behind your actions. I took a moment to think about that statement, because it’s so much gun violence in the world today, and the actions people commit. The aftermath having strong effect to the individual that this is real life and your actions have serious consequences.

In 1960-1990s,“ Gangsters and wannabe gangsters start holding and firing their handguns sideways, parallel to the ground.” And this further went into how directors wanted the actors to do so as well, appearing to look cool. In these time periods, mandatory to have a license to carry guns in the public was not enforced. As Kurt stated in the chapter, such killers are engaged in role-play and are motivated by our besetting national dream of overnight fame.” Actions as such occur because unhappiness within self, no self love for oneself. Unhappy with their flaws and who they are individually, pushing that angry onto another human being, the world. Committing horrible crimes is their way as Kurt Andersen states, "they will act with that fantasy in their mind so everyone will pay attention to them for the first time," more authority should be reestablished.

Proceeding to additionally information on Gun Violence in America, Kurt Andersen emphasized in his book about the upsetting, heartbreaking incident at Sandy Hooks Elementary School, where a man went to this elementary school and killed 20 first graders and 6 adults in 2012. A man by the name Alex Jones, a radio host, decided to say this event at the elementary school didn’t happened, all the grieving parents were actors and “a staged fantasy.” This was very sad to research and see, when there are grieving families on the news, and he speaks out about a real incident is a "staged fantasy."

Lastly, there were key dates throughout Fantasyland, when gun owning increased in media and the spread in public. In 1960s, directors enforced actors to hold guns certain ways in movies, to look cool. By 1970s, about half of Americans had a gun, and then in 1980 the 2nd amendment guarantees an individual’s right to have a gun only if it bears “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Finally, September 2017, Only about a quarter of Americans own guns.

Kurt Andersen highlighted so many issues with guns, and opened in-depth information about the Sandy Hooks incident. He believed that the government "cover up" so much and no information to the public and expect citizens to forget. American gun love, abides the law underlying 'American myths' that it all comes from action movies, applying all these emotions dealing with gun weaponry.

Gerges Basta #9 - The Dilemma of Determinism

 The Dilemma of Determinism

William James's Essay on Determinism and Free-Will

There is an interesting little story that the Greeks told about Oedipus, which you may be familiar with if you've taken some English classes. Long story short, Oedipus was prophesied to kill his father and marry his mother. Knowing this information, Oedipus's father decides to leave baby Oedipus into the woods to die but didn't kill him himself so that he doesn't carry the guilt of killing his own son. That fails, actually, as a family would find Oedipus and adopt him. Fast forward to the future, a more grown Oedipus learns of this prophecy and leaves his adopted family so that he doesn't kill his adopted parents. He later finds a man whom he kills - who happens to be his biological father - and then marries the widow - who happens to be his biological mother. All while having no idea of it the entire time.

Sure this story is a bit disturbing, but to philosophers it carries an important message:

You can not escape fate. 

Determinism vs. Free-Will

This notion of fate comes from the idea of Determinism, but what is that?

Determinism is the idea that all of our actions have already been pre-determined for us. In other words, determinists would argue that you have no free-will at all when it comes to the decisions that you make. 

You may have decided to go to the mall today, but to a determinist, that wasn't your choice. You were pre-destined to do that. This idea is that we are spectators of our own lives, and we do not control any of our choices. 

Free-Will, by the libertarian (not the political party) definition, is the exact opposite. 

Libertarians argue that we have control over our own actions because many times we just decide what we want to do with our time. We simply feel free. 

In the example of the mall, you can choose to go the mall on your own. Nobody forced you, you just chose to go to the mall because you simply wanted to go the mall.

This video explains Determinism and Free Will into more detail.

William James's Argument 

To understand William James's argument in his essay, The Dilemma of Determinism, you must understand that he disliked the idea of Determinism for various reasons.

To start off, he thought it was just sad. How is life worth living if your entire life is just you spectating yourself? How does one improve as a person if you can not make those choices on your own? 

William James then brings up two thought experiments to disprove Determinism:

1. After his lectures at Harvard, William James has to pick from one of two roads to go home. Both roads have equal benefit, so which route is more necessary to the over arching timeline? If both routes have equal benefit then how does nature determine which route he should take? But if both routes have equal benefit then wouldn't that mean we have some free-will?

2. At the time of his essay, there was an incident where a man had brutally killed his wife and children in cold blood. William James then poses a question to all hard determinists in his class: What benefit did we receive from this incident and, given that we live in a deterministic world, could we blame the guy for this murder? In other words, would the killer be morally responsible for his actions?

Remember, if we live in a deterministic society, then all of our choices were made for us so then we couldn't blame them for actions that they didn't really choose to make.

A more contemporary philosopher - Greg Caruso - attempts to respond to some of James' arguments.

In short Caruso challenges the notion of free-will by challenging our way of thinking about Determinism.

Caruso seems to assume that our actions are pre-determined because of a cause and effect chain, and he takes that and puts it into the practical use of morality in criminals. He starts off by saying that the world isn't really "just" and its just not fair to everyone - we all have different starting points that helped us get to where we are, so why assume any different for a criminal? Caruso then challenges us to think about criminals as victims of a poor system (the U.S. judicial system to be more specific) and realize that because of our policies we give no choice to criminals. He then proceeds to argue that instead of placing all of our effort into arresting criminals - which he claims doesn't really prevent crime - we should try and provide families with the support they need so that people will not become future criminals! Of course, we can still arrest some of those that can't be helped as long as it improves society but we should focus most of our attention on supporting people. 

As you can tell there are some flaws in this argument which James will likely argue against. First off, what if we took the criminals and changed it to something more much more serious, such as Hitler or Putin? How do you help those people and how do you stop them? With the harm brought up as a result of the actions of these dictators, why would nature create these people? The second argument William James would make is probably just by calling out the idea that we need to rethink some of our policies and to rethink some of our own mindsets. If we have no free will, how would we rethink anything?

Discussion Questions

What do you think? Do we live in a deterministic world or do we get to make our own free choices? Perhaps you may believe we live in a bit of a hybrid world? 

If you are a determinist, how would you respond to James's arguments above?

Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian 1927

     Why I Am Not a Christian was a lecture given on March 6, 1927 at Battersea Town Hall for the National Secular Society's South London Branch. But first let us talk about the man behind the essay cum lecture known as a British philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell.

Battersea Town Hall

   Bertrand Russell

    Bertrand Russell lived for almost a hundred years from 1872-1970. Russell studied at Cambridge University for Mathematics and Philosophy. Along with G.E. Moore he was a founder of Analytic Philosophy and his most notable student Ludwig Wittgenstein. He's a major pacifist who opposed fighting in both World Wars and even went to prison for it in World War I. During World War II he changed his views about fighting and deemed defeating Hitler as a necessary evil. Bertrand Russell's most renowned works include The Principles of Mathematics, Principia Mathematica, The Analysis of Mind, The Analysis of Matter, Power: A New Social Analysis, and of course Why I Am Not a Christian. For his various works he received the Nobel Prize of Literature in 1950.

Why I Am Not a Christian

    This essay is an argument Bertrand Russell made against theism and why he does not believe in God or immortality. 

    His dispute against the First Cause Argument is that it holds no validity. His father taught him the question "Who made me?" has no answer, due to there being a follow up question of "Who made god?" Russell believes that if everything were to have a cause then so must god. He concludes that there doesn't need to be a cause or reason for anything to exist. 

    When it comes to the natural law argument, which states a higher being, whether it be god or otherwise created laws that the universe is beholden to. He asks why only these natural laws were made and why there were no others. Russell find that these natural laws are actually statistical averages that came from chance.

    Regarding the argument from design Bertrand is convinced that the environment was not made to suit living beings. On the contrary, because of Charles Darwin we found that creatures evolved to suit the place they live in. 

    When it comes to Christianity, Bertrand Russell does not believe in everlasting punishment and this vies against the belief in hell. He finds that hell is an extremely cruel doctrine that gave the world ages of cruel torture. Especially so when hellfire awaits people just for not believing in Christ. Does this conclude that all people are born wicked unless we were to hold to the Christian belief? When it comes down to who is truly wicked it is more often than not that they are zealots, be it a zealot of faith or country does not matter. 

    Bertrand Russell finalizes his speech by asserting a moral system not based on religious texts, but wisdom, courage and care. He wants us to look forwards to the future in hope while not being held back by what he calls a "past that is dead". 

The speaker in this video is not Bertrand Russell

    Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian has sparked a whole slew of other works from different authors with similar titles like Why I Am Not a Muslim. In my eyes it wasn't just Christianity he was against, but all other religions. He specifically picked out Christianity, because of his background of being raised by his grandmother who was a devout Christian. Russell does not say he is a hundred percent certain that there exists no god, but that there is no evidence that he can see that supports it. Just like with his analogy about there being a teapot between Earth and Mars even if you cannot see it, it doesn't mean it does not exist. Below is a video that can better describe Russell's Teapot.

Sources:

Britannica: Bertrand Russel

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Bertrand Russell

Why I Am Not a Christian Text

Magical Thinking in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street - Joseph Greene #6

 

For my final blog post I’m going to be talking about my speech topic which was over chapter 45 of Fantasyland. Chapter 45 is titled the economic dreamtime. The content of the chapter is mainly centered around the 2008 financial crisis, but the overall focus is on the idea of magical thinking. The 2008 financial crisis is a prime example of what happens when magical thinking gets the best of us.

Magical thinking is something we’ve all experienced at one point or another. Britannica defines it as, “the belief that one's ideas, thoughts, actions, words, or use of symbols can influence the course of events in the material world.” Some common examples of magical thinking could be knocking on wood, thinking that walking under a ladder brings bad luck, making a wish before blowing out candles, or crossing your fingers. Magical thinking is not always a negative thing, but it definitely was In the case of the 2008 financial crisis. 

Simplicable.com broke magical thinking down even further to 11 types: Suspension of Disbelief, Illusion of Control, Technology as Magic, Regression Fallacy, Placebo Effect, Self-Deception, Texas-Sharpshooter Fallacy, Correlation Equals Causation, Creativity, and Synchronicity. The 2008 financial crisis could be defined as a suspension of disbelief because of the way people “…put critical thought on hold in order to experience joy and wonder.” To briefly explain some of the others that might not be self explanatory, the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy can be explained as reading too much into patterns that are only random chance, and Self-Deception can be explained as ignoring evidence that conflicts with your self-image.

The 2008 financial crisis began long before 2008. America has a history of risking a lot in the name of magical thinking. It is engrained in some of the most famous American stories. Virginia gold hunters, overbuilt railroads, the stories go on and on. We'll start in the early 20th century. The great depression and the world wars meant that Americans in the early 20th century spent a lot of time essentially in survival mode. It was a hard time for many people financially. Things gradually began to improve over the years. American industry was on the rise and was making innovations on a global scale boosting the American economy. This meant that by the early 90’s and 2000’s many Americans were In a much better situation financially than their parents and grandparents before. 

The prime interest rate fell 20% from 1981 to 2004 and made credit much more accessible for many Americans. Technology and other industries were rapidly evolving and constantly pushing new products on the market for consumers to buy. With their credit and extra cash the culture of consumerism in America was being pushed to new frontiers. The housing market was no exception. A complex web between home owners, mortgage lenders, banks, investors, credit ratings agencies, and insurers became quickly unstable due to risky and unbalance moves all around. Soon the housing bubble burst and prices fell, leaving many people paying a mortgage in a range much higher than their house was currently worth. This lead to people defaulting on loans and began the collapse of the web. 

The Wall Street Journal has a video where one of the richest people in the world, Billionaire investor and CEO Warren Buffett, explains the 2008 financial crisis. In it he describes it as “a mass illusion to think it could go on forever.” I think that is a perfect way to describe it because as I mentioned earlier it was a large web of different parts contributing to the collapse in their own risky and naive way. The full story is much more complicated than I could portray but it is saturated with magical thinking throughout. The Federal Reserve stepped in and enacted TARP which was a program to help lend money to financially sound banks in need. Along with that, congress passed a stimulus package in 2009 to pump money into the economy. The government did what they could to help the economy but the impact of the 2008 financial crisis is still there. When we look back at the 2008 financial crisis we should be reminded of how it all happened much in part to magical thinking.

As I mentioned previously, magical thinking is not always a bad thing. Upon first thought we might think of magical thinking as an immature or childish behavior. Even Jean Piaget, a developmental psychologist, suggested that children start to grow out of magical thinking around age 10. However some people suggest that is merely evolves as we grow older. Often times it evolves into much more destructive and negative ways of magical thinking. For most of our lives we are learning from someone who is older than us, but I believe that we also have a lot to gain from those younger than us as well. I think that adults have a lot to gain from childlike magical thinking.

Many people consider magical thinking to be an evolutionary trait that we’ve developed to our advantage. We can use it to cope with anxiety and stress by giving us a sense of control and agency. For instance if you might have a lucky pair of socks that you wear on important days to help you stay calm and reduce anxiety. You could even give the example of praying. Whether you are religious or not, believe that prayer “works” or not, prayer can help by not only making us feel as if we’ve done what we can in the situation but it also cast some of the responsibility to whoever or whatever you’re praying to. We can also use it to be creative and engage our imagination. 

Magical thinking is a double edged sword. Equally as powerful, whether positive or negative. The 2008 financial crisis is a perfect example of just how powerful, and out of control, magical thinking can get. I hope we can all learn a lesson from it and seek to become more aware of out of control magical thinking and more capable of positive magical thinking.

Gun Violence in America by Karmina Ghobrial

 

    Gun violence in America has been relevant for years and continues to become more relevant by the day. Guns have become part of American society as well as the main topic of many political debates. While my final presentation prefaced this subject, I'd like to dive deeper into the issue. 

  

  Whenever the topic of gun violence comes up, everyone always refers to the second amendment. It 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." While about a third of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, people decide to understand this in one of two ways. One, they focus on, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," understanding it in the way that every individual has the right to bear their own firearm as a constitutional right. Two, people emphasize, "A well regulated Militia," referring to local, state, and federal legislative bodies and not the individual. 

    

    That leads me to two important court cases that weighed more on one side of the debate than the other. In the United States v. Miller case in 1939, where Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged when transporting a sawed-off double-barrel 12-gauge shotgun in interstate commerce, the Supreme Court concluded that holding the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. This is because the shotgun doesn't have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. This led Congress to be more strict on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms. 

    This was until 2008 when the topic was revisited in the case of District of Colombia v. Heller. This case referred more to the individual in light of self-defense. Heller was a police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty, and after applying for a one-year handgun license to keep at home and his request is denied, he sued the District of Colombia. The U.S. Court said that the Second Amendment protected his right to keep a firearm at home for self-defense, and the District of Colombia's requirement that firearms kept at home needed to be nonfunctional went against that. 

    With all the debate around guns in America, it doesn't come as a surprise that gun violence is so evident. Not only by mass shootings, but by homicide, suicide, and even accidental shootings. 

    Looking back to 1996, 34,040 people died from gun violence in the United States. 54% from suicide, 41% from homicide, and 3% unintentional. Then, looking at the graph above, there were 43,551 total deaths in the year 2020, including mass shootings. It's said that the U.S. has made improvements since the 1990s in reducing gun violence, but it is still obviously very apparent.

    At the University of Texas at Austin in 1966, the deadliest mass murder in United States history up to that point took place. Sixteen people were killed and thirty-one were wounded by a bolt action rifle and semiautomatic weapons. Now, the deadliest mass murder is the one I've already mentioned, the Las Vegas, Nevada shooting in 2017. Fifty-eight were killed and five hundred forty-six were injured in the country music festival, where people were supposed to be enjoying their time.

    We're continuing to see shootings all over the news, and while people were saying that Covid slowed down the rate of the shootings, numbers are still seen increasing. The video above was from just 10 days ago. 

    When it comes to mass shootings in schools, like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a lot can be learned. Mass shootings in schools are more rare events in comparison to other gun violence issues, but they leave an intense impact on every aspect of the school, their families, and community life. It leaves behind trauma, depression, grief, and heartache. And it's all initiated by the access to the gun. Of course, the shooter is going through their own struggles and thoughts that lets them begin to think of pursuing something like this, but the access to the gun gives it the opportunity to become a reality. That is why it is so important that from a young age, kids should be learning gun safety and being informed of the things that are difficult to hear about. 

    And to put it in retrospect, mass shootings, as often as they seem to happen, make up the smallest portion of all gun violence.

    Suicide makes up the largest portion of all gun violence. More than sixty percent of gun deaths each year are by suicide, and three percent of hospital visits each year are due to a nonfatal gunshot wound from a suicide attempt. The easy access that so many people have to guns takes away a second chance of life for someone who is struggling. When you take the firearm out of the equation, only four percent of suicide attempts actually result in death, and in comparison, ninety percent of gun suicide attempts result in death. Around 24,000 Americans die each year from gun suicide, including more than 3,100 young people and 4,400 veterans, with an average of 64 deaths a day, and it only increases every year.

    Moving on to homicides, which result in almost as many deaths as suicides, there are multiple aspects to approach it from. Firearm homicide rates are 25.2 times higher than other industrialized countries. In the past decade, 126,292 Americans died due to this reason, more than twice as many Americans as were killed in the Vietnam war. Different factors to this large statistic that increase the risk of gun violence include adverse childhood experiences, access to guns, access to alcohol, domestic violence, economic inequality, exposure to violence, trauma, and the list goes on and on. 

    

    

    Adding the access to a gun into an equation of things such as domestic violence leads to increased rates of homicide. Half of the women murdered by their current or former partners are killed by a firearm. Women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser when their abuser has access to a gun.

    Gun violence doesn't just happen. There are reasons that fuel it. According to this article, structural inequalities are caused by racist policies that target communities of color and create segregated and underinvested neighborhoods. Discrimination, income inequality, poverty, underfunded public housing, under-resourced public service, lack of opportunity and perceptions of hopelessness, and easy access to guns all fuel gun violence. 

    When choosing to own a gun for your own safety and for self-defense, take extra steps of precaution. Make sure you understand how to keep you and those around you safe. It is not rare that kids find guns in the home, like the Sandy Hook shooting, and fire it not knowing any better. If one aquires a gun for safety reasons, you have to be safe with the gun itself. 

    It has become too easy to have a gun in hand. To care for our community and our future generations, change needs to happen. 

Final Blog Post

Karmina Ghobrial, #9