When we are attacked, with words, fits, automatic weapons or bombs, we need to defend ourselves. Ordinarily I’m a peacenik and my first response to an attack is to search for a resolution to the conflict or try to mediate. But one has to survive to engage with the attacker for that strategy to work. Sometimes a rigorous defense followed by a counter attack is necessary. There has been much debate since the Feb. 14th Florida high school shooting concerning both prevention and immediate emergency response. Turning schools into barricaded, armed fortresses is a plan that marks one end of the spectrum. Establishing better mental health monitoring (pro, con) and restorative justice systems holds down the other end.
This morning I came across this suggestion: Arming schools with buckets of rocks in each classroom. While this idea may seem ludicrous at first it deserves a second look before we abandon it. Here are some pros and cons that have occurred to me.
Pros
- Being hit by rocks may actually work to deter a shooter. At the very least it will be distracting
- The defenders have a non-leathal action to take
- Keeping rocks around is less dangerous than keeping guns
- Confronting an attacker provides the threatened with a sense of effectiveness
- Every child can throw a rock, some may even hit a disarming or disabling target
- Rock throwers can surround the shooter increasing the likelihood of taking him/her down.
Cons
- To be in a position to throw a rock exposes the thrower to the shooter
- The thrower has to be relatively close to the shooter to be effective
- One bucket of rocks is probably not enough
- The rocks are still potential weapons that violent students could use against each other or school faculty or staff.
My thoughts are certainly not the last word on this subject and I’d like to hear what you think about it. My purpose in writing this blog is to explore radical and unusual ideas so please have at it.
on their screen? And whose responsibility is it to understand what you are doing when you follow a suggestion on your screen?
Most of governing is a huge void. You can fill that void by exercising your rights and opportunities to control. If you don’t, someone else will, often someone with whom you don’t agree. Elected officials can’t represent the people if the people can’t articulate what they want. Most people have no conscious idea of how they govern themselves, their families, neighborhoods, cities, counties, states, not to mention national governments. Understanding your own values and perspectives at a deep level is key.
It’s also where the political rubber meets the road. So while the public is enthralled with billion-dollar campaigns for elected office and arguing about which official will view their particular beef favorably, those who wield the real power are introducing themselves to the office staff. “I’d like to volunteer for Committee X or Commission Y.” “I’m available for your next opening as a writer or an analyst.” Public opinion about the use of police
We equate voting with performing our “civic duty”. We think “government of the people” can be done by making more and more state and federal laws instead of by being mindful of the billions of small action decisions we collectively make on a daily basis.
The tag line reads: “Since 1979, the federal government has recommended flossing daily to help prevent gum disease and cavities. But according to a new report by the Associated Press, there’s little scientific evidence to support that advice. We’ll drill down into the data, and we want to hear from you: Will the news affect your oral hygiene routine?”
When dealing with personal health, paying attention to statistical probability tells us only how likely it is that a medication or treatment will help us but tells us nothing about how any one person will respond. The bottom line, on flossing or any other medical recommendation, is to look for a personal solution. The fact that a treatment doesn’t work for 99 out of 100 people does not prove it will not work for you or me.
Nadia Dennis
From a societal perspective, it’s probably not a good idea for businesses to piss off their customers. If you do a web search using keywords ‘hate’ and ‘AT&T’ you’ll find plenty of evidence supporting the growing dissatisfaction with the customer service provided by this large corporation. Such frustration is not unique to AT&T. It begins when consumers try to contact the company and must thread their way through a maze of automated options and recorded voices professing delight, sorrow and desire to please. It often ends with a meaningless survey.