Month: June 2019

Public banks are resurgent, triggered by the failure of private finance to meaningfully confront the green transformation. But will resurgent public banks act in the public or private interest? How can progressives ensure public banks support a just green transformation? Democratization is the key.

Click Here: Sports Water Bottle Accessories

The turning point for public banks was really the UN’s 2015 Addis Ababa Action Agenda on how to finance the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The international community finally acknowledged what most already knew: private finance had no appetite for saving the planet without first feeding insatiable shareholders. Ergo, high-risk, low-return green investments weren’t on the menu.

The solution? For the UN, the World Bank, and the OECD it is to subordinate public finance to private interests. Public development banks should take the lead in absorbing private investors’ risks to guarantee their projected returns. There is no other way of cajoling otherwise reticent financiers to fund the global transition to a low-carbon, climate resilient future. Besides, public banks have limited financial capacity. The green transition needs the seemingly unlimited pools of global financial capital. This is the core message of the UN’s Inter-Agency Task Force 2019 Financing for Sustainable Development Report, with an important sub-text being public financial incapacity. Reinforcing existing neoliberal tropes, there is no alternative but to mobilise private finance for climate finance. The nuanced message being we now need public finance to underwrite it.

But what if this wasn’t true, or at least not in the way pitched by neoliberal ideologues and unhindered growth advocates? A new edited book by the Transnational Institute (Amsterdam), Public Finance for the Future We Want, paints a different picture. The contributors evidence the many ways that the future of finance can and should be public, backed by real-world examples of alternatives spanning the globe. However, the structural power of global predatory finance must be curbed in order to build the basis for a democratically-organised and life-sustaining future. Public finance must enable the public, not private, interest.

Public banking power

Public banks, in particular, are shown to have much greater financial capacity than commonly believed. Whereas the IATF 2019 Report claims there is only $5 trillion in combined public bank assets (so, hardly sufficient to tackle the $4 to $6 trillion in additional annual climate mitigation investments by 2030), the TNI contribution demonstrates that there are nearly 700 public banks around the world that have combined assets nearing $38 trillion (that’s about 48 per cent of global GDP). Put otherwise, 20 per cent of all bank assets are still publicly owned and controlled.

This accounts for just the national and sub-national banks. Examples span the globe from the well-known French La Caisse des Dépôts and the China Development Bank to the lesser-known Vietnam Bank for Social Policies and the Turkish Ilbank (Provinces bank). If you add in the state-owned multilateral development banks (like the World Bank) plus public pension and sovereign wealth funds plus central banks, then total combined public financial assets jump to just under $74 trillion. Given political will and popular support – something of the kind envisioned in the Green New Deal – public financial capacity can be rapidly scaled-up and mobilised.

If we go blindly down the current UN-authenticated climate finance path, existing public banking capacity is at serious risk of being captured by private financial interests. Should this occur, private investors’ profit- and growth-driven imperatives will undermine any hope of a just and green transformation in the public interest. Moreover, public finance will only feed the very same private financiers that contributed to the climate finance crisis in the first place! Only in a neoliberal world does this make for coherent policy-making.

One alternative solution is to democratize public banks, thus enabling the mobilisation of public bank resources for a just and green transformation in the public interest.

Democratizing public banks – the Costa Rican example

There are already-existing models of democratization. At a minimum, most public banks’ Boards of Directors will include some combination of government ministers and appointed representatives from the community. For example, the modest North American Development Bank (NADB) has a 10-member Board made up mostly of government representatives while the massive German development bank, the KfW, has a much more inclusive 37-member Board with wide ranging societal representation.

The most inspiring model is the Costa Rican ‘Banco Popular’ (Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal). Its model of democratization can enrich debate on financial alternatives for a green and just transformation. Founded by the government in 1969, the Banco Popular operates under public law as a ‘worker-owned’ bank geared towards serving the ‘collective welfare’ of society. By law, Costa Rican workers must deposit 1.5 per cent of their wages into the Banco Popular. After a year, 1.25 per cent of their contribution is transferred to the worker’s pension fund. The remaining 0.25 per cent is held in the bank as a form of permanent capitalization to support mandated lending programmes.

The workers’ contributions come with meaningful representation. In 1986 the Banco Popular firmly institutionalised democratization procedures by creating the ‘Assembly of Working Men and Women’ and making it the bank’s highest decision-making forum. Representatives from across ten social and economic sectors constitute the 290-member Workers’ Assembly. According Carlos Cortés, Costa Rican writer and reporter, the Workers’ Assembly is the corner stone of the bank’s contribution to the democratization of Costa Rica’s economy, development, and financial system.

Within the Assembly, the Permanent Commission for Women holds the Assembly accountable for gender equity. Across the bank as a whole, the Banco Popular is required to have 50 percent representation of women present in all decision-making bodies. The Women’s Commission holds the bank accountable to this, while building gender equity capacity and awareness. Gender equity requirements extend to local representative councils linked to the bank’s nationwide branch network.

In the Banco Popular, the Board of Directors is subordinate to the Assembly. The Board is, nevertheless, where many key operational decisions are taken – so it too is democratized. The seven-member National Board of Directors is made up of three government representatives and four elected Worker’s Assembly representatives.

These achievements are not taken for granted. In 2002, Costa Ricans passed a legal reform, the ‘Democratization’ Law (No. 8322 Ley de Democratización de las Instancias del Decisión del Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal). The Law, probably unique in the world of finance, re-affirmed and further specified the social purpose, democratic ethos, and gender equity dynamics of the Workers’ Assembly and the Banco Popular as an institution.

Finance for the people

The take-away lessons? Contrary to the prevailing climate finance narrative, we have (and can build) massive public bank financial capacity globally. Moreover, we have the potential to meaningfully democratize public banks via a ‘People’s Assembly’, ‘Women’s Commissions’ (among others), local ‘Councils’, and representative ‘Boards’. We have here a solid starting point for debate on how to finance a just and green transition in ways that are not, first and foremost, bent to the needs of global finance, capital accumulation, and growth imperatives.

In a financialized world dominated by a powerful, unaccountable, and self-interested financial class, there will be no just or green transformation without first reclaiming financial capacity in the public, not private, interest. But it would be a grave mistake to assume that resurgent public banks, by virtue of being publicly-owned, will necessarily function in the public interest. Public banks can and do go wrong. For public banks to work in the public interest, they must be made to do so. This demands meaningful democratization. This is the action now needed.

When pro-lifers picket Planned Parenthood clinics they often do so holding signs that have disturbing pictures of aborted fetuses. They do so in hopes that pro-life people will be forced to change their opinion on abortion after being confronted by the grizzly images

However, these protesters are only showing half the story.

On the other end of the abortion equation are the women put in harm’s way by laws that restrict their access to the procedure. According to the Guttmacher Institue, over 30,000 women die each year from botched abortions in countries where the practice is forbidden and 45% of all abortions performed worldwide are done so in unsafe conditions. 

When abortion is looked at from the macro level it’s tough to say which side is more “pro-life.”

A Trumblr user named stfuantichoicers perfectly illustrated this point when a pro-life activist asked pro-choice people on the forum to Google abortion pictures and see if they could still hold the same position on the issue. “Do it, I dare you. Abortion is WRONG,” the activist wrote. “Pass it on pro-lifers.”

Here’s the response.

Stfuantichoicers does a fantastic job at reframing the argument so that no one in the debate can really claim to be more pro-life than the other. Is it really “pro-life” to pave the way for the deaths of tens of thousands of women each year to protect fetal tissue? 

Pro-life people may claim their position has the moral high ground because of late-term abortions, but those are incredibly rare and only happen if the mother’s life is in danger. In this case, the pro-lifer is stepping in and asking the state to choose the life of the unborn child over its mother’s. Shouldn’t that be the doctor’s decision?

The post has recently gone viral on the Reddit r/MurderedByWords subforum where it’s had some great responses.

“Also just like… I don’t want to see pics of back surgeries either. I still support access to them,” — NoahWilzon

“What, it’s almost like something isn’t immoral simply because it’s gross!? Weird. These people need better arguments, this one is a joke.” — Smgth

“A lot of conservatives are driven by fear and disgust, and that’s what drives their political decision making,” — perfeptionactionproof

(Which is true, according to this article published by GOOD.)

“Very few people would support access to any medical procedure if their basis for support was to enjoy looking at pictures of the procedure. I don’t want to look at pictures of open heart surgery, I’m not about to oppose open heart surgery because of that lol,” — CindyButtSmacker

“The same people that are anti-abortion are generally the same people that are pro-war when the time comes. If they would see the actual results of war, and not just reporters in khaki-pocket vests, would that change their minds? Of course not. Because it’s never, ever been about the gore or loss of life to these people,” — Val_Hallen

 

 

You vacuum it, sweep it and wipe it off your furniture. But do you know what it actually is – and how it may affect your health?

Click Here: Sports Water Bottle Accessories

Don’t feel bad if you’re clueless about your dust. Scientists are not that far ahead of you in terms of understanding the sources and health risks of indoor air and particles.

That’s an issue, because people spend a lot of time indoors. Indeed, the average American stays within four walls for almost 90% of their day. So knowing more about how your indoor environment affects your health is vital.

To better quantify environmental influences on health, researchers have begun using an “exposome” approach, which considers every last environmental exposure an individual experiences over a lifetime. Your own exposome includes everything from secondhand smoke when you were a baby to lead exposure in your childhood to particulate matter if you grew up near a major roadway or industrial facility.

Dust is a big component of the exposome. What particles are you inhaling and ingesting as you go about your day?

I’m a geochemist, and my lab studies environmental health at the household level. Along with environmental scientist Mark Taylor at Macquarie University and other international partners, I’m conducting a research project on the indoor exposome.

Instead of dumping their vacuum canister into the trash, citizen-scientists put it into a sealable bag and send it off to our lab for analysis. This project, called 360 Dust Analysis, is one of a number of recent efforts that are starting to crack the code on indoor dust.

The dust is coming from inside

About one-third of household dust is created inside your home. The components differ depending on the construction and age of your home, the climate and the cleaning and smoking habits of occupants, so there’s no standard formula for dust.

First, you and your pets generate some of that detritus. Sloughed off human skin cells are part of the debris. So are pet skin cells, called dander, and dust mites that feed on skin – both of which are strong human allergens.

Overall, you can be sure that your dust also includes some decomposed insects, food debris (especially in the kitchen), fibers from carpet, bedding and clothes, and particulate matter from smoking and cooking. We hope our 360 Dust Analysis program will help solve more of the riddle of just what else goes into dust.

So far, so gross. And there are humanmade chemicals in the mix as well. For decades, manufacturers have chemically treated clothing and furniture with flame retardants and surface protectants. In fact, for some time, the flame retardants were required by law in furniture and children’s sleepwear.

But then researchers started identifying them in human blood and tissue, and even newborns showed evidence of exposure in utero. How did these molecules end up in people’s bodies? Mostly via inhalation or ingestion of indoor dust.

Health concerns about what we put in our homes

Here’s one place new science and new techniques are starting to raise serious health red flags. A flurry of research is currently underway to determine the potential toxicity of these chemicals in the human system. Scientists are also developing new techniques using wearables, such as silicone wrist bands, to determine the relationship between these dust sources and how much of them winds up in a person’s body.

A pet-free and fiber-free indoor environment would be one way to reduce the amount and potential toxicity of indoor dust. But there’s an additional concern that’s emerged from recent research: the rise of antimicrobial resistance.

Research has linked several indoor disinfection products to antimicrobial resistance. At least one study found that elevated levels of triclosan, a common antimicrobial agent in hand soaps, were correlated with high levels of antibiotic-resistant genes in dust, presumably from bacteria that live in your home and dust. This relationship is due to repeated partial, but not complete, destruction of bacteria and other microbes that go on to grow and proliferate, carrying resistant genes.

The dust that comes in from outside

To get a full picture of dust sources and hazards, you need to consider the other two-thirds of the indoor dust load, which actually come from outside. This dirt and dust is tracked in on shoes and on the feet and fur of pets. It blows in through open windows and doorways and vents. And it ranges in size and composition from gritty silt to irritating pollen to the finest of soil particles.

One of the most widespread health issues related to outdoor sources is lead. This potent neurotoxin has accumulated to sometimes extremely high levels in soils and dust after a century of emissions from industrial sources, vehicles burning leaded gasoline and degraded lead-based paints. The hazard is particularly great in cities and near mining or other industrial point sources of lead.

Lead-contaminated soils, and dust generated from them, are tightly linked to lead poisoning of children. Owing to their active neural development, lead can permanently disable exposed children.

In the drive to prevent lead poisoning, scientists have focused on what they call point sources: relatively easily identifiable things like peeling paint and lead water pipes. Soil and dust exposures are less well known.

Researchers have recently found correlations between lead in air and blood lead levels in children. Now several lab groups are taking a careful look not just at exposures in outdoor settings but also at how lead may seep into homes and become part of the indoor exposome.

Limit what you can

Much as Freon in refrigerants and other products caused the degradation of Earth’s protective stratospheric ozone layer and bisphenol A, a plasticizer used in bottles and other consumer products ended up in people’s bodies, there’s concern among scientists that “better living through chemistry” might result in a string of unintended human health consequences in the realm of dust.

Taking off outdoor clothing like jackets and adopting a shoeless household policy is one way to reduce indoor exposure to outdoor pollutants. Shoe bottoms are gross: 96% of shoes have traces of feces bacteria on their soles, including the antimicrobial resistant C. diff, and over 90% of these bacteria are transferred to floors. Add in cancer-causing toxins from asphalt road residue and endocrine-disrupting lawn chemicals, and the recommendation becomes even clearer – no outdoor shoes inside.

Not only can poetry foster a love of language, it can also help create tolerance for cultures that have been erased throughout history. Joy Harjo, a member of the Muscogee Creek Nation, has been selected as the 23^rd U.S. poet laureate consultant in poetry. Harjo will be the first Native American to hold the position of the “nation’s official poet,” and (albeit less significantly), the first Oklahoman to bear the title.

Harjo started writing in 1973, a time which she describes as “the beginning of a multicultural literary movement.” During this time, Harjo began meeting other poets, which made her feel the form was accessible. “It became a way to speak about especially Native women’s experiences at a time of great social change,” she said. Harjo has written eight books of poetry, in addition to her memoir and two books for young adults. Her book of poetry, In Mad Love and War, won the American Book Award. She has also taught at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Tennessee.

Harjo says she has been serving as an unofficial poetry ambassador for years, and has introduced Native poetry to audiences who would otherwise be unfamiliar with it. “My poems are about confronting the kind of society that would diminish Native people, disappear us from the story of this country,” she said. Harjo’s poetry gives a voice to those who have had it taken away.

While Harjo’s heritage is important, she says she doesn’t consciously try to bring her culture into her poetry. Instead, “I think the culture is bringing me into it with poetry — that it’s part of me,” Harjo told NPR.  “I don’t think about it … And so it doesn’t necessarily become a self-conscious thing — it’s just there … When you grow up as a person in your culture, you have your culture and you’re in it, but you’re also in this American culture, and that’s another layer.”

Harjo is proud to become the first Native American poet laureate. “It’s such an honoring for Native people in this country, when we’ve been so disappeared and disregarded,” Harjo says.  “I bear that honor on behalf of the people and my ancestors. So that’s really exciting for me.”

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

Harjo has yet to decide what she’ll focus on during her appointment, but she does plan on bringing people together. “Communities that normally would not sit with each other, I would love to see … interchanges with poetry,” Harjo says.

Harjo feels that this listening can help us transcend the divisiveness we’ve seem to have gotten ourselves into. “I really believe if people sit together and hear their deepest feelings and thoughts beyond political divisiveness, it makes connections. There’s connections made that can’t be made with politicized language,” she says. Harjo just might be the poet laureate we’ve needed all along.

Not only can poetry foster a love of language, it can also help create tolerance for cultures that have been erased throughout history. Joy Harjo, a member of the Muscogee Creek Nation, has been selected as the 23^rd U.S. poet laureate consultant in poetry. Harjo will be the first Native American to hold the position of the “nation’s official poet,” and (albeit less significantly), the first Oklahoman to bear the title.

Harjo started writing in 1973, a time which she describes as “the beginning of a multicultural literary movement.” During this time, Harjo began meeting other poets, which made her feel the form was accessible. “It became a way to speak about especially Native women’s experiences at a time of great social change,” she said. Harjo has written eight books of poetry, in addition to her memoir and two books for young adults. Her book of poetry, In Mad Love and War, won the American Book Award. She has also taught at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Tennessee.

Harjo says she has been serving as an unofficial poetry ambassador for years, and has introduced Native poetry to audiences who would otherwise be unfamiliar with it. “My poems are about confronting the kind of society that would diminish Native people, disappear us from the story of this country,” she said. Harjo’s poetry gives a voice to those who have had it taken away.

While Harjo’s heritage is important, she says she doesn’t consciously try to bring her culture into her poetry. Instead, “I think the culture is bringing me into it with poetry — that it’s part of me,” Harjo told NPR.  “I don’t think about it … And so it doesn’t necessarily become a self-conscious thing — it’s just there … When you grow up as a person in your culture, you have your culture and you’re in it, but you’re also in this American culture, and that’s another layer.”

Harjo is proud to become the first Native American poet laureate. “It’s such an honoring for Native people in this country, when we’ve been so disappeared and disregarded,” Harjo says.  “I bear that honor on behalf of the people and my ancestors. So that’s really exciting for me.”

Harjo has yet to decide what she’ll focus on during her appointment, but she does plan on bringing people together. “Communities that normally would not sit with each other, I would love to see … interchanges with poetry,” Harjo says.

Harjo feels that this listening can help us transcend the divisiveness we’ve seem to have gotten ourselves into. “I really believe if people sit together and hear their deepest feelings and thoughts beyond political divisiveness, it makes connections. There’s connections made that can’t be made with politicized language,” she says. Harjo just might be the poet laureate we’ve needed all along.

Using logic to change a racist’s mind is usually a losing proposition, because as author Jonathan Swift once said, “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

It’s especially difficult to wake a racist from their hate-fueled trance because, according to psychologist Dr. Steve Taylor Ph.D., racism and xenophobia are defense mechanisms generated by deep-seated feelings of insecurity and anxiety.

Taylor believes that racism is a response to “a more general sense of insignificance, unease, or inadequacy.” So challenging a person’s sense of racist entitlement threatens their basic sense of self.

Changing a person’s mind is even more difficult considering what psychologists call the “backfire effect.” Studies show that when people are presented credible information that refutes their beliefs — especially in the political sphere — they double-down on their incorrect assumptions.

A recent post on Reddit proved that some racists are able to overcome their beliefs. Reddit user Quanris asked former racists “What made you change your mind?” and the responses showed powerful examples of how being exposed to other cultures can fundamentally alter one’s perspective. 

Here are some of the best responses.

Reddit user Quanris says her mind was changed by education.

Reddit user Monday says it was going to college.

GoliathPrime changed their mind after realizing that racism doesn’t make sense.

A YouTube video changed SubSahranCamelRider’s entire world view.

Ripperxbox’s outlook was changed by the power of hip-hop.

Interestingly, no one’s worldview was changed by arguments or shame. They all seemed to change their minds after fostering close relationships with people who are different.

According to The Science of Equality, there are five tactics that can help people overcome their prejudices: presenting people with examples that break stereotypes, asking them to think about people of color as individuals rather than as a group, tasking them with taking on first-person perspectives of people of color, and increasing contact between people of different races.

Three years ago, our partners at Upworthy profiled Christian Picciolini, a man who helped build that white supremacist movement in Chicago, but eventually changed his views after coming into contact with a diverse clientele at his record store. 

Click Here: watford fc shirt

“I really received compassion and empathy from the people from that I least deserved it from,” he told Upworthy. “And that’s what changed me.”

Ever since he’s dedicated his life to helping people leave racist hate groups through Life After Hate.

Using logic to change a racist’s mind is usually a losing proposition, because as author Jonathan Swift once said, “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

It’s especially difficult to wake a racist from their hate-fueled trance because, according to psychologist Dr. Steve Taylor Ph.D., racism and xenophobia are defense mechanisms generated by deep-seated feelings of insecurity and anxiety.

Taylor believes that racism is a response to “a more general sense of insignificance, unease, or inadequacy.” So challenging a person’s sense of racist entitlement threatens their basic sense of self.

Changing a person’s mind is even more difficult considering what psychologists call the “backfire effect.” Studies show that when people are presented credible information that refutes their beliefs — especially in the political sphere — they double-down on their incorrect assumptions.

A recent post on Reddit proved that some racists are able to overcome their beliefs. Reddit user Quanris asked former racists “What made you change your mind?” and the responses showed powerful examples of how being exposed to other cultures can fundamentally alter one’s perspective. 

Here are some of the best responses.

Reddit user Quanris says her mind was changed by education.

Reddit user Monday says it was going to college.

GoliathPrime changed their mind after realizing that racism doesn’t make sense.

A YouTube video changed SubSahranCamelRider’s entire world view.

Ripperxbox’s outlook was changed by the power of hip-hop.

Interestingly, no one’s worldview was changed by arguments or shame. They all seemed to change their minds after fostering close relationships with people who are different.

According to The Science of Equality, there are five tactics that can help people overcome their prejudices: presenting people with examples that break stereotypes, asking them to think about people of color as individuals rather than as a group, tasking them with taking on first-person perspectives of people of color, and increasing contact between people of different races.

Three years ago, our partners at Upworthy profiled Christian Picciolini, a man who helped build that white supremacist movement in Chicago, but eventually changed his views after coming into contact with a diverse clientele at his record store. 

“I really received compassion and empathy from the people from that I least deserved it from,” he told Upworthy. “And that’s what changed me.”

Ever since he’s dedicated his life to helping people leave racist hate groups through Life After Hate.

Click:check balance my gift card

It’s possible that our next president could make history. In 2020, we could get our first female president or our first openly gay president. If Pete Buttigieg gets elected president, the 37-year-old would be the youngest person to hold the office, and the first openly gay man to do so. But he doesn’t think that he would be the first gay president. Buttigieg said that it’s totally possible we’ve already had a gay president, we just don’t know it.

During an interview with Axios on HBO, Buttigieg was asked, “If you were to win the nomination, they’ll say you’re too young, too liberal, too gay to be commander-in-chief. You are young. You are a liberal. You are gay. How will you respond?”

Buttigieg said that his age and his sexuality won’t hold him back, especially since we’ve probably already had gay presidents, albeit closeted ones. “People will elect the person who will make the best president. And we have had excellent presidents who have been young. We have had excellent presidents who have been liberal. I would imagine we’ve probably had excellent presidents who were gay — we just didn’t know which ones,” Buttigieg said.

There have been 44 different men to hold the office (Grover Cleveland was president two non-consecutive times), and Buttigieg says, “statistically, it’s almost certain” that one of them was gay. According to a study conducted by the William Institute at UCLA School of Law in 2018, an estimated 4.5 percent of the U.S. population is LGBTQ. As to which ones preferred the company of men, Buttigieg isn’t sure. “My gaydar even doesn’t work that well in the present, let alone retroactively. But one can only assume that’s the case.” Damn. Not that it matters, but we wanted him to name some names.

Buttigieg is the second openly gay man to run for president. He came out in 2015 before he was elected to his second term as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and is married to Chasten Glezman, a junior high school teacher.

It’s been speculated that our only confirmed bachelor president James Buchanan was gay, and was in a relationship with politician William Rufus King. Buchanan and King “were roommates” before Buchanan became president.

But really, who knows? And who cares? Even if you disagree with Buttigieg’s policies, you have to admit he’s got a point. Whether or not someone can do the job is more important than their sexual orientation or their age.

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

At the end of May, it happened again. A mass shooter killed 12 people, this time at a municipal center in Virginia Beach. Employees had been forbidden to carry guns at work, and some lamented that this policy had prevented “good guys” from taking out the shooter.

This trope – “the good guy with a gun” – has become commonplace among gun rights activists.

Where did it come from?

On Dec. 21, 2012 – one week after Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut – National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre announcedduring a press conference that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Ever since then, in response to each mass shooting, pro-gun pundits, politicians and social media users parrot some version of the slogan, followed by calls to arm the teachers, arm the churchgoers or arm the office workers. And whenever an armed citizen takes out a criminal, conservative media outlets pounce on the story.

But “the good guy with the gun” archetype dates to long before LaPierre’s 2012 press conference.

There’s a reason his words resonated so deeply. He had tapped into a uniquely American archetype, one whose origins I trace back to American pulp crime fiction in my book “Hard-Boiled Crime Fiction and the Decline of Moral Authority.”

Other cultures have their detective fiction. But it was specifically in America that the “good guy with a gun” became a heroic figure and a cultural fantasy.

‘When I fire, there ain’t no guessing’

Beginning in the 1920s, a certain type of protagonist started appearing in American crime fiction. He often wore a trench coat and smoked cigarettes. He didn’t talk much. He was honorable, individualistic – and armed.

These characters were dubbed “hard-boiled,” a term that originated in the late 19th century to describe “hard, shrewd, keen men who neither asked nor expected sympathy nor gave any, who could not be imposed upon.” The word didn’t describe someone who was simply tough; it communicated a persona, an attitude, an entire way of being.

Most scholars credit Carroll John Daly with writing the first hard-boiled detective story. Titled “Three Gun Terry,” it was published in Black Maskmagazine in May 1923.

 

“Show me the man,” the protagonist, Terry Mack, announces, “and if he’s drawing on me and is a man what really needs a good killing, why, I’m the boy to do it.”

Terry also lets the reader know that he’s a sure shot: “When I fire, there ain’t no guessing contest as to where the bullet is going.”

From the start, the gun was a crucial accessory. Since the detective only shot at bad guys and because he never missed, there was nothing to fear.

Part of the popularity of this character type had to do with the times. In an era of Prohibition, organized crime, government corruption and rising populism, the public was drawn to the idea of a well-armed, well-meaning maverick – someone who could heroically come to the defense of regular people. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, stories that featured these characters became wildly popular.

Taking the baton from Daly, authors like Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler became titans of the genre.

Their stories’ plots differed, but their protagonists were mostly the same: tough-talking, straight-shooting private detectives.

In an early Hammett story, the detective shoots a gun out of a man’s hand and then quips he’s a “fair shot – no more, no less.”

In a 1945 article, Raymond Chandler attempted to define this type of protagonist:

As movies became more popular, the archetype bled into the silver screen. Humphrey Bogart played Dashiell Hammett’s Sam Spade and Raymond Chandler’s Philip Marlowe to great acclaim.

By the end of the 20th century, the fearless, gun-toting good guy had become a cultural hero. He had appeared on magazine covers, movie posters, in television credits and in video games.

Selling a fantasy

Gun rights enthusiasts have embraced the idea of the “good guy” as a model to emulate – a character role that just needed real people to step in and play it. The NRA store even sells T-shirts with LaPierre’s slogan, and encourages buyers to “show everyone that you’re the ‘good guy’” by buying the T-shirt.

 

The problem with this archetype is that it’s just that: an archetype. A fictional fantasy.

In pulp fiction, the detectives never miss. Their timing is precise and their motives are irreproachable. They never accidentally shoot themselves or an innocent bystander. Rarely are they mentally unstable or blinded by rage. When they clash with the police, it’s often because they’re doing the police’s job better than the police can.

Another aspect of the fantasy involves looking the part. The “good guy with a gun” isn’t just any guy – it’s a white one.

In “Three Gun Terry,” the detective apprehends the villain, Manual Sparo, with some tough words: “‘Speak English,’ I says. I’m none too gentle because it won’t do him any good now.”

In Daly’s “Snarl of the Beast,” the protagonist, Race Williams, takes on a grunting, monstrous immigrant villain.

Could this explain why, in 2018, when a black man with a gun tried to stop a shooting in a mall in Alabama – and the police shot and killed him– the NRA, usually eager to champion good guys with guns, didn’t comment?

A reality check

Most gun enthusiasts don’t measure up to the fictional ideal of the steady, righteous and sure shot.

In fact, research has shown that gun-toting independence unleashes much more chaos and carnage than heroism. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research study revealed that right-to-carry laws increase, rather than decrease, violent crime. Higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates. Gun possession is correlated with increased road rage.

There have been times when a civilian with a gun successfully intervenedin a shooting, but these instances are rare. Those who carry guns often have their own guns used against them. And a civilian with a gun is more likely to be killed than to kill an attacker.

Even in instances where a person is paid to stand guard with a gun, there’s no guarantee that he’ll fulfill this duty.

Hard-boiled novels have sold in the hundreds of millions. The movies and television shows they inspired have reached millions more.

What started as entertainment has turned into a durable American fantasy.

Maintaining it has become a deadly American obsession.

Click Here: toulon rugby shop melbourne

June 8 is World Oceans Day. Every day the equivalent of a garbage truck’s worth of plastic is dumped into our oceans. It has been estimated that by the year 2050 there will be more plastic in our world’s seas than there are fish.

Today, we find ourselves at a critical juncture where the fate of our oceans, and our planet itself, hangs in the balance. No longer can we run away from the problem. However, if you want to do something about it, you can now literally run toward the solution.

Adidas and Parley Ocean School are raising money to help educate young people on ways to reduce ocean plastic. Adidas and Parley have been collaborating to save our world’s oceans in a number of ways.

You can sign up for the free Runtastic app here.

Click Here: Sports Water Bottle Accessories

And if you want to do it as part of a team, you can sign up for one of the Adidas running groups here.

“We believe in creating mass awareness to the plight of the oceans,” Adidas Executive Board Member Eric Liedtke told Upworthy. “Our ambition is for RFTO to be the greatest mobilization of mankind to save our oceans.”

In 2018, they made waves when they announced a plan to make 11 million shoes entirely from ocean plastic. That campaign further went viral after orders for the shoes quickly sold out.

Last year, Adidas and Parley used National Oceans Day to raise nearly $1 million for educational efforts on reducing and removing ocean plastic and this year they want to raise that number to $1.5 million:

Of course, you don’t have to be a runner to take part. The Runtastic and Joyrun apps will register however far you walk, jog or run through June 15th.

Sign up for the app. Tell your friends. And then walk or run your way to making a tangible, measurable difference in our world today.