"Meanwhile I Was Still Thinking" -- Rock Artists Defy Donald Trump

Just as Donald Trump employs flags and hats and tweets to promote his vitriolic and self-professed patriotic “Make America Great Again” agenda, he also plays rock music at his rallies to promote himself as a figure in tune with the musical culture.

This jingoism is particularly offensive when artists by the dozens have protested to Trump's use of their music and his unsolicited association with their names. To blocking him from using their songs to using their names while speaking out about his divisive messages, these musicians have opposed Trump. In his egotistical manner, it seems Trump seldom listens.

This opposition has been going on long before Trump took office. And, once he was elected, it continued. Consider that barely anybody wanted to perform at his inauguration, and the ones who did were pretty much “ho-hums” – country artists Toby Keith and Lee Greenwood, rock groups 3 Doors Down and The Piano Guys. In fact, many artists publicly declared they would not perform if asked while others received considerable backlash for agreeing to appear.

In this post, I will report about the views and actions of rock artists who denounce Donald Trump. These are only a few of the musicians who do so. Many more exist, and artists from other genres of music – hip hop, R&B, jazz, etc. – oppose Trump.

I do not condone name calling or some of the raw language used by these artists; however, to omit the facts would distort the actual response of these rockers. So, for your curious minds, here are the remarks and actions of some rock musicians who have been in conflict with Donald Trump.

Elton John

Although Trump has a fascination with Elton John, Elton is a noted Trump detractor who publicly denounced his songs being used by Trump. This came to light when the then-presidential hopeful would frequently use “Rocket Man” and “Tiny Dancer” as warm-up music for his campaign rallies. John said: “I’m British. I’ve met Donald Trump, he was very nice to me, it’s nothing personal, his political views are his own, mine are very different, I’m not a Republican in a million years.” John said, before laying down a truly exquisite burn. “Why not ask Ted fucking Nugent?”

R.E.M.

“Go fuck yourselves, you sad, attention-grabbing, power-hungry little men,” Michael Stipe said in a statement tweeted by the band’s bassist Mike Mills after 'It's The End Of The World…' was used at a Tea Party rally. “Do not use our music or my voice for your moronic charade of a campaign.” Mills added, “the Orange Clown will do anything for attention. I hate giving it to him."

Neil Young

“Donald Trump was not authorized to use 'Rockin in the Free World' in his presidential candidacy announcement," read a statement from Neil Young after Trump did exactly that. Even though Young acknowledged he has no legal means to stop him. “I asked him then, in a widely shared, public letter to cease and desist,” Young writes. “However, he chose not to listen to my request, just as he chooses not to listen to the many American voices who ask him to stop his constant lies, to stop his petty, nasty name calling and bullying, to stop pushing his dangerous, vilifying and hateful rhetoric.”

David Crosby

Neil Young's CSNY bandmate Crosby summed up the above gaffes pretty succinctly: “Donald Trump has picked a fight with the wrong guy ...bad idea.” The founding member of The Byrds and Crosby, Stills and Nash told CNN’s Chris Cuomo he believes Trump has sunk to “a brand new level of low” because he has “no morals,” “no restraint” and “no intelligence.”

Cher

At an event in support of Hillary Clinton in Massachusetts, Cher voiced her concerns for minorities about Trump's campaign for the presidency. "He doesn't mean we want to 'Make America Great Again,'" she said. "He means: 'We want to make America straight and white'. He just says the weirdest shit... I just think he's a fucking idiot."

In an interview with Billboard, Cher said, "I don't like anything about Donald Trump. It's a joke at a time when you really need serious people."

The Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones refused to allow their music to be part of Trump's campaign. After watching the Republican candidate walk out to "Start Me Up" after his Indiana primary victory and continuously using "You Can't Always Get What You Want" and "Brown Sugar," the band had enough. "The Rolling Stones have never given permission to the Trump campaign to use their songs," a rep for the band told Billboard.

The Stones had to release statements not once, but twice, demanding Trump immediately “cease all use” of their songs, eventually clarifying that they “do not endorse” the nominee after he kept using their tunage “without the band’s permission.”

Mick Jagger eventually conceded that there was no effective way to get Trump to stop using their music, equating the usage to something a theater or restaurant does as background noise: “They can play what they want … you can’t stop them.”

Bono

U2 front man Bono compared Trump to a casino owner. “Look, America is like the best idea the world ever came up with. But Donald Trump is potentially the worst idea that ever happened to America, potentially... America is an idea, and that idea is bound up in justice and equality for all - equality and justice for all, you know? I don't think he's a Republican. I think he’s hijacked the party, and I think he’s trying to hijack the idea of America. And I think it’s bigger than all of us... People of conscience should not let this man turn your country into a casino.”

Bruce Springsteen

The Boss said: "The republic is under siege by a moron, basically. The whole thing is tragic. Without overstating it, it's a tragedy for our democracy." He told Gayle King of “CBS This Morning”: "The stewardship of the nation is – has been thrown away to somebody who doesn't have a clue as to what that means. … And unfortunately, we have somebody who I feel doesn't have a grasp of the deep meaning of what it means to be an American."

Tom Morello

In an introduction to folk singer Ryan Harvey's song, 'Old Man Trump', the Rage Against The Machine guitarist said, "I'm standing up against Old Man Trump. When it comes to race relations, he's like an old-school segregationist. When it comes to foreign policy, he's like an old-school napalmist. When it comes to women's issues, he's like a frat house rapist. So let's not elect that guy."

Roger Waters

“He is pig-ignorant and he always was and he always will be,” said the ex-Floyd campaigner. During Waters's shows (2017), giant images of Donald Trump, which depict the US president with lipstick, breasts and wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood, were beamed up on a giant screen: a selection of the most offensive Donald Trump quotes about, for example, Mexico and women were then screened followed by the words “F**k Trump.”

Katy Perry

During the first presidential debate, Perry voiced her support of Hillary Clinton on Twitter, quoting the Democratic nominee's best comments to Trump – like "You live in your own reality" – and later appearing in a video encouraging people to vote, naked or not. Perry said (November 2018) Trump’s response to the wildfires spreading across California was “absolutely heartless.” She continued: “There aren’t even politics involved. Just good American families losing their homes as you tweet, evacuating into shelters.”

Madonna

Madonna showed her appreciation for Donald Trump by getting a piñata in his likeness for her 11-year-old son's birthday. She also defended her friend Rosie O'Donnell after Trump doubled down on his ongoing feud with her. "Mess with my girl Rosie," she tweeted, "and you're messing with me!!! Cruelty never made anyone a winner." Madonna now lives in Portugal, telling Vogue Italia she moved her family because they "needed a change." She said, "I wanted to get out of America for a minute—as you know, this is not America's finest hour,

Adele

Adele's camp sent a cease-and-desist letter to keep her No. 1 hit "Rolling in the Deep" and other singles from being used at Trump's political rallies. In a statement to Billboard, Adele's camp said: "Adele has not given permission for her music to be used for any political campaigning."

Queen

Queen condemned the repeated usage of their beloved jam “We Are the Champions” during Trump’s stage appearance at the Republican National Convention and beyond. “I can confirm that permission to use the track was neither sought nor given,” Brian May, one of the band’s three surviving members, explained. Trump continued to use “We Are the Champions” in the months leading up to the election. “We are frustrated by the repeated unauthorized use of the song after a previous request to desist,” they collectively said, “which has obviously been ignored by Mr. Trump and his campaign.”

George Harrison’s Estate

The estate of George Harrison immediately denounced the “unauthorized” use of the Beatles’ “Here Comes the Sun” — which was written by Harrison for Abbey Road — as walk-on music for both Trump and his daughter Ivanka. “It’s offensive and against the wishes of the George Harrison estate,” Harrison’s official Twitter wrote. “If it had been ‘Beware of Darkness,’ then we may have approved it!” Burn!”

Aerosmith

Twice in 2015, Steven Tyler’s reps presented Trump with a cease and desist letter for his frequent use of “Dream On” at rallies and campaign stops, a song that often resulted in Trump trying to air-drum the instrumental parts. Following a few months of back-and-forth, Trump eventually relented and stopped using the power ballad, confirming his decision in one of his signature Twitter musings: “Even though I have the legal right to use Steven Tyler’s song, he asked me not to. Have better one to take its place!”

Fellow Aerosmith members Steve Perry and Joey Kramer are vocal Republicans, with Kramer, in particular, being a major Trump supporter. Did this encourage Trump to continue?

Later, Trump used the 1993 “Livin’ on the Edge” at his recent presidential rallies around the country. “What makes this violation even more egregious is that Mr. Trump’s use of our client’s music was previously shut down, not once, but two times, during his campaign for presidency in 2015,” the heated letter from his attorney Tyler's read, in part. “Mr. Tyler’s voice is easily recognizable and central to his identity, and any use thereof wrongfully misappropriates his rights of publicity.” Tyler’s attorney also asserts that the original cease and desist letters were ignored by Trump, ever so rudely.

Prince’s Estate

Prince’s estate issued a statement on October 13 warning both Trump and the White House never to use “Purple Rain” after the president played it at one of his pre-midterm election rallies. “The Prince Estate has never given permission to President Trump or The White House to use Prince’s songs and have requested that they cease all use immediately,” Prince’s half-brother and of one his heirs, Omarr Baker, wrote. “The Prince Estate will never give permission to President Trump to use Prince’s songs.”

Don Henley

The former Eagles star made his feelings about the election clear during an appearance on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert. While performing "Too Much Pride," a cut from his recent solo album “Cass County,” Henley inserted "Donald" into a lyric that says: "You don’t have to be right all the time / You can’t go on with all these axes to grind." Later in the song, he added "Mr. Trump" to the lyric "Empires rise, and empires fall / You stick around here long enough you’ll see it all / Now it looks like it’s gone nationwide / Too much pride."

Carlos Santana

Santana announced a plan to stop Trump's candidacy (2016), saying he wanted to convene “a grand summit of peace and love.” He'd start by inviting "the pope, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, and others who have won Nobel Peace Prizes – seven men and seven women – and invite them together, like in a Star Trek movie. We can go to the Sydney Opera House or a resort in Honolulu.”

Carlos Santana said (2017): “I use the remote control to tune (Trump) right out of my house. So he has no power or no attention span from me. I just turn him off immediately. We should learn that we’re at that point as humans to make the table bigger and not the wall taller.”

Ozzy Osbourne

Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne denounced Trump’s unauthorized use of “Crazy Train” in a Twitter video the president posted mocking the 2020 Democratic primary candidates.

In a statement to Rolling Stone, the Osbournes said, “Based on this morning’s unauthorized use of Ozzy Osbourne’s ‘Crazy Train,’ we are sending notice to the Trump campaign (or any other campaigns) that they are forbidden from using any of Ozzy Osbourne’s music in political ads or in any political campaigns. Ozzy’s music cannot be used for any means without approvals.”

The Osbournes also offered some alternative songs Trump could use, naming the smattering of musicians that have voiced their support for him. “In the meantime, we have a suggestion for Mr. Trump: perhaps he should reach out to some of his musician friends. Maybe Kayne West (‘Gold Digger’), Kid Rock (‘I Am the Bullgod’) or Ted Nugent (‘Stranglehold’) will allow use of their music.”

Sources

John Blistein. Ozzy and Sharon Osbourne Slam Trump Over Unauthorized Use of ‘Crazy Train.’ Rolling Stone. June 27, 2019.

“Classic Rock vs. Donald Trump …” Ultimate Classic Rock. January 20, 2017.

Lauren Craddock. “29 Artists Who Have Spoken Out Against Donald Trump (So Far)” Billboard. July 18, 2016.

Devon Ivie and Dee Lockett. “A Brief History of Musicians Saying ‘Hell No’ to Donald Trump’s Using Their Songs.” Vulture. November 7, 2018.

Omar Sanchez. “12 Music Stars Who Slammed Trump for Using Their Songs at Campaign Rallies.” The Wrap. November 5, 2018.

“The Musicians Who Hate Donald Trump The Most.” NME. New Musical Express. November 8, 2016.

Dealing With My Poor Perceptions -- My Eyes Through a Glass Darkly

“There are things known and there are things unknown,

and in between are the doors of perception.”

– Aldous Huxley

I find it a struggle to remain true to my own perceptions as I express them and, at the same time, to be fully considerate to the views of others whose lives I know little or nothing about. I like to think I respect the beliefs and opinions of others; however, since I am vocal and passionate about my awareness, I find it most easy to express my own impressions freely and without common regard for the perceptions of others. For that, I have deep regret.

Perceptions are based on how people interpret different sensations. The perceptual process begins with receiving stimuli from the environment and ends with an interpretation of those stimuli. Researchers have studied individual perception to gain access to understanding the meaning of experience for an individual, a culture, and or social groups. Studies have found perceptions are interpretations, and for most individuals, interpretations become their truth.

Reality defined – “The world or the state of things as they actually exist… existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions.”

It is clear that perception and reality have very different meanings. The former occurs entirely in the mind, and mental gymnastics can turn any perception or belief into reality. The other – the truth – exists completely outside of the mind and can’t be easily manipulated. (Although the truth is often difficult to comprehend.)

Psychologist and author Jim Taylor, Ph.D says …

“To conflate perception with reality is to reject the Enlightenment and harken back to the Middle Ages.”

I see I face a great challenge in my perceptions – how to ensure my perceptions remain close to reality. And, perhaps just as important, I face demands to tolerate and to find common ground with any and all opposition. In other words, I must listen and digest that which I find un-perceivable, and I should do that with less of my habit – a knee-jerk, verbal opposition.

What happens when people have such diametrically opposed perceptions that it becomes impossible to orchestrate consensus or govern? Taylor explains what happens at a societal level when different individuals or constituencies develop perceptions that are far apart …

“Going to extremes, a massive divide between perceptions in a country would likely lead to a slow, but steady, disintegration of the institutions that hold a society together (dystopian themes in literature and film or, well, our world today).”

The need for “cognition” refers to the tendency to think carefully and fully about experiences, including the social situations we encounter. Those with a strong need for cognition tend to process information more thoughtfully and therefore may make more causal attributions overall. In contrast, people without a strong need for cognition tend to be more impulsive and impatient and may make attributions more quickly and spontaneously.

(Sargent, M. 2004. Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition

predicts support for punitive responses to crime.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30)

In myself, I recognize a need for greater cognition. I value all thoughtful opinion, but it is easy to let emotions sway my actions. While vocalizing opinions I often fall prey to impatience and later regret being so impulsive. It is a character fault I exhibit many times without immediate conscious awareness. After the fact, I realize an entirely different perception, and I am committed to make apologies for my shortcomings.

I have often thought about why I, although possessing an understanding of the negativity of impulsive behavior, continually exhibit this behavior. Why is this a habit I regret having? I have reached a conclusion that I feel an overstepping obligation to share my firmly established perceptions. In my case, I believe the propensity to do this began early in life.

I was president of my class each year in high school. I felt an obligation (and still do) to represent my class while speaking and organizing functions. I believe being vocal and taking charge came with that office. My classmates trusted my opinion. And, even though offices and such were largely popularity contests, I accepted the honor of representing my class.

Also, immediately after high school (while I attended college), I worked as a director of a tutoring program and with various youth groups. Early on, I found it necessary to formulate judgments and carry out responsibilities that affected many others. While working these positions, I became comfortable with further responsibilities of leadership. In fact, I used that experience to help me choose to major in college of English Secondary Education (bachelors and masters degrees).

After attaining my bachelors, I gained employment as a high school language arts teacher. From the get-go, I taught seniors in high school just four or five years older than I was. I found that interaction quite rewarding but also challenging. I took providing a perspective of my own life while teaching the English curriculum very seriously. I guess you could say I found confidence in my relationship with young adults.

Here I am today – retired and set in my ways. At my age of 69 I should practice patience out of respect for the wisdom I have acquired over the years. I revere sages who possess a quiet demeanor and who express eloquent understandings. I often reflect on those in my life who respectfully imparted knowledge and invaluable understandings. But … I am … at least in any relation to “quiet” and “reserved” … a work in progress.

I understand what I perceive is often far from reality. Also, I acknowledge that I am often too quick to defend my perceptions. Determining how much of this brashness is defensible and how much is totally irrational is part of my struggle. I am certain it always has been difficult to tell. I confess I still deal with overreaction … but, I still work on it.

When I participate in a group setting and I see my polar opposite – a shy, reticent introvert – I wonder why that person feels no desire or obligation to express himself. I do not want to speak or to act for him, yet I am quick to judge somehow his bashfulness inhibits his participation. The truth is that I “perceive” something alien to the facts. I have no right to judge.

I pray my loud and impetuous behavior does not harm the reality and truthful understandings of any situation. And, if it does produce injury, I hope those offended may assign the needed blame and retribution to the rightful source – me.

If I have learned anything in my life, it is that one's words and actions can create a lasting effect on others. I regret projecting many of my mistaken perceptions … and yet, to be fair to myself, I also treasure using my perceptions to influence positively others who found some truth in my words.

I want to be a better person. I think almost all of us do. How I handle my deficiencies continues to reflect upon my being. I do not wish to become an “invisible” member of my older generation. Instead, I want to be a senior voice with an opinion. If you have been a victim of some transgression due to my reckless lack of cognition, I apologize. I pledge to keep working on my apparent faults.

“Reality is ultimately a selective act of perception and interpretation. A shift in our perception and interpretation enables us to break old habits and awaken new possibilities for balance, healing, and transformation.”

–  Author and journalist David Simon

Put Some Raucous In Your Caucus -- A Primer For Caucus Literacy

We hear the word over and over in a presidential election year. We understand the funny sounding term has something to do with winning a nomination for a political party, but if you are like me, just what in the hell a “caucus” involves remains about as clear as quantum physics.

I constantly hear about the importance of the upcoming Iowa caucus and accept the verification of the talking heads who tout its gravity without question. I admit I am unsure of my own “caucus” understanding. I and, I believe, many others, are confused.

Confused, that is, until now. In this post, I will explore the reality of these political meetings. Here is my version of the Dummy's Guide to understanding a “caucus.”

“Iowa has long been heralded as a bulwark against the money and media that dominate the modern presidential race. Its caucus requires voters in every precinct to actually gather in a room, at one time, and listen to neighbors pitch their chosen candidates, before they are allowed to vote.”

– Ari Melber

What Is a Caucus?

The term “caucus” apparently comes from an Algonquin word meaning "gathering of tribal chiefs. (The actual Algonquian word “caucauasu” means "counselor, elder, adviser" in the dialect of Virginia.)

Further word history in the Encyclopedia Britannica reveals: The word “caucus” originated in Boston in the early part of the 18th century, when it was used as the name of a political or drinking club, the Caucus or Caucus Club. John Pickering (1816) wrote the word was a shortened and corrupted form of the phrase “caulker’s meetings” (Caulkers were men who worked in the shipyards, water-proofing the hulls of ships).

The main crux of the caucus system is indeed a series of meetings. Today, the word is defined as “a meeting at which local members of a political party register their preference among candidates running for office or select delegates to attend a convention.”

Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? Let me assure you, the system of caucusing is anything but straightforward.

The convoluted caucus system dates back to 1796, when American political parties emerged. Most states eventually replaced this system because, as political parties became more centralized and sophisticated in the early twentieth century, party leaders or "bosses" were perceived as exerting too much control over choosing a nominee.

Presidential election primaries and caucuses are two very different methods of accomplishing the same basic thing – both are a means for each political party to let voters nationwide select their party's presidential nominee. More specifically, primaries and caucuses are means of selecting delegates (representatives of party members in each state) to send to the party's national convention.

Caucuses, like the upcoming one in Iowa, are party meetings by precinct, district, or county, where registered party members gather to discuss the candidates and to

select delegates to the next round of party conventions. Caucuses have been called a “meeting of neighbors.” Precinct caucuses are the lowest level of party organization and activity, and happen at the local voting precinct level. A typical meeting might be made up of a few dozen or a few hundred activists who live in the immediate area.

At the end of the meetings, an election is held whereby delegates to a county or state convention who pledge to support the majority candidate are selected. Delegates selected at a caucus might go on to a county or state convention before attending the national convention in the summer.

Any voter registered with a party can participate in a caucus. The process can take hours, as voters will gather at a venue to hear out supporters of various candidates, debate issues, and ultimately come to a conclusion about which person will make the best presidential nominee.

When voters arrive at the caucus venues, which can be anywhere from a high school gymnasium to a restaurant, supporters of certain candidates will break off into groups, including groups for undecided voters. Then voters, who are typically activists and very politically engaged, will plead their case to everyone about why their preferred candidate is the best choice.

In Iowa’s case, caucuses not only allow activists and voters to make a case for their preferred candidate, but also to talk about issues that could be incorporated into the state party platform, said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor with Drake University in Iowa.

Caucusing requires passion and a strong connection to a particular candidate, in contrast to the simple and private act of marking a ballot in a primary. Goldford says …

“(The Iowa caucuses) make candidates and potential candidates talk to voters as real, live, individual human beings. Candidates meet with voters in a more personal way, he added, rather than using them as 'campaign props.'”

Especially in early caucus states, a relatively small group of people wields a lot of power to influence average voters around the country.

Iowa has the most famous caucus, but nine states as well as three United States territories conduct caucuses in lieu of a primary election. Caucuses also vary by party as well. As an example, Kentucky has a Democratic primary but Republican caucuses. In addition, several states have switched to primaries for 2020, like Minnesota and Colorado.

A Brief History

There is no provision for the role of political parties in the United States Constitution, since the Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions.

Starting with the 1796 election, Congressional party or a state legislature party caucus selected the party's presidential candidates. Before 1820, Democratic-Republican members of Congress would nominate a single candidate from their party. That system collapsed in 1824, and since 1832 the preferred mechanism for nomination has been a national convention.

(James S. Chase. Emergence of the Presidential

Nominating Convention, 1789–1832. 1973)

Caucuses have had a role in the nominating process going back to the early nineteenth century. In the early days, however, party caucuses were meetings of party leaders closed to the general public.

Even after the advent of the modern political convention in the 1830s, caucuses used to be “pretty much limited to people who were members of party organizations, insiders who were usually the only ones who even knew about them,” says Alan I. Abramowitz, political science professor at Emory University.

But democratizing pressures reemerged after World War II, aided by developments in communications technology. The advent of television provided a medium through which people could now see and hear the political campaigns in their own living rooms. Candidates could use television exposure to demonstrate their charismatic popularity and potential electability.

Since 1972, the Iowa Caucus has been the first – and many argue most important – electoral test on the road to each party’s presidential nomination. It's the first opportunity for the rest of the country to see how much support candidates have. Also, Iowa caucuses have historically done the job of winnowing out large presidential fields

Caucuses are held in more than 2000 precincts across the state of Iowa to choose more than 1,500 delegates to 99 county conventions. Iowa eventually awards 49 delegates to the national convention, of which 41 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the caucuses

It all started with the 1968 Democratic Convention.

The Vietnam War was in its 14th year, both Martin Luther King, Jr. and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy were assassinated that spring and President Lyndon B. Johnson had withdrawn from the race in March, deciding against seeking another term. That April, Hubert Humphrey – Johnson’s vice president-- jumped into the race. Humphrey’s public support of Johnson, specifically regarding the Vietnam War, upset many anti-war protestors.

While Democratic political leaders filed into the National Convention hall, protestors brutally clashed with police right outside its doors, with television broadcasting the political divide to the nation. Hubert Humphrey would go on to win the Democratic nomination (over George McGovern and Eugene McCarthy) despite not winning a single primary, highlighting for many the disparity between public opinion and the political process.

(Brynn Holland. “Why Is Iowa the First State to Vote?”

History. January 6, 2020.)

Eager to repair the damage from the 1968 primary campaign, Democratic party leaders formed the McGovern-Fraser Commission to improve the nomination process so voters would have a direct say as to who would be their nominee for president, ensuring that party leaders would no longer work behind closed doors to manipulate the process. State party leaders had to give 30 days notice before hosting primaries or caucuses, encouraging full participation.

Part of that meant spreading the presidential nominating schedule out in each state. Because Iowa has one of the more complex processes – precinct caucuses, county conventions, district conventions, followed by a state convention – it had to start really early. (The Democratic Party held Iowa caucuses first in the nation in 1972; the GOP followed suit in 1976.)

“And once a peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter rode an Iowa caucus win all the way to the White House, Iowa suddenly became a thing.”

– Sam Sanders, correspondent and host of “It's Been a Minute
with Sam Sanders” at NPR

Ever since then, Iowa has remained a crucial proving ground for nearly every presidential candidate.

The Iowa Caucuses bring a sense of excitement to the state. And something more – “Caucus is a major boon to the state of Iowa,” Karen Kedrowski, director of Carrie Chapman Catt Center for Women and Politics said. “During the presidential cycle, the amount of party activity creates great jobs, attracts a wealth of out-of-state talent who invest in the state. It becomes this defining feature in the state.”

Actual Processes In Iowa

I'll leave it to a better political pundit than I to explain all of the procedures of “delegate selections” and “proportional allocations” and “chains of attendance at the congressional district state convention.”

In fact, Democrats have a complex system – one of the most complex pieces of the entire presidential election. Suffice it to say there are rules that involve “percentages of all the caucus participants.” And, there are “discussions of support” and “percentage cut-offs” – stats like “25% viability” and “one-sixth participation.”

This language arts major's head is spinning in caucus confusion. All I know is it eventually comes down to a formula something like the following:

“Number of people in the group * number of delegates)/ number of caucus participants.”

Jack Reardon, an organizer with Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (2020) said of the Iowa caucuses …

“We’re not interested in candidates’ stump speeches. We’ve heard enough of those. Those speeches get a lot of media coverage, but it’s not reflective of how a majority of people across this state, across this country, are feeling about politics. People aren’t interested in a particular candidate. They’re interested in something that can change their lives.”

What Overturning Roe v. Wade Really Means

In the Roe v. Wade Decision of January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court declared the right to an abortion is a fundamental liberty that the state must have a very strong interest to limit. The Court ruled that the woman’s liberty right (right to control whether or not she is pregnant) is stronger than the state’s interest in the fetus’ life up until a certain point in the pregnancy. That point is the “point of viability” - when the fetus could survive on its own outside of the womb.

Even though Roe established women’s constitutional right to privacy for an abortion, conservative lawmakers argue it should be overturned. If Roe is limited or overturned, state officials could seek to enforce it. In other states, where courts have blocked or limited a pre-Roe ban based on the decision, officials could file court actions asking courts to activate the ban if Roe fell. Then, states will have the tools necessary to make abortion almost or entirely inaccessible for tens of millions of Americans.

However, there is much more at stake in Roe than a woman's right to have an abortion. What's in the balance is much more far reaching. Politicians should not be making decisions on behalf of women regarding their bodies. Women are not vessels, or incubators, or an undifferentiated natural resource. Women are human beings whose human rights matter.

Very personal, medical ethics decisions like a woman's choice to abort should be between a woman and her doctor. Individuals who are most marginalized in our society would be harmed if that choice is taken away. Healthcare should be available to all, and abortion care is healthcare. We also cannot forget that women are not the only people who get abortions; transgender and non-binary Americans are also impacted by these restrictions.

Laurie Penny of The New Republic (2019) addresses anti-abortion measures taken in Ohio that she considers a frontal assault on women’s right to choose. Penny explains …

“Right now in Ohio, there is an a 11-year-old child who was abducted, raped, and made pregnant. It’s easy to see, by any sane moral measure, how a regime that forces a child to carry this pregnancy to full term and give birth is monstrous, heartless, and immoral. And it’s just as clear that a state that threatens to kill that child unless she bears that pregnancy to full term and gives birth is morally equivalent to the rapist – taking away that little girl’s agency, declaring that her pain is unimportant, that she has no right to decide who has access to her body.

“But the crucial connective point, the point that gets shunted to the side in the culture-war rhetoric of abortion outrage, is this: It is equally monstrous to inflict the same punishment on a woman in her thirties who doesn’t want to be a mother just because the condom broke on a Tinder hookup. She, too, deserves bodily autonomy. She should not have to beg for it just because some religious extremists and Viagra-addled Republican lawmakers are frightened of women who fuck freely and without remorse. Seen in this light, forced-birth extremism is the logical extension of rape culture.”

(LAURIE PENNY. “Women’s Bodies Is All About Conservative Male Power.”

The New Republic. May 17, 2019.)

Freda Levenson, legal director for the ACLU of Ohio, said, “Women in Ohio (and across the nation) have the constitutional right to make this deeply personal decision about their own bodies without interference from the state."

And, let's go way back … even before Roe v. Wade, there was an important precedent for the decision. In the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut law that limited birth control access. It was one of a set of important decisions that enshrined privacy rights into constitutional law and extended those rights to sex and reproduction. The Court held that the Bill of Rights and the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment implicitly created a “zone of privacy.”

Lawyer and writer Jill Filipovic revealed …

“Connecticut’s ban of contraceptive use (1965), the Court said, violated the privacy rights of a marital relationship. That same theory was extended to contraceptive use by non-married people, and with Roe, the court ruled that the fundamental right to privacy encompassed a woman’s right to decide, along with her family and her doctor, whether or not to continue a pregnancy.”

(Jill Filipovic. “America Will Lose More Than Abortion Rights If Roe v. Wade Is Overturned.” Time. June 28, 2018.)

Carliss Chatman, assistant professor of law at Washington and Lee University School of Law, ponders other concerns that occur if Roe is overturned:

“If a fetus and expectant mother are two legal people, they separately have access to all rights and privileges. Correct?

"If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts? Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a US citizen?

“Can I insure a 6 week fetus and collect if I miscarry? Just figuring if we're going here we should go all in."

(Carliss Chatman. “What's behind the absurd gamble on women's rights and health.” CNN. May 14, 2019.)

What direct risks are at stake? The freedom to obtain an abortion is essential to women’s economic success at every level. Consider the social risks. According to the Guttmacher Institute, women who lack this fundamental human right are at greater risk of poverty, abuse and poor health.

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices.”

-- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

There are women who become pregnant from rape and incest, women who are told they won't survive the birth of their children, women whose children won't survive birth, women whose children die before even exiting the womb, women who cannot financially afford a child, and women who just don't want children. So many circumstances can lead to a woman's decision to abort.

What is the most crucial reason for Roe v. Wade? It's a simple fact that women have the right to choose. Under Roe, women who disagree with principles of abortion will never have to get an abortion that they don't want. However, their viewpoint on the topic – whether it be based on religion, culture, or a path of morality – does not constitute their right to tell other women what to do with their bodies.

“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”

– Gloria Steinem

Amerika? How a German Named "America"

Why is our country known as “America” as in the country the “United States of America”? Do you even have a clue?

Did you believe that Amerigo Vespucci – Italian explorer, financier, navigator, and cartographer who traveled to “the New World” in 1499 and 1502 – actually bestowed that title, himself, on the new land?

Vespucci, generally considered to be America's namesake, is known as the first person to recognize North and South America as distinct continents that were previously unknown to Europeans, Asians and Africans. However, the distinction of giving the title of “America” to a place on the map belongs to a German. Yep, to a German.

In the seventh chapter of the Cosmographiæ Introduction, a book published written by Matthias Ringmann in 1507 to accompany Martin Waldseemüller's printed globe and wall-map, it is explained why the name “America” was proposed for the then New World, or the Fourth Part of the World:

“And in the sixth climate toward the Antarctic, the recently discovered farther part of Africa . . . and a fourth part of the world (which may be called Amerige, as if meaning "Americus' land", or America) are situated.”

In 1507, German clergyman and amateur cartographer called Martin Waldseemüller (1470-1520) and some other scholars were working an introduction to cosmology that would contain large maps. He based his drawings of the New World on Vespucci’s published travelogues. Waldseemüller's work was a map of the world he called the “Universalis Cosmographia,” or “Universal Cosmography.” Comprised of 12 wooden panels, it was eight feet wide and four-and-a-half feet tall. ”

Waldseemüller proposed that a portion of Brazil that Vespucci had explored be named "America," a feminine Latin form of Vespucci's first name. Then, like now, countries were commonly referred to as feminine.

Waldseemüller and his two scholarly partners were aware of Vespucci’s writings and were ignorant of Columbus’s expeditions. As such, they mistakenly thought Vespucci was the first to discover this new land and so named it after him, stating:

“But now these parts (Europe, Asia and Africa, the three continents of the Ptolemaic geography) have been extensively explored and a fourth part has been discovered by Americus Vespuccius (the Latin form of Vespucci’s name), I do not see what right any one would have to object to calling this part after Americus, who discovered it and who is a man of intelligence, and so to name it Amerige, that is, the Land of Americus, or America: since both Europa and Asia got their names from women.”

According to todayifoundout.com (2012), Columbus might have had the new world named after him, had it not been for two shortcomings. The first was that Columbus was under the mistaken impression that he had found a new route to Asia and was not aware that America was an entirely new continent. The second was that he never wrote publicly about it so the masses were not aware of his discovery. Had he done this, Mr. Waldseemüller and his colleagues might have named it Columba! As it happened, Vespucci did write about it and was the first to call this land the “Novus Mundus” (Latin for “New World”).

On Waldseemüller's map, the unexplored continent of North America is actually called “Parias," while the newly christened “America” describes the South American coast all the way down to the present-day port of Cananéia, just south of São Paulo, Brazil.

Can you imagine the country being known as the United States of Parias?

At the time it was believed a strait separated Parias from America, but when it was later realized they were joined, the two land masses became known as North and South America.

The name “Parias” comes from Columbus's account of his Third Voyage (1498-1500) and is given as the paesi novanemte retrovati – “newly found countries,” Chapter 105. The account says “the land is of great extent, but they are not sure if it is an island or terra firma … by its size, probably terra firma.” Paria was well know to be a province of the mainland opposite the island of Trinidad, discovered by Columbus.

The name “America” stuck. Waldseemüller's maps sold thousands of copies across Europe. Some reports suggest that Waldseemüller had second thoughts about the name, but it was too late. In 1538, a mapmaker named Gerardus Mercator applied the name "America" to both the northern and southern landmasses of the New World, and the continents have been known as such ever since.

Some later accused Vespucci of stealing the honor of the name from Colubus; however, Vespucci was a friend of Columbus and even tried to help him in his court battles against the Spanish crown, suing for a percentage of any profits from the South American colonies. By the time Vespucci died on February 22, 1512, the continent he had visited was already known by many as America, despite his suggestions it should be “Mundus Novus” or New World

Waldseemüller himself was reluctant to identify America as a continent, and he would never use the name America in any of his later work. When he finally published his edition of Ptolemy in Strasbourg in 1513, he labeled South America “Terra Incognita”. However, nearly every significant mapmaker for the next quarter of a century relied on his work, popularizing his geography and terminology.

The wall map was lost for a long time, but a copy was found in Schloss Wolfegg in southern Germany by Joseph Fischer in 1901. It is still the only copy known to survive, and it was purchased by the United States Library of Congress in May 2003 after an agreement was reached in 2001.

Five copies of the globular map survive in the form of "gores": printed maps that were intended to be cut out and pasted onto a wooden globe. Only one of these lies in the Americas today, residing at the James Ford Bell Library University of Minnesota; three copies are in Germany (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, LMU Munich, Stadtbibliothek Offenburg), and one is in London, UK, in private hands.

So, it was a German mapmaker who was responsible for the “America” in the official title of the country. It could have been the “United States of Columbusia” or a similar name had more facts been at hand. Since then more knowledge about origins has surfaced such as the Vikings' early expeditions to North America around the year 1000 – travels well documented and accepted as historical fact by most scholars.

There is even a theory espoused by a small group of scholars and amateur historians led by Gavin Menzies, a retired British Naval officer, that asserts that a Muslim-Chinese eunuch-mariner from the Ming Dynasty discovered America – 71 years before Columbus.

In his book, 1421: The Year China Discovered America, a theory that a map that Dr. Hendon Harris found in Taiwan was, in reality, an ancient Chinese relic illustrating the lost continent of Fu Sang. The “Harris Map” not only accurately depicted the scale and outline of the American coast, but it also includes notable features such as the Grand Canyon. Menzies not only believes that the Chinese had prior knowledge of America, he believes they had connected with the native culture of the time.

One thing is certain – maps, and the tremendous knowledge they impart, are ever-changing keys not only to understanding the physical features of the world but also to unlocking the historical mysteries of exploration and discovery.

The World Distrusts a Trump-led America: "Donnie, You Got Some Splainin' To Do"

“Whether evaluated on perceptions of government, business, or citizenship, the Trump effect thus far has been overwhelmingly negative.”

– David Reibstein and Suneal Bedi , U.S. News

The world's trust in the United States has dropped by more than 50% since 2016, the sharpest drop of any country assessed in the 2020 “Best Countries” report. This drop is a direct reflection of leadership under President Donald Trump. Despite his comments to the contrary, the U.S. under Trump is viewed as more and more untrustworthy.

“Best Countries” is a rankings, news and analysis project by U.S. News created to capture how countries are perceived on a global scale. The rankings evaluate 73 countries across 24 rankings drawn from a survey of more than 20,000 global citizens, measuring 75 dimensions that have the potential to drive trade, travel and investment and directly affect national economies.

In 2016, the U.S. had a score of 33.5 on a 100-point scale. In 2020, the country’s score is 16.3, placing the country at No. 24 of the 73 countries assessed, just behind No. 23 Greece and barely ahead of No. 25 Israel. (The U.K. ranks No. 14 for trustworthiness in 2020, but still outperforms the U.S. by nearly 50 points on a 100-point scale. Canada, meanwhile, has registered a perfect 100-point score for trustworthiness each year since the report’s 2016 debut.)

The “Best Countries” report does not stand alone in its view of a growing negative impact on U.S. global standing.

Simon Tisdall of The Guardian reports that a 25-nation Pew survey (2018) found, overall, that “70% of respondents had no confidence in Trump’s leadership.” While a majority still held a favorable view of the US, unfavorable views were up sharply from the Obama era. About 70% said “the U.S. under Trump did not take sufficient account of the interests of other countries and was doing less to address international problems.”

Then, a survey from Pew Research Group released in February 2019 showed 45% of respondents in 26 nations with large populations felt that American power and influence posed “a major threat to our country,” while 36% offered the same response on Russia, and 35% on China.

To put that in perspective, in 2013, during the presidency of Barack Obama, only 25% of global respondents held such a negative view of the U.S., while reactions to China remained essentially the same. Or just consider the most powerful country in Europe, Germany. Between 2013 and 2018, Germans who considered American power and influence a greater threat than that of China or Russia leapt from 19% to 49%. (Figures for France were similar.)

As for President Trump, only 27% of global respondents had confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs, while 70% feared he would not.

This collapse in trust may have lasting, long-term implications for transatlantic ties. A survey of 60,000 people in 14 EU member states published in September 2019 by the European Council on Foreign Relations found most Europeans “no longer believe the US can serve as a guarantor of their security.” It is feared that Europe and America risk drifting even further apart in 2020.

What has Trump done to collapse trust?

Early in 2019, Trump discussed withdrawing the U.S. from NATO. Then later in that year, he abruptly announced a U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria that left Kurdish allies in the fight against terrorists in that country feeling abandoned. Trump has also instigated more trade wars with countries and freely criticized various world leaders. And, he stirred global alarm by killing an Iranian general in Iraq. Now, of course, Trump faces impeachment for his alleged meddling with Ukraine in the 2020 U.S. election.

Trump has an “America first” agenda, but this is translating into “America alone.” He appears to have no overall game plan, preferring to mindlessly “tweet” his way from conflict to conflict while avoiding statesmanship and diplomacy.

For those die-hard Trump supporters who continue to support him for “his great U.S. economy” despite his divisive, inept policies, you must remember reportedly he is the most dishonest president in U.S. After all, fact checkers at The Washington Post found that Trump made “16,241 false or misleading claims in his first three years” in office.

Here is a different way to view the economy from FiveThirtyEight.

FiveThirtyEight (named for the number of electors in the Electoral College) is a website that focuses on opinion poll analysis, politics, economics, and sports blogging. The site has won numerous awards including “Bloggie Awards for Best Political Coverage” in 2008 and “Best Weblog about Politics” in 2009 as well as Webbies for “Best Political Blog” in 2012 and 2013. While under the ownership of ESPN in 2016, FiveThirtyEight won the “Data Journalism Website of the Year” award from the Paris, France-based Global Editors Network.

According to FiveThirtyEight on January 10, 2020 …

“Trump’s rhetoric on the American economy exists in the realm of fantasy. The official unemployment rate in the U.S. is indeed at a record low of 3.5%, according to the latest jobs report. That number suggests that only 3.5% of all Americans capable of working are currently unemployed and that more than 96% have jobs.

“But digging into the numbers offers a much different picture. As per an analysis by FiveThirtyEight.com., the 3.5% unemployment figure is misleading; only about half of all employable Americans are working full time, 10% are working part time, 2.1% are actively seeking work but are unemployed, and 1.8% are not seeking work but want a job. A whopping 35% are out of the job market and not actively seeking work.”

FiveThirtyEight concludes …

“That unemployment rate in the headlines? It doesn’t really take into account your cousin or anyone else who has quit job-hunting for a while or is working less than they want to. And that job growth number? Take it with +/- 120,000 grains of salt.”

(Julia Wolfe. “A Better Way To Think About December’s Jobs Numbers.” FiveThirtyEight. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/jobs-report-growth-unemployment/. January 10, 2020.)

Guns -- Their Value and Their Violence: Research Toward a National Discussion

Every year in our country, a firearm is used in nearly 500,000 crimes, resulting in the deaths and injuries of more than 110,000 people. Meanwhile, the problem of gun violence has been compounded by another: the shortage of knowledge about the issue. Isn't it about time to have a discussion about adopting the means to end gun violence in the United States?

Let's begin with the obvious. The ownership of guns and gun violence – what do we know about the correlation between the two? Not enough.

For many Americans, the very mention of such a tie evokes the loss of a God-given freedom. The social role of guns in American life has clearly created support for the continued widespread availability of guns. The social meaning of guns always sets the bounds within which any conversation around gun safety reform can take place.

However, what is the conflict with social meaning and values? Values push us to ask the question: what do we mean when we say we care about something? Values are what we choose to focus on, in a world of limited time and resources.

Galeo and Salma (2019) posit …

“This becomes particularly relevant in public health in cases where societal values may not be aligned with what the science suggests improves health. In this case, including, perhaps in the context of guns, the clash between our values – as embedded within gun culture – and what the science suggests – that we need to have fewer guns – becomes a barrier to action.”

Public health has not historically been particularly adept at understanding culture and symbols that inform the dominant narrative. With guns, knowledge and values do not align. While the argument for doing something about guns, from a public health perspective, is overwhelming and incontrovertible, national values are far from aligned with this public health goal.

Galeo and Salma explain … 

“... to many Americans, gun ownership is considered a right, not a privilege that can be regulated. These values create an impasse, one where knowing is not enough, and where tangling with the fundamental meaning of guns that challenges knowledge must be a core function of any public health approach to gun violence.”

Public health evidence overwhelmingly suggests that we should be moving toward fewer guns, but we are collectively far from doing so. Public health needs to ask: Why does what we know not become action? And, as a corollary, how does public health grapple with a deeper social meaning of guns that challenges the potential course of action to which the science points? Understanding the realities of gun violence and public health is first necessary to call for a much-needed change.

Michael Siegel, et al. (2013) observed “a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although Siegal's team could not determine causation, they found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

Michael C. Monuteaux (2015) et al. Also found evidence shows that states with higher levels of firearm ownership have an increased risk for violent crimes perpetrated with a firearm and that public health stakeholders should consider the outcomes associated with private firearm ownership.

Several other new studies found that increases in the prevalence of gun ownership are associated with increases in violent crime. Whether this association is attributable to gun prevalence causing more violent crime is unclear. If people are more likely to acquire guns when crime rates are rising or high, then the same pattern of evidence would be expected.

An important limitation of all studies in this area is the lack of direct measures of the prevalence of gun ownership. Because of the limitations of existing data and methods, there exists work that does not credibly demonstrate a causal relationship between the ownership of firearms and the causes or prevention of criminal violence or suicide. Studies have been blocked. For example the NRA has backed a federal funding freeze on gun policy research.

Ccademic researchers who were studying the impact of gun violence on public health were dealt a huge financial and political blow in 1996, when the so-called Dickey Amendment was passed by Congress under pressure from gun lobbyists. The law forbids the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to fund research that might be seen as advocating for gun control. This choked off federal grant money and essential data-gathering on gun violence.

Facing these limitations, the RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan think tank issued a report (2018) that does not come out in favor of more or less gun control. Instead, the team compiled the best research that’s available so far. RAND concluded:

“On the gun control front, there’s moderate evidence that background checks reduce suicide and violent crime, limited evidence that prohibitions associated with mental illness reduce suicide, moderate evidence that those prohibitions reduce violent crime, and supportive evidence that child-access prevention laws reduce suicides and unintentional injuries and deaths.

“Meanwhile, there’s limited evidence that concealed carry laws increase violent crime and unintentional injuries and deaths. And there’s moderate evidence that “stand your ground” laws – NRA-backed measures that expand when someone can use a gun or other weapons to defend himself – increase violent crime.”

That being said, it behooves the public to examine evidence that not only supports a correlation between gun ownership and violent crime but also begs for a sorely needed national dialogue on gun violence in the U.S. Congress. Such a dialogue serves both those who rest their case on the social meaning of guns and those who see the issue as a matter concerning national health values.

Pertinent Studies

Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Having a firearm in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide of a family member (Dahlberg, Ikeda & Kreznow, 2004; Kellermann, et al. 1992; Kellermann, et al. 1998), including fatal shootings of women associated with intimate partner violence (Campbell, et al. 2003).

In “More Guns, More Crime,” Duggan (2001) used a new proxy for gun ownership -- state and county-level sales rates for the nation's largest handgun magazine -- to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.

The specific reason why firearm prevalence increases violent crime is not clear but there are several viable theories. One reason that firearm prevalence could increase violent crime is that guns can be “misused by the owners or transferred to dangerous people through theft or unregulated sale” (Cook and Ludwig, 2006, pgs. 379- 380).

Another reason that firearm prevalence could lead to increased violent crime is that using a gun is more lethal than other weapons (i.e. weapon instrumentality effect). Cook and Ludwig (2004, pg. 590) suggested that this was the case when they stated that the common saying “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” should be amended to “guns don’t kill people, they just make it real easy.” This is due to gun being more fatal than knives or other methods of violence against another individual.

Compared to other high-income countries, the United States by a substantial margin has the highest rates of firearm-related homicide, suicide and unintentional death and unintended injury among children and adolescents, leading the American Academy of Pediatrics to conclude that the “absence of guns from children's homes and communities is the most reliable and effective measure to prevent firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents” (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2012, e14160).

Cheng and Hoekstra (2013) and McClellan and Tekin (2012) have demonstrated that changing laws that make the use of guns more acceptable in certain situation does increase the level of homicide in that area.

The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation (NCDD) suggests anyone considering planning and facilitating a dialogue about a controversial issue such as guns and violence should first have a solid background in commonly accepted best practices for facilitating civil and constructive group dialogues.

The coalition also says “framing a conversation as a binary question with only two alternatives is a sure way to create unconstructive shouting matches, especially when the subject is a hotbutton political issue.”

And, of course, such a discussion should invite fresh perspectives and understandings that don't alienate gun owners but rather to talk about how to promote responsible gun ownership. Steering the conversation from politicized policy arguments to deeper underlying issues like safety and responsibility can be one way to find common ground.

And, isn't that the goal of compromise so vital to the health and safety of the nation? Shouldn't we seek to move the dialogue about gun violence forward by arguing that if a society has the liberty to bear arms, then that society has a moral obligation to do all that it can to mitigate the harms that result from that freedom? Both the liberty and the obligation are equally important.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics, Council on Injury Violence and Poison Prevention. (2012). Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population. Pediatrics , 130 (5), 1416-1423. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A.,…Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93( 7), 1089-1097. doi:10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089

Cheng, C., & Hoekstra, M. (2013). Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine. Journal of Human Resources, 48(3), 821-854.

Cook, P., & Ludwig, J. (2006). The social costs of gun ownership. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 379-391. Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (2009). Firearm violence. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of crime and public policy. New York: Oxford University Press. Cummings, P., Koepsell, T. D., Grossman, D. C., Savarino,

Dahlberg, L. L., Ikeda, R. M., & Kresnow, M. J. (2004). Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home: Findings from a national study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 160 (10), 929-936. doi:10.1093/aje/kwh309

Duggan, Mark. (2001) “More Guns, More Crime.” Journal of Political Economy. University of Chicago and National Bureau of Economic Research

Galea, Sandro and Abdalla, Salma M. (2019) The public’s health and the social meaning of guns. Palgrave Communications 5, Article number: 111.

Kellermann, A. L., Rivara, F. P., Somes, G., Reay, D. T., Francisco, J., Banton, J. G.,…Hackman, .B.B. (1992). Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. The New England Journal of Medicine , 327(7), 467-72. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199208133270705

McClellan, C. B., & Tekin, E. (2012). Stand Your Ground Laws, Homicides, and Injuries (No. w18187). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Monuteaux, Michael C. ScD, Lee, Lois K. MD, Hemenway, David PhD, Mannix, Rebekah MD, Fleegler, Eric W. MD. (2015) “Firearm Ownership and Violent Crime in the U.S. An Ecologic Study.” Am J Prev Med 2015;](]):]]]–]]]) & 2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Siegel, M., Ross, C. S., & King III, C. (2013). The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981-2010. American Journal of Public Health, 103(11), 2098-2105.