What do the topics of football, smoking, gun control and climate change have to do with each other? While disparate subjects, their common factor is willful ignorance. Worse, that willful ignorance often was to the detriment of active participants, as well as family, friends and frequently innocent bystanders. In each case, the basic facts were known. Physical harm was being caused by the agent. Yet, the symptoms were ignored, while those responsible either directly covered up the facts, or employed the rouse of claiming more data was necessary. Skillfully employed were the tactics associated with information warfare. Playing to emotions versus facts and logic, willful ignorance usually can be attributed to financial greed or other person gain.
By design, football is a violent sport. Injuries, too often serious ones to the head, happen regularly, and there are even infrequent deaths of competitors. While known, it was not until the issue of traumatic brain injuries (TBI) became public knowledge that the NFL began to take concussions seriously. The symptoms had long been observed, especially in retired players some of whom displayed significant mental problems including dementia, depression, and even Alzheimer’s. Until recently, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, better know simply as CTE, could only be confirmed by physically examining the brain after the death of the patient. Frighteningly, of those examined, 90 percent of the brains of deceased NFL players displayed elements of CTE. Some players were aware of their brain damage. That was exemplified by the suicide of 12-time Pro Bowl selectee, Junior Seau. Known for his ferocious competitiveness, Seau shot himself in the chest, specifically so that his brain could be examined. Evidence of CTE was confirmed. Then too, there was the case of New England Patriots tight end, and convicted murderer, Aaron Hernandez. Following his suicide in prison, the evidence of Stage 3 CTE was found and reported to be the most severe case observed in a person that young (27).
For years the response of the NFL was to ignore the data as was documented in Frontline’s program League of Denial: The NFL’s Concussion Crisis. With emphasis on injuries resulting in concussions, they made a few cosmetic rule changes, such as no spearing or head-to-head contact and protection for defenseless players, such as wide receivers leaping to catch a pass. Finally, after being successfully sued, the NFL set aside about a billion dollars to compensate retired players. That sum will not be sufficient to cover all of those with CTE. Also, more recently it has been learned that it is not just concussions that matter. Rather, it is the repetitive strikes to the head, not just the severe ones that cause brain injury.
Importantly, these injuries are not unique to NFL players. Rather, there is reason for concern for their undeclared feeder systems; i.e. colleges and universities. They also thrive on football revenue with head coaches routinely being far better compensated than the presidents of the institutions they represent. Studies found that CTE in college players was found at a rate three times that of the normal population, and well above other sports involving bodily contact. Not so generously, the NCAA acknowledged the problem. However, their approach was to fund diagnosis, but not treatment for the players.
Obviously, college players evolve from high school teams while Little League introduces even younger participants. While more restrictive in contact, at all levels, players are encouraged to participate aggressively. That is the nature of the game. In some areas of the country, high school and college football teams assume relevance akin to religion in importance.
A near ubiquitous form of recognition for a great play is head butting. That, despite the fact that it is repetitive strikes that leads to CTE. Today, many parents across the country choose to willfully ignore the irrefutable data. They actively encourage their children of all ages to participate in the sport. For the NFL, as well as many universities, money drives the train. For other aspirants, as well as family members, it cannot be denied there can be a degree of local fame and adulation that accompanies participation. That begs the question: is it worth the price? Possibly they should heed the HUFFPOST quote, “Namath joins a growing swath of parents and former members of the NFL family who question whether the sport is worth the health risks, including Mike Ditka, Troy Aikman, Adrian Peterson, Terry Bradshaw, (and) Brett Favre.”
While the percentage of people smoking in the U.S. has declined significantly, it is still problematic. Much of the decrease can be attributed to successful lawsuits brought against the tobacco companies. Beside gigantic cash settlements, significant changes were required in marketing. That includes altering the industry’s insidious and conscious efforts to recruit youngsters to smoke. In 1965, it was estimated that about 42 percent of adults were smokers. The current number is closer to 17 percent. However, that still contributes to about 480,000 deaths a year, and an estimated 300 hundred billion dollars in costs from health care and lost productivity.
As proven in court, the tobacco industry knew their products were harmful. Still, they suppressed the evidence as long as they could. The favorite tactic was to claim the studies were inconclusive and more research required. That research would come preferably from institutions they funded and with their ownership of the data. In addition, they actively found ways to enhance the addictive qualities of their cigarettes, making it far harder for those so desiring to quit. While counterintuitive from a health perspective, their financial incentives overrode any sense of common morality.
It would be wrong to believe that the industry has turned a new leaf (pun intended). They still aggressively advertise in the U.S. and in recent years spending nearly $9B annually to make their products seem socially desirable. Currently they are specifically targeting women promoting smoking as a sign of independence. Shamelessly, tobacco companies have increased emphasis on sales in developing countries, especially ones with weak product protection laws. Clearly financially lucrative, in 2017 it is estimated that global tobacco sales were in excess of 152 billion dollars.
Also note there are several demographic factors in the U.S. that impact the probability of smoking. They included geography, age, sex and race. Education is key, as the more educated one is, the less likely they are to smoke. Tobacco advertisers know all those factors well and target advertisements accordingly. Given what is know about the adverse effects of tobacco products in all forms, the same question emerges, is it worth the price?
While far more sensitive politically than either football or smoking, the issue of gun control in America is one that defies all facts or common sense. Led by the massive lobbying efforts of the National Rifle Association (NRA), even the most logical laws regarding guns are beaten down. Exploiting our fear-based society, the NRA rises to meet any challenge inferring that evil government forces are en route to confiscate private weapons. While contradicted by statistics, they convince many U.S. citizens that they need weapons to protect themselves, and their loved ones. Law enforcement, they claim, is just not up to the job, and likely to be too slow in responding should you be accosted by some evildoer. Going a bit further, right-wing militia groups have the irresponsible notion that conventionally armed civilians are a necessary and effective deterrent to a federal government run amok. Illogically, they seem to believe their imprudent groups could defeat forces from the Department of Defense, who are equipped with armored vehicles, artillery, helicopters, fighter aircraft, bombers, and supported the most advanced sensors and communications systems in the world. Yet, on any given weekend they will be out in the woods, playing childish wargames.
The incontrovertible fact is that Americans shoot themselves, and each other, at an alarming rate; one far greater than any developed country in the world. We are in a league unto ourselves in that category. With nearly 30,000 gun related deaths annually, that is nearly on par with automobile accident fatalities. In several states, shooting deaths exceed those in car accidents. There is a significant difference between those categories. With automobile accidents, great effort is put into studying causes and developing methods of prevention. However, since 1996, at the behest of the NRA, the CDC has not been allowed to study gun violence. Even when the embargo was lifted briefly after the Newtown massacre of innocent children, they did not engage in such studies. Fearing the blatantly obvious outcome, the NRA leadership couches their concerns that the CDC was promoting gun control. They don’t, but they should.
What most Americans don’t know is that since 1968, more of our people have died from gunshots in this country, than all of the military servicemembers have been killed in all wars in U.S. history combined. In real numbers, 1.5 million died from gun related incidents (1968-2015), while 1.4 million troops have died in military conflicts. As most know, the Civil War and WWII were very messy affairs. Those are slightly dated numbers as the spread continues to increase. It is estimated that on average there are 93 Americans killed by guns each day, including seven children or teens. In addition, for every fatal shooting there are more than two non-fatal events. You are far more likely to be shot by someone you know, including close relatives, than by a stranger. As for the counter-terrorism argument, in the decade prior to 2015, there were 24 terrorist-related deaths in the country compared with more than 280,000 non-terrorist gun fatalities.
Columbine, Denver, Newtown, Orlando, Charleston, or most recently Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas; it matters not how heinous the crime, or number of innocent lives lost, the NRA can be counted on to intimidate the U.S. Government representatives and insist that nothing be done. From refusing to require background checks on all sales to not outlawing bump stocks that basically create conversion to fully automatic weapons, Congress subordinates itself to our equivalent of a domestic terrorist organization. Kowtowing to their insidious demands displays the willful ignorance of our leaders and acquiescence of many people. Is it worth the cost?
As the seas rise, and more and more coastal cities experience incipiant inundation, the “Chinese Hoax” of climate change is already extracting a heavy toll. Yes, predictions of future devastation are frightening, but the effects are impacting now. Beyond the coastal areas, extreme fires and drought conditions are already plaguing many parts of the world.
How do scientists know that climate change is real? In addition to the increase in extreme weather events, there are a number of other significant indicators. Global temperatures have increased. In fact, 16 of the 17 hottest years on record happened since 2001. The oceans are warming and increasing in acidity. Ice sheets are shrinking as have many glaciers. There is a decline in the annual Arctic coverage and decrease in snow coverage, all supporting the noted rise in sea levels. There are additional scientific measurements that address the CO2 levels that are at unprecedented amounts. Yes, there have been fluctuations before. However, the peak amount previously registered 300,000 years ago was 300 ppm. We passed that marker in 1950 and are now in excess of 380 ppm. When the long-term charts are viewed it is hard to deny that there is a correlation between human activity and climate change.
My personal confirmation came about a decade ago when at the base camp of Qomolongma (Mt. Everest) in Tibet. Standing above 18,000 feet, I noted the snow line was far above me. Then too there was more water on the Tibetan Plateau than normally would be expected. That was a result of the glaciers melting while snowfall has declined globally. So severe, recently Sherpas have expressed concern about the danger to climbers from the melting ice. Conversely, when in Sydney, Australia just over a year ago, locals complained about the temperature in the 90’s (F) and that it had risen about 20 degrees in just a few hours. While that may have been considered hot, as this was being written, Sydney hit 117 (F), nearly an all-time record. These are early warning signs as climate change is expected to have more dramatic on Australia than other areas of the world.
The effects of climate changes will have dramatic consequences in many sectors. The Department of Defense has taken the issue very seriously, as well they should. Human migration is already a major problem. Given the number of people in the world that live in low-lying coastal areas, flooding, coupled with population growth, is going to exacerbate the issue significantly. Climate change is already impacting food production in some areas of the world as is access to water. These factors likely will lead to increased conflict.
Similarly, the U.S. Navy is concerned about the viability of their current ports both at home and abroad. In addition, continued arctic thawing will have huge impact on both navigation and the scramble for the natural resources that are becoming accessible. Claims are being staked out for those resources. Those who oppose the DOD climate change initiatives often do so by noting the expenses involved. That myopic view puts short-term profit ahead of long-term viability. That is a common theme as climate change deniers voice concern about “job-killing regulations.” There is no doubt the actions that need to be taken now are expensive. But then, ultimately at stake is survival.
To the embarrassment of many Americans, President Trump announced that we would withdraw from the Paris accords on climate change. That made us the only country to opt out, even though we use a disproportionate amount of the global energy resources; ones that contribute significantly to the problem. Also incongruent is our government’s emphasis on fossil fuels, including coal mining and off-shore drilling, while diminishing efforts to enhance renewable energy sources. Not only has solar energy proven to be cost effective, it has created many new jobs and even far exceeded the number in coal mining.
What these examples prove beyond all reasonable doubt, is that American willful ignorance on these, and similar issues, is literally killing us. Protectionism for these controversial issues actually employ elements of information warfare tactics, and do so effectively. These techniques include distortion, distraction, dismissal, and dismaying the target audience. First, supporters of the topic distort the truth. They often outright lie, delete facts, or present material out of context. The Hillary Herring (blame everything on HRC) is an example of distraction; that is change the topic. Notice that in every political discussion that is going poorly, POTUS and GOP representatives inject Hillary Clinton to divert attention from their actions. The NRA both distorts and distracts by bringing unreasonable threats or national security into any gun control discussion.
Another tactic is to dismiss facts. Kellyanne Conway’s statement about alternative facts is a classic; one that is so obvious and brazen it is rarely overtly replicated. Rather, proponents simply state their own counterfactual information as if true. Repeated often enough and the lies take on a life of their own and are believed by people searching for information that confirms their predisposition or what is known as confirmation bias. Also employed are attempts to impugn the source of real data. Any observation of the climate change deniers will find dismissal of facts rampant, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The cries of fake news epitomize dismissal tactics. This is one of the most damaging approaches and serves to undermine both media institutions and the trust and confidence necessary for our democracy to function
Finally, there are efforts that dismay they target audience. Examples include use of scary photos and graphs, such as those that abound on social media. These often involve hot-button topics, ones that intersect with deeply held beliefs, such as religion or personal relationships, and evoke an emotional response. Once triggered, emotions such as hate, anger, or fear can cause the amygdala to disconnect from the cerebral cortex. Rationality then is lost. What perpetrators know is, that properly executed, such information can literally cause a person to be unable to think clearly and willful ignorance reigns. Facts no longer matter to the audience. One might remember the refrains, “lock her up,” or “build the wall,” all designed to trigger uncritical emotional responses. Through dismay, the efforts are designed to overwhelm and sideline participants. That is, have them not vote; a successful tactic in the 2016 election.
While democracies are designed to support the will of the people, they are predicated on the notion that the voters are well-informed and cast ballots based on rational decision-making that is in their best interests. Proliferation of willful ignorance is an anathema to that process, and usually to the detriment of people affected. Needed is a return to critical thinking based verifiable facts. This should be required throughout the educational system, but must begin at the lowest levels. While there is currently much concern about Russian interference in the recent election (and those to follow), there should be equal concern about the forces that are consciously manipulating the thought processes of the general public. Contrary to claims you will hear from right-wing stations, this does not refer to what they call mainstream media. Most of them are doing a pretty fair job. For the accredited media, the challenge is to get facts, maintain standards, and resist the rush to be first where any perceived tactical advantage can have strategic negative consequences.
Legitimate governments can only survive if there is trust and confidence in both the leadership and the institutions. We are currently being tested on both counts. Many people have chosen the path of willful ignorance. That is true for both personal matters as well as those of state. It is worth knowing that the instruments of information warfare are being employed in the public sector, not by any military force, but rather those who wish to dominate and subjugate our society. For some of our leaders at the highest levels, facts no longer matter, while the masses acquiesce for minimal or chimerical rewards. The roots of modern populism are grounded in emotions that are nourished from counterfactual reservoirs, willful ignorance, and conspicuous abdication of principles. Needed is a cohesive counteroffensive based on education and clarity in rational thinking. The lives of future generations depend on it.
HH�O���T3