Check for web archive captures
All the Known Unknowns and the Unknown
Unknowns..ah Shades of Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld
By lindamuralidharan on 2018-03-16 05:58:45
Perhaps many of us had enough American political history in high school or college to have a vague recollection of the 19th
Century political party known as the Know Nothing Party. My vague recollection has always been that these were folks that
were sort of cousins of the earlier Luddites....taking a stand against the knowledge and science of the modern age and of the
elites (as they saw them) whom they did not understand. In this age of anti-science and anti serious discourse based on facts
and collections of informative reports, I thought I'd check out my impressions and see if the this century's version of Know
Nothingism matched my memory. Well, not in the way I thought. That earlier party had the official name of the American
Party. It stood for preventing new migrants from settling in the US. It was more or less focused on the desirability of
American males as opposed to foreigners, and to that extent it matches with the alt right and the base of Donald J. Trump's
following. However, the emphasis of opposition was toward immigrants from South East Europe and Ireland because the
party was primarily opposed to Roman Catholicism. It was believed that the followers of the Pope in Rome were planning
to take over the country along with some members of Catholic immigrant communities (notably Irish and Italian but
Catholics from other locales were coming in Lalso) [caption id="attachment_ 11013" align="alignleft" width="341"]
. American gun show[/caption] Apparently the party was not opposed to
knowledge or science as such. Of course, most ideologies based on stereotypes are deficient to some extent in objective
information and knowledge, but unlike some today, that 19th Century group was not about denying scientific facts. Today
we have people saying very specifically that climate science, or at least the version that says not only is our earth warming
but that also human choices and behaviors have and are continuing to contribute greatly to the warming effect, is either
unnecessary or bogus or both.. These groups say such science is false. Don't study it. This group is also busy taking
scientific versions of policies in other departments of government out to the back lot and dumping them. The EPA has
various policies designed to protect people and animals and the environment. Since some of these policies may threaten the
unchecked profits of certain corporations, employees are often let go from the units that have made the proven case. If
programs and policies are objected to by the folks who want to restrict the rights of subgroups of people, it is difficult to
maintain current statistics and pertinent research. If programs and policies are objected to by folks whose profits are
somewhat limited by said policies, government employees in many cases are not supposed to use scientific terms or
researcher to further study or implement said policies. It's a literal version of "I Know Nothing" and you best not know
anything either. In the 19th Century, many party operatives simply said, "I know nothing" when asked about some of the
racist and xenophobic positions of the party platform. They did not want to reveal a specific set of facts, but were not
denying that facts exist. So our current catch phrase is...well, catchy....but_not correct in identifying with the earlier party.
[caption id="attachment_11014" align="alignright" width="341" |= co Gun
show in Tennessee[/caption] One of the most destructive forms of the current rejection of the pursuit of knowledge i is the
successful effort of the NRA to block government research into gun use and gun death statistics. The NRA had its
handmaidens, the Republican Party, cut off funding for the relevant departments. It was a complicated but effective way of
blocking real life info that might tell us more about how to prevent some of the mass shootings we suffer from in this
country. We often say, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Perhaps no knowledge at all is a dangerous thing. In any
case, the government is not doing what it could to protect us by pursuing real world information. There are some institutions
within and without government that have made the attempt at some forms of research since the pro gun (at all costs)
Republicans do not hold sway over all possible avenues of research. For example, at about the time of the Parkland, Florida,
school shootings, a Harvard study was reported out based on research in numerous countries that were compared with good
statistical controls with the United States. In that study, the only two differences between our country and many, many
others, was that we have many more guns per individual in our population and we have many more mass shootings. Mental
illness incidents, love of violent video games, and etc. were all the same. This
report matches up with some other statistics that have been reported out by other institutions. For example we learned
recently that my state of Hawaii has the fourth fewest gun deaths per head of population among states. New York,
Massachusetts and Rhode Island beat us out. And we are among the states with the best gun safety laws and we plan on
passing more in this legislative session. Nonetheless, the CDC and other government agencies responsible for our well being
need to be completely free to use best practices of research and statistical analysis to find out what really works to improve
civilian safety in this country. Yes, I want school children to be safe at school. And I desperately want all of us to be safe in
our homes, in our shopping centers, in our public spaces, and in our concert venues. We spend millions studying space.
Perhaps we could develop a conscience and study all the possible avenues to saving lives at risk from guns. [caption
id="attachment_11016" align="alignleft" width="272"] = Legal California medical
marijuana shop[/caption] Another area in which we suffer from stymied research i into o the known unknowns and unknown
unknowns is in areas of marijuana research, especially with regard to medical marijuana. Despite widespread application of
medical marijuana to relive suffering, we are not allowed to know what our best researchers at the Federal level might
discover if they could conduct scientific research. Which kinds best treat which maladies What are side effects from
different forms? [caption id="attachment_11018" align="alignright" width="341"]
marijuana growing for sale[/caption] Again, government interference
blocks what the public needs. Right now the biggest road block to useful study is lack of sufficient support to take
marijuana off the list of Schedule I drugs and place it on Schedule II. It can't be studied by most labs with its present
designation. There is, however, is host of other issues. First only one place is allowed to produce marijuana legally for
research. And, to be sure, there is the bureaucracy which makes expediting the go ahead for marijuana research long,
complicated and frustrating. [caption id="attachment_11017" align="alignleft" width="200"]
eager shoppers at gun sale[/caption] The drug war has failed. People have taken issues into their own hands and legalized
forms of marijuana in several states. Apparently a great number of people have reduced their suffering from a number of
ailments significantly. It's probably true, and yet we really do need more than anecdotal evidence. Actually, we need more
facts and education about a lot of mood altering substances. For example, drugs in general have landed up in the various
categories of controlled substances as much by historical circumstance as by science. To a very great extent, drugs were
considered more extreme in direct relationship to how the establishment perceived their use to be primarily by African
Americans. Overall prejudice against users and against drugs themselves ...gee, some people are even against alcohol
use!...led drugs to be mislabeled as well. Methamphetamine and cocaine, e.g., are actually stimulants, not narcotic like the
opiates. But people still refer to them as narcotics! We desperately need to be doing both things. Educating lay people about
the history, use, and facts regarding the various recreational drugs and prescription drugs while at the same time engaging in
thorough scientific studies of the benefits and drawbacks of marijuana in general and medicinal uses of marijuana in
specifics. Do we wish to wallow in all our unknowns, known and unknown? Or do we wish to learn a little something?
