President Dwight D. Eisenhower warns Americans about military-industry complex 65 years ago.

President Eisenhower warns Americans against the military-industrial complex in his exit speech on January 17, 1961. We should have listened to him. He was a Republican.

Video lasts 2:30. Click here.

Now we have the military in our country policing its own citizens.

Three things to know about gun mortality

 I have three ideas that I am pursuing about the gun problem in the US.

First, being a New York State resident I am proud of the fact that New York is in the top five states with the lowest gun mortality rates and I am curious about the discrepancies in gun mortality rates in the different states in US. One reason among others that New York has a low gun mortality rate is that New York also has a very low suicide rate, the biggest category of gun deaths is suicide as you probably know. I don't know how knowledgeable the general public is of this fact. The public health data is very clear that the possession of guns is one of the biggest predictors of death by a gun. So owning a gun does not make you safe, it puts you at more risk of death by a gun. This fact is not well known enough and perhaps it would improve the chances of not dying by a gun if more people knew this and didn't own guns.

Second, gun safety laws matter and have a significant impact on gun mortality rates. New York State is a good example of this as well as other states with effective gun safety laws. Perhaps more can be done showing the impact that gun safety laws have on gun mortality.

Third, political campaigns have significant financing by gun manufacturers who buy our politicians to pass laws favorable or not pass laws unfavorable to their business and profit. The end to the gun problem in the US would be to decrease the number of guns among the population and to govern their use as we do with automobiles, airplanes, and chemical substances.

The three big ways gun mortality can be decreased is to change social norms and attitudes about gun possession, decrease access to guns, and improve regulatory enforcement of their possession, storage, and use.

Compare murder rate in San Francisco and Houston

 

The Republicans deal in alternative facts and propaganda. Americans deserve the truth. Social policies do matter and some get better outcomes than others. When it comes to getting murdered in an urban setting, a person would have much lower risk in a blue city like San Francisco as compared to a red city like Houston.

Observing such a huge discrepancy, a thoughtful person might ask why such a difference? There is something much more life preserving and life giving about the culture in San Francisco than in Houston. What is different about the two cultures?

Gun mortality in the US: Who Profits?

President Donald Trump continually says that violent crime is out of control in America’s major cities. While his claims aren’t backed by data, his administration continues to cut funding for the programs and research that helped the country recover from record-high levels of shootings, and helped some of those same major cities reach record-low homicide rates. Under Trump, crucial federal funding to combat America’s gun violence crisis is drying up.

But that doesn’t mean the work to end the crisis has stopped. States, cities, and community members across the country are still taking action to reduce shootings — you just might not hear about it from most news outlets.

Enter The Trajectory, a newsletter about the people, policies, and programs grappling with America’s gun violence epidemic. Sign up to receive stories about the people and communities taking action to reduce gun violence, along with the innovative programs and policies that are making a difference. Because America’s gun violence epidemic will never abate if we focus only on the problem — we have to look at potential solutions, too.

Social policies and social programs matter and can make a difference. New York State has the fourth lowest gun mortality rate in the nation because it has some of the nation's best gun safety laws.

The Republicans are heavily supported by gun and weapons manufacturers in the United States who make money by selling guns. If you want to understand what fuels political campaigns find out who is financing them and who the candidate then is beholden to.

When it comes to gun violence you are far safer living in New York than most other states in the Union.

If we are going to solve the gun mortality problem in the United States we must address the source of the problem which is who is profiting from gun sales and who is shaping policy when it comes to gun safety.

The truth and alternative facts: there is a difference.

One of the first moves in every authoritarian dictator's playbook is to intimidate, suppress, and ultimately destroy the free press.

And that's precisely what the Republicans are doing right now.

Legitimate journalists have been banished from the White House press corps. NPR and PBS have been defunded, with local stations nationwide on the edge of heavy cuts or closure. Trump's FCC has launched a wave of phony investigations into news outlets Trump doesn't like.

In the face of these attacks, too many corporate news outlets have submitted to MAGA control by paying fines, failing to endorse opposition political candidates, and editing stores in line with the MAGA propaganda.

The corporate press's main motive is profit not public service. Most journalists are no longer professionals bound to a code of ethics, but corporate actors who obey the preferences of their handlers or they are fired.

There is an important difference between propaganda and news. Can you tell the difference? As a nation, these skills of critical thinking are rapidly atrophying. What will nurture our democracy, and a high quality society is a return to the truth and a dismissal of what the MAGA folks call "alternative facts."

In these times, it is very important to support the independent media. Who are your favorites?

Comparative costs of policing and housing in DC

 

Follow the money

Since the US Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United in 2010 that a corporation is a person  and has the same free speech rights, a corporation can donate an unlimited amount of money to political campaigns giving them the power to buy politicians who will promote their corporate interests even at the expense of the people the politician is sworn to represent and serve.

Citizens United has allowed the oligarchs to take over the US government. The costs of federal elections doubled in the last decade from $6.5 billion in 2016 to $14.8 billion in 2024. This explosive rise in campaign spending had come from corporations and not from the constituents in the politicians district. In 2024 only 17.6% of campaign money for house races came from the candidates home states, and 27.5% for senate races. This is a stark contrast to 20 years ago when the vast majority of contributions were from local donors whom the politicians were campaigning to serve. (For more click here.)

If citizens are to protect and further nurture democratic processes they need to know who is buying their politicians allegiance. He who pays the fiddler, calls the tune. So the news behind the news is who is funding social policy development and implementation for what interests? In other words, if a student wants to better understand the workings of democracy in the US, follow the money. 

The buying of politicians is such a significant issue for the functioning of our democracy, MarkhamsSlowNews will be reporting on this topic regularly.

What will the climate be like where you live in 60 years?

The University of Maryland has created an interactive map that predicts what the climate will be like in different areas on the planet in 60 years. 

In Rochester, NY where I live it is predicted that in 60 years the summers will average 12 degrees warmer and 2% drier and the winters will be 12 degrees warmer and 20 % wetter. This will mean less snow in the winter and more rain, and more drought in the summer.

To use the interactive map click here.

The World's most endangered animals

 

As the population of homo sapiens grows and affects the ecologies of regions on the earth, other animal species are crowded out. This encroachment and eradication is another characteristic of what is called the "Anthropocene."

Knowledge is the prime component of a social discourse.

The first component of a social discourse is the body of knowledge which forms the frame of reference from which the technology of the discourse is derived. The primary repository of this body of knowledge is embodied in the jargon and special vocabulary used to communicate this knowledge. It is this body of knowledge which is studied in professional training schools such as “medical school”, “law school”, “business school”, etc.

Within these bodies of knowledge a student and practitioner can specialize and develop an expertise in some sub section of the discourse giving them even more power and authority because of their special knowledge. These folks become the “experts.”

The experts are often credentialed by some accrediting body which sanctions and validates the mastery of this specialized knowledge of the discourse. This specialized knowledge is often made visible by initials after the person’s name and basic credential. Mastering this body of knowledge gives the person authority, social status, and power among society at large but especially among those who also represent the discourse.

The language used in public discourse—whether in media, politics, or everyday conversations—frames issues and defines what is considered "truthful" or "common sense."4 For example, the use of terms like "illegal alien" instead of “undocumented” in a discourse on immigration can frame immigrants as a threat, which in turn influences people's attitudes and support for certain policies.5 This framing of knowledge can legitimize certain viewpoints while marginalizing others, creating a shared understanding that is difficult to challenge.

This specialized use of words to communicate knowledge has a way of colonizing a person’s thinking and beliefs. Some thoughts and beliefs benefit from the social sanctions wielded by the laws of the society which govern the practices of the discourse and people departing from the generally accepted meaning of the words are sued for malpractice, censured, disbarred, excommunicated, and labeled as “quacks” and con artists if not traitors and apostates.  

The devious manipulation of nefarious actors cast doubt on the accuracy and validity of the discourse knowledge base. Perpetration of disinformation, propaganda, and “alternative facts” undermine and sabotage the accepted knowledge base of the discourse and change it sometimes rapidly and sometimes insidiously.

From an evolutionary perspective, the knowledge base of discourses are constantly changing and in flux based on the benefits and the accuracy of the predicted outcomes they provide.

The deeper analysis of the knowledge base of discourses occurs in the philosophical discipline of epistemology which is the study of knowledge. Epistemology attempts to investigate and understand how we know what we know and how knowledge is used in our human functioning.

How do we know if what we are told is accurate and valid? Should I believe what I am being told or not? Does the person sharing this knowledge know that they are talking about? Are they to be trusted?