Let's temporarily return to the gun violence issue. Nearly everyone wants to reduce the amount of gun violence in our society. I would say everyone, but there are people who are members of the Flat Earth Society; who think the earth is only 4000 years old; and who believe that JFK and Elvis are living in a senior citizen community in rural Mississippi, which actually was a movie called Bubba Ho-Tep with Ossie Davis as JFK and Bruce Campbell as Elvis. I highly recommend it. Yes, I know Ossie Davis was black and JFK was not, but that's one of the interesting concepts in the movie.
The point is that even nearly all NRA members do not want to see mass shootings of innocent people. A survey of gun owners has shown that a majority of them are not opposed to some form of firearms restrictions, while it seems that the leaders of the NRA do oppose any restrictions. So what is to be made of this conflicting information in which the members of an organization disagree with their leaders? Perhaps it is not that unusual. People elect leaders with whom they rarely completely agree.
It seems that as a society, as a country of people with a variety of political, religious, and other beliefs, we cannot agree that we have common points of agreement. Why not? Is it the ideological division existing in our society that we cannot acknowledge our common ground? Have we always had this problem? I don't think so, but...
Today, we have a new method of spreading misinformation--the Internet. Instead of looking through windows and seeing the world that we live in with all its faults and failures, we can look into our mirror and immediately see others who have the same beliefs we have, and it reinforces our own preconceptions. We don't have to even look at the window, let alone through it. We don't want to. If we do, we may see changes we dislike--and fear. Demographic changes that we feel threaten our "way of life." Our superior at the factory who is Latino. The police officer who is a woman. The President who's father was not white.
Obviously what I am talking about here is an American tradition--bigotry. Ku Klux Klan, Asian exclusion laws, the Irish need-not-apply, John Jay. What? John Jay, one of the "Founding Fathers" of the USA, the 1st Chief Justice, President of the Continental Congress, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, Governor of New York who tried to abolish slavery was a bigot??? Well, yes, he was. He tried to include a provision in the New York State constitution barring Catholics from owning property and having the right to vote. Why? Because of their false, wicked, and dangerous beliefs. The same reason the members of the John Birch Society opposed JFK. The same John Birch Society founded by, among others, Fred Koch, the father of the present infamous Koch Brothers who are spending their fortune opposing President Obama.
But I have really digressed. Almost everyone wants to reduce gun violence, but since we refuse to speak to one another, hide in our favorite Internet sites, solely watch our favorite slanted cable channels, we don't even know that we agree to reduce the number of our relatives, friends, and neighbors who are going to be killed by guns. We don't even know.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
More listening
There is one concern that could detrimentally affect the ability to listen even if you are trying very hard to do so. I was confronted with this concern recently, and don't worry, it was not about gun violence.
An acquaintance told me that 30% of the inmates in the Federal detention system are illegal aliens and it is costing us billions of tax dollars yearly. I asked him to repeat the comment so I was certain I understood his words, and so he did. I had heard correctly, so I repeated back to him his comment but prefaced it with "Are you saying that ..." Yes, he replied, absolutely, and isn't that just terrible. This was news to me, so I carefully changed the subject to a non-controversial one. Later I researched the substance of his comment and found that the US Dept of Justice reports that 14% (not 30%) of Federal inmates are illegal aliens and most of those are guilty of immigration-related non-violent violations. It is important to note that there are not a large percentage of inmates in Federal prisons that have committed violent crimes. Most violent crimes are prosecuted in state courts, and in state prisons illegal aliens make up less than 5% of the inmates.
What had happened? In an honest attempt to communicate, I had listened and understood what I had been told. The problem was that my attempt to listen had been subjected to manipulation. The acquaintance had wanted me to understand a false statement, and accept it as the truth. Did he care about the cost of housing illegal aliens in Federal prisons? Of course not. His intent was to show that illegal aliens were a severe threat to the safety of Americans by implying that there exists a viscous crime wave rampant in the country and that illegal aliens are the scourge we should all fear. They have unleashed an Hispanic epidemic of murder, robbery, and even rape. And, of course, if you support his candidate for office, this terror will end.
What is the truth? Studies have repeatedly shown that of all ethnic groups, undocumented young men from Central America have the lowest rate of violent crime incarceration. Second and third generation Mexican-Americans, for example, have the same rate of violence as whites.
Is it not difficult to understand why illegal aliens have low crime rates. What have they done with their lives? They have left their families and made the arduous sacrifice of leaving their birthplace in an attempt to find a better life in a strange land. Their motivation was not to find a new land to commit crimes, but to find work and to become what immigrants to these shores have always wanted. They wanted to be Americans.
So even if you try very hard to listen, do so with your eyes wide open. As President Reagan said: Trust, but Verify.
An acquaintance told me that 30% of the inmates in the Federal detention system are illegal aliens and it is costing us billions of tax dollars yearly. I asked him to repeat the comment so I was certain I understood his words, and so he did. I had heard correctly, so I repeated back to him his comment but prefaced it with "Are you saying that ..." Yes, he replied, absolutely, and isn't that just terrible. This was news to me, so I carefully changed the subject to a non-controversial one. Later I researched the substance of his comment and found that the US Dept of Justice reports that 14% (not 30%) of Federal inmates are illegal aliens and most of those are guilty of immigration-related non-violent violations. It is important to note that there are not a large percentage of inmates in Federal prisons that have committed violent crimes. Most violent crimes are prosecuted in state courts, and in state prisons illegal aliens make up less than 5% of the inmates.
What had happened? In an honest attempt to communicate, I had listened and understood what I had been told. The problem was that my attempt to listen had been subjected to manipulation. The acquaintance had wanted me to understand a false statement, and accept it as the truth. Did he care about the cost of housing illegal aliens in Federal prisons? Of course not. His intent was to show that illegal aliens were a severe threat to the safety of Americans by implying that there exists a viscous crime wave rampant in the country and that illegal aliens are the scourge we should all fear. They have unleashed an Hispanic epidemic of murder, robbery, and even rape. And, of course, if you support his candidate for office, this terror will end.
What is the truth? Studies have repeatedly shown that of all ethnic groups, undocumented young men from Central America have the lowest rate of violent crime incarceration. Second and third generation Mexican-Americans, for example, have the same rate of violence as whites.
Is it not difficult to understand why illegal aliens have low crime rates. What have they done with their lives? They have left their families and made the arduous sacrifice of leaving their birthplace in an attempt to find a better life in a strange land. Their motivation was not to find a new land to commit crimes, but to find work and to become what immigrants to these shores have always wanted. They wanted to be Americans.
So even if you try very hard to listen, do so with your eyes wide open. As President Reagan said: Trust, but Verify.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Listening
There is a scene from Tarantino's Pulp Fiction which the director deleted from the original that I feel made a very important statement about communication, even though it is unimportant to the film itself, and is probably the reason Tarantino deleted it. It takes place in Mia's place when she first meets Vincent prior to going to have dinner at Jack Rabbit Slim's. Mia appears with a video camera and asks trivia type questions of Vincent in order to determine the type of person he is. Did he prefer The Brady Bunch or The Partridge Family? Is he a Beatles man or an Elvis man? And finally Mia's most interesting question: When you are having a conversation with people, do you listen, or wait to speak? And Vincent answers: I have to admit that I wait to speak, but I'm trying very hard to listen.
And isn't that the problem we seem to be having with the gun violence issue in America? Everyone is speaking, but no one is listening. No one is even trying very hard to listen. If it could be agreed that a reasonable discussion be held, and all agree to listen--truly listen--to the others' points, perhaps we could accomplish something that would reduce the level of gun violence. No matter how minor the accomplishment would be, it would be an improvement over the existing situation.
What seems to be missing is the desire to listen. I won't say that one group or the other is solely to blame (although I have my personal opinion), because that will not be beneficial. It will only drive us further apart. And I do believe that we are so very far apart today (and we may always have been) that no amount of effort applied may be able to reverse it. But we must try, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and our country.
Years ago I worked for an engineering company whose head of the Personnel Department (before they became the Human Resources Department--I have never seen an Inhuman Resources Department) had many good in-house programs to improve interdepartmental communications. One was an Active Listening seminar. I think that is what we need as a society today--a mandatory Active Listening seminar before we are permitted to vote in elections. Like passing a driving test before getting a license. We have to learn to hear what others say, to demonstrate a sincere understanding of what they are saying. Nothing should be assumed, else it be misinterpreted. Suspend judgment of others until you listen. Try very hard to listen.
And isn't that the problem we seem to be having with the gun violence issue in America? Everyone is speaking, but no one is listening. No one is even trying very hard to listen. If it could be agreed that a reasonable discussion be held, and all agree to listen--truly listen--to the others' points, perhaps we could accomplish something that would reduce the level of gun violence. No matter how minor the accomplishment would be, it would be an improvement over the existing situation.
What seems to be missing is the desire to listen. I won't say that one group or the other is solely to blame (although I have my personal opinion), because that will not be beneficial. It will only drive us further apart. And I do believe that we are so very far apart today (and we may always have been) that no amount of effort applied may be able to reverse it. But we must try, for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and our country.
Years ago I worked for an engineering company whose head of the Personnel Department (before they became the Human Resources Department--I have never seen an Inhuman Resources Department) had many good in-house programs to improve interdepartmental communications. One was an Active Listening seminar. I think that is what we need as a society today--a mandatory Active Listening seminar before we are permitted to vote in elections. Like passing a driving test before getting a license. We have to learn to hear what others say, to demonstrate a sincere understanding of what they are saying. Nothing should be assumed, else it be misinterpreted. Suspend judgment of others until you listen. Try very hard to listen.
Monday, July 23, 2012
More Roadblocks?
Can we communicate with other people in our society? Why not, we always have been able to, haven't we? Well, no. I don't believe so. People have always argued politics, religion, and whether to bunt with a man on first and less than two outs. Before the Internet and Facebook we argued in pamphlets, newspapers, books, and over a beer at the AMS Club. And we rarely if ever came to a universally agreed-to solution to a problem. Oftentimes these arguments resulted in wars. Refer here to the early 1860s. Not my idea of a good ending to a beer, especially if it was my shout..
How has technological advancements in modern communication systems affected the ability to have reasonable discussions? When we communicate with others, do we reach better solutions to our differences?
Again, consider the recent mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. American society has an obvious problem of extreme gun violence. I think that most Americans would acknowledge it as fact. Every other country in the world (at least every one I have lived in, visited, known anyone who has lived in or visited, or could identify on a world map) knows that America has a problem with gun violence. The statistics verify it. But can we reasonably discuss the problem? I'm not suggesting any form of gun control or that we should be like Australia or Switzerland--just discuss how to reduce gun violence. Seems like we should want to. When the issue comes up on the Internet, or the 24/7 cable TV networks, or anyone's smartphone, what happens? Bumper-sticker philosophies. Bigoted cartoons. Or one-sided discussions with people in the same mirror.
What has technology given us? Has it assisted our ability to have reasonable discussions and helped improve American society? I don't think so. It seems that we are left with discussions with others who support our preconceived beliefs. Do we even want to have discussions with those who are unlike us? I think we should, but technology has hampered any attempt to do so. Can we change this?
How has technological advancements in modern communication systems affected the ability to have reasonable discussions? When we communicate with others, do we reach better solutions to our differences?
Again, consider the recent mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. American society has an obvious problem of extreme gun violence. I think that most Americans would acknowledge it as fact. Every other country in the world (at least every one I have lived in, visited, known anyone who has lived in or visited, or could identify on a world map) knows that America has a problem with gun violence. The statistics verify it. But can we reasonably discuss the problem? I'm not suggesting any form of gun control or that we should be like Australia or Switzerland--just discuss how to reduce gun violence. Seems like we should want to. When the issue comes up on the Internet, or the 24/7 cable TV networks, or anyone's smartphone, what happens? Bumper-sticker philosophies. Bigoted cartoons. Or one-sided discussions with people in the same mirror.
What has technology given us? Has it assisted our ability to have reasonable discussions and helped improve American society? I don't think so. It seems that we are left with discussions with others who support our preconceived beliefs. Do we even want to have discussions with those who are unlike us? I think we should, but technology has hampered any attempt to do so. Can we change this?
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Roadblocks
In this world of technology-enhanced social networks, do we actually communicate with our fellow human beings? Can we actually communicate with them? Or is it something else? The more advanced the technology becomes, the more it seems to me to be similar to talking to the mirror, and I worry about it.
Take the current example of the mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. In an attempt to communicate my concern of the problem (and I definitely see it as a problem) caused by the proliferation of guns in American society, I posted a satirical piece on a social network site. It was an attempt to make a point by embarrassing the positions taken by those pro-gun people who read my posts. The response was quick and to the point--another liberal anti-gun reaction to an isolated incident.
So was my point communicated to the intended people. Obviously not. The point is made only to those in my mirror. So how does one communicate with those whose positions differ from one's own. Perhaps ridicule is not going to change anyone's mindset. But does a request for reasonable discussion work? A request can be made for reasonable discussions on common grounds. It would seem that the common grounds in this instance is that an approach must be made to reduce gun violence in America. However, there are people who will not even acknowledge that the problem exists. So what happens when I say the wall is painted red, and you say it is painted blue, and neither of us is colorblind. Roadblocks. What is the source of the roadblocks to communication? What if there is unwillingness to communicate? What action do you then take? What options are left. You can ignore those who are not in your mirror. But that will not improve communication in our society. And I worry that our technology-enhanced communication networks are driving us to avoid all mirrors but our own.
Take the current example of the mass shootings at Aurora, Colorado. In an attempt to communicate my concern of the problem (and I definitely see it as a problem) caused by the proliferation of guns in American society, I posted a satirical piece on a social network site. It was an attempt to make a point by embarrassing the positions taken by those pro-gun people who read my posts. The response was quick and to the point--another liberal anti-gun reaction to an isolated incident.
So was my point communicated to the intended people. Obviously not. The point is made only to those in my mirror. So how does one communicate with those whose positions differ from one's own. Perhaps ridicule is not going to change anyone's mindset. But does a request for reasonable discussion work? A request can be made for reasonable discussions on common grounds. It would seem that the common grounds in this instance is that an approach must be made to reduce gun violence in America. However, there are people who will not even acknowledge that the problem exists. So what happens when I say the wall is painted red, and you say it is painted blue, and neither of us is colorblind. Roadblocks. What is the source of the roadblocks to communication? What if there is unwillingness to communicate? What action do you then take? What options are left. You can ignore those who are not in your mirror. But that will not improve communication in our society. And I worry that our technology-enhanced communication networks are driving us to avoid all mirrors but our own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)