 American issues take two. Violence is on the rise in America. That's not a question, you know, in another context, they might frame that as a question. That's a fact. That's what's going on. We're going to talk about violence and the rise of violence in America. What is the connection between, you know, the dog whistles and all the claims made by extremists that we are in a civil war. What the civil war looks like is a combination of lone wolf attacks. It's not in this. It's, you know, in the supermarket send synagogues and elementary schools. Is that the civil war. Tim Epichel is going to help us with that. And so is Manfred Henningston, and our dear friend Vicki Kaitano, and our, one of the say our regular contributor, as Stephanie stole Dalton. And thank you for coming all you guys welcome to the show. Tim, let's begin with you. We stumbled into an article about stochasticism, and stochasticism refers to the dog whistle process. We've got an article to look at one of your thoughts about what it means and where it fits in this discussion. Oh, good morning, Jay. Yeah, this article from Kurt Braddock, who is a professor in speech communication. So what are the terms stochastic terror or stochastic violence. So that's a new term to me and, you know, in the article that he put out was, it's not a direct call to violence, but it's an applied demonization of perhaps a political enemy or an individual. I'll give you an example when Donald Trump said that all people in the media were enemies of the people or enemies of the state. It's not a direct pointing the finger at any one individual, but it's implied kind of dangling threats and demonization, which, you know, when you have a population of 330 million, you may have one or two people of that population to actually act upon it, and and act upon someone's words of demonization. So that's the best way I could try to describe us so stochastic terror. Well, you know, I think that the definition of it. Actually, it's it's imprecise in the sense that you don't know who you're going to reach. You don't know that you're going to get Joe Dokes to go out and shoot up a massage parlor you don't know what the effect is going to be but you do know that somebody will react. Well, though that is not an American jurisprudence right now. I don't think there's been a lot of cases, you know, finding that connection. I think if we keep on having this experience, we're going to have to think about changing American jurisprudence. Jay, let me just jump in because, you know, the Supreme Court case of 1968 Brandenburg versus Ohio, they basically overturned a conviction of a Klu Klux Klang guy, because the the incitement wasn't imminent. And it wasn't directional. It didn't have an action that followed up on it. And so that that Supreme Court case kind of, as you adequately said before the show is that the dog whistle was not tied to the dog. Yeah. Manfred, what about the First Amendment? Doesn't that protect anybody who does a dog whistle? You know, when Donald Trump said we have to go in there, we have to, you know, we have to we have to go into the Capitol building. We got to save our country, which is, you know, complete lie. And we got to be mad as hell and we got to fight, take our country back all that. Was he sending a dog whistle? And was that dog whistle protected by the First Amendment? So I think the First Amendment doesn't mean that democracy is a suicide contract. So for that reason, I think we should focus on the fact that this kind of rhetorical violence you have not only in the US, you have another Western societies, what makes the US different is the Second Amendment. The madness of the Second Amendment, together with, you know, the freedom of speech and the First Amendment makes all the difference. I find it, I mean, the longer I watch, you know, American news about these violent explosions, I am really surprised about the madness of people not reacting politically to it. You know, the Second Amendment is the dumbest thing. Well, there are a lot of other dumb thing in the Constitution, but this is the dumbest. The Electoral College is the second dumb institution in the Constitution. But I do look, I feel a little bit more optimistic about this country since the midterms. We talked about it the last time. We had a number of attacks since the midterm. I know, but look, the difference is that you have the Second Amendment. People can get guns. You have a lot of violent rhetoric in Britain, in Germany, in France, in Scandinavia, especially in Scandinavia. You have now a neo-fascist prime minister. You know, we thought, we thought that that violent rhetoric wasn't going to go anywhere. If you remember the early days of Trump. Yeah, but it goes somewhere because you have the Second Amendment. It goes somewhere because you have Second Amendment. You can get guns. You don't get to other countries. Thank you. You feeling safer these days? Do you think we should feel safe even here in Hawaii? It seems to me that, you know, our lives are at the margins. They are, they're festooned with violent possibility. Absolutely. And if you look at how many people have died the number of deaths between 2014 that you sent me that information until 2020, it's just appalling. And while these do make the headlines, I don't think it's all attributed just to this. There's no question that having Donald Trump as president, in sense, so many people created such an atmosphere of, to me, the ability, the liberty to go out and do what happened on January 6, trying to justify it. You know, everybody points to the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, but we have to remember that when our founding fathers wrote those words, I don't think they could have envisioned the country as it is today. And I think people need to translate and interpret things carefully given the situation that we are in now. So no question about that. But I think you also have to look at, you know, other issues such as, you know, domestic violence, crime. Oh my gosh. I mean, look at how we treat crime today, right? How many repeat offenders before they're actually locked up for good. So there are multiple reasons creating a very violent society that we're in. But gun control or lack of in the United States of America is front and center to me of the number of casualties that we're seeing. No other country sees this. And we need to address gun control. Manifrants point two. So, Stephanie, you know, it seems to me that we're in a place where you may want to consider getting a gun to protect yourself. And in fact, all over the South, you know, the Republicans are telling school teachers to go get guns to protect themselves. So now you have a spiral up. Instead of having fewer guns. Hey, you got more guns. Oh my God. Does that make it better? Would you do that? You want to get one? I mentioned once before that what I'm interested in is some kind of like Range Rover tank concoction vehicle. So that would be my investment in a gun. Okay, so but I think one thing we need to keep in mind is our heritage. In addition to the tremendous great miraculous one we have from the founding fathers, but we also have the opening of the country and the development of the West. I'm looking at wagon train. How about all the western movies? We have been exposed to movies and entertainment and art where guns are ubiquitous. Every moment, the number of people being shot and killed in our entertainment is extraordinary. But we were all brought up. But Jay, you and I, I mean, all of these people in the current base, you know, are brought up on this cowboy legend. And if you look at gun smoke, Marshall Dillon has no problem pulling that gun out. There's no constraint. I mean, but they did have norms and they do have, they did have respect. And of course you had to be skillful because you had the six guns, whatever, you know, the pistol gun. I don't have to give a second amendment perspective here, but go on. Okay, well, let me just, so anyway, I've just been looking at that and realizing either whole bunch of other issues that come right back up again. And this is my childhood feed from TV. All of us have grown up in this environment, you're right. And there are some people that can handle it, you know, we're not going to go out in the street with guns and shoot people, but there are other people that can't control themselves. And for whatever psychological reason, there's no God rails for them. So they, they do these violent and lethal episodes. Tim, you wanted to add to that on the second amendment. Well, I've just hearing a lot of bashing of the second amendment that's okay because I understand where that's coming from, because we're out of control. The United States is a violent society that is carried out with weaponry that is far above any other place in the world. I understand the criticism of the second amendment. Very quickly though, we have something in Hawaii and I think most states, or a lot of states, it's called the castle doctrine, which is to say your castle is your personal, your personal haven. And you have the right to protect your family and anyone in that household. And I think that's the reason why a lot of people do own guns is to preserve their, their castle doctrine. When there's a crime in the household, the police don't respond after the crime. They're not there in time to prevent it. And I think that's the primary reason why a lot of people do own guns is to provide at home protection. And I'll leave it at that to kill their relatives, because well, okay, Thanksgiving doesn't always go well for people. I agree. Well, let me say, you know, the old notion that, you know, you could shoot anybody who came into your house. That's been eroded in this country. Well, not if you go to shoot anybody who came into your house. You have to be under personal threat. You have to be under, you have to be threatened. And you might wind up going to jail for it. Yeah, you have to be in fear for your life. That is, that's the dividing, the dividing line on that. And I wanted to come to you about this. So we have, we're declining in terms of our control of the violence, clearly, those stats I set around, you know, demonstrate something. But you know, what is what is problematic is that if there were a president like Trump, he would say, oh, this crime is violence in the street. I have to meet that violence politically. I have to, you know, satisfy my base. So I'm going to send these guys out in unmarked uniforms with guns. I'm going to do the fascist thing. I'm going to shoot them down cold in the street. I'm going to take control. I'm going to use it as an excuse. And our friend Vladimir does the same thing. This is an autocratic mechanism. Is it not. Well, remember, Trump said he could do anything. He could shoot someone in Manhattan and nobody would be upset about it. So you have, I mean, that's the answer to your proposal. He, in a way, suggested that. I'm talking about, I'm talking about the larger 20th century. I'm talking about autocrats who use even minor amounts of violence, justify bringing in government violence and squashing, you know, like, for example, protests in Shanghai that have been going on. Those guys are holding up empty sheets of paper. That's not violent. But Xi Jinping is sending in troops now and they will be violent. Yeah, but what's happening is you get a cycle. Yeah, but we are distinguishing here between autocratic regimes like the PRC and Russia and others and democratic societies like the US and I think what is structurally so sickening about the US is that they have, you know, 400, more than 400 million guns in private because of the Second Amendment and whatever, you know, Tim said about the castle, the castle contributes to the death toll as well. So as long as this really, I wouldn't say mistake of the founding fathers to have the Second Amendment, they put it in because they didn't want to have a standing army and for that reason thought, you know, you know, militias were a good, it's been well-preferred since then, but we have an standing army in the US since the Civil War. So they should have abolished the Second Amendment in 1865. But look, there is another issue that I find we should talk about and that's the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, you know, you have really the explanation why these insurrectionists were not charged, were not hanged. I mean, all the southern, the leaders of the southern rebellion should have put, they should have been shot or hanged because they were insurrectionists, they were, you know, overthrowing the American order. So since then, you have this really bizarre understanding, you know, that these guys would try to overthrow the republic, were simply representatives of a lost cause. Well, what does that mean? Right, and that feeds on the kind of a First Amendment approach to it. And frankly, that guy Stewart Rhodes, he didn't get enough time as far as I'm concerned, and all his friends are trying to overthrow the government. We got special results for him. You had this illustration in 1860. It goes beyond that, though. Vicki, I want to ask you about this. It goes beyond that. The First Amendment gives gives license, if you will, it excuses as Manfred said, is excuses conduct that really should not be tolerated at all. So here we have Trump gets embarrassed in the midterms. He puts his hat in the ring. People are condemning him for anti-Semitic remarks and the like over the past. And yet, and yet this violence continues. And I suggest to you, I like your opinion, I suggest to you that it doesn't matter what Trump does anymore. This has all been unleashed in our country, that these episodes will continue, that we are in a new kind, a new model of civil war, which is violence, not on the street corner, but anywhere at all. Your thoughts, please, on that possibility. I think you're right. And he has fueled now this, this movement from people, and I think it all starts with people who feel that the country, they don't dominate the country like they used to. They're the ones who call out against immigrants taking their jobs. They feel this sense of insecurity, you know, and so in their own twisted way, they're taking control back at all costs by any means. This is how they justify it. And that's very dangerous. But I have one question to ask, and that is as a start, can we not get a ban on assault weapons across the board other than for military use or, you know, police? But why do we even have that in the hands of private citizens? Well, let me just make a quick call to Mitch McConnell. Mitch, are you there? Maybe Mitch has an answer for you, Vicki. I don't think that our founding fathers even thought that that would be acceptable, really. That is to me so something that should be tackled as a very big first step and the necessary one. And I just, I don't understand why that can't be. You know, it's really ironic when I was a kid, I had a 22. We went out and terrible. I hate to admit it in public. We went and shot squirrels. What we did. Okay, can you imagine taking assault assault rifle out into those same woods and shooting squirrels? I'm sure you really need the assault rifle to you. So Stephanie, let me let me go to you and I saved the hardest question of all for our, you know, for our discussion for you, Stephanie. What do we do? What do we do? Well, are we talking about, you're talking about, you know, assault rifles in the Second Amendment. We're talking about these nutcases, you know, who have a bad day wind up killing people in great numbers. What do we do about that? Tell me it's mental health. Well, I was going to bring up is because you said that cases and I've noticed that pervading all of this is the overlay of mental health over anybody that shoots anybody has got a mental health problem. I just don't see how that that holds any water at all. And I haven't heard the APA or the psychiatrist or the psychologist, I'm speaking out on this issue. But it is permeating more of the discussions is that we need more money for mental health, including in the New York situation going after these homeless people who have actually mental health diagnosis. And so we have a place to start. So I think we need to get a grip on how how we're slicing and dicing this thing, according to the factors and get get them under control because that one is taking over and we need to go back to the personal responsibility. Yeah, I'm not sure that mental health is the answer. I mean, when I was a kid I was offended by the defense that some criminal defendants would make is I had a rough childhood. You know, I don't care about your childhood care about what you're doing now. Jay, there's another issue that I think that we have not talked about. And that's the gender issue that you have white males feeling threatened by the transformation, the major transformation American society, they are losing the power. And they do not know how to handle that. I mean, when you're looking at the new leadership in the House of the Democratic Party. You're not going to tell me that an assault rifle is a phallic symbol, are you? Well, maybe it is. But no, but I think, I think you have this replacement ideology taking root in America that the white majority will be replaced by 2040 or a little bit later by a different majority. And when you're looking at the new leadership of the Democrats in the House, you know, you have a black person and you have an Hispanic and white woman. The white male is not any longer at the center. And I think what you have as a dynamic for a lot of this violence, this guy there in Buffalo, you know, who targeted only black people. He targeted them because he was admittedly a racist. He was against black people. And I think you have to understand that what is really becoming an issue in the US is this gender-based white, anti-black, anti-Asian, anti-Hispanic racism. And for some strange reason, you know, it is a new version of traditional American racism. I mean, America was founded in 1789 on the basis of slavery. The political economy of the Republic was based on the enslavement of 18% of the people living then in the US. And, you know, this issue has never been dealt with in a rational way. Yes. I mean, people try to avoid talking about it. You know, for that reason, I think we have to do a lot of teaching. You know, we had a show yesterday involving Frederick Douglass. Frederick Douglass lived from 1788 to sometime in the late 19th century. And he was a black abolitionist, a very smart, articulate guy. And he said the same things you're saying. And he was making speeches a dozen years before the Civil War, seeing it coming, crying to head it off, talking about racism and the need for equality and diversity and all that. And what he was saying then, 150 years ago, is the same thing we're saying now. We're stuck in amber. We really haven't advanced, or at least a lot of us, millions of us have not advanced. There is a change going on that I think. I want to ask Vicki about that. Vicki, you know, we have now a black leader in the house, or at least a minority leader in the house. That's good. And we have a lot of women, you know, in government, as perhaps never before. And we have minorities, we have diversity from Congress, some of them more competent and moderate than others, but we have them, and they're getting elected, like, you know, the racists or not, they're getting elected. Is this a solution? Okay, to the replacement problem that Manfred talks about. I think what Mr. Manfred said is spot on, what you said about the discussion on Frederick Douglass is spot on. And I think honestly, this whole start of these feelings started even before Trump. I think it started when President Obama was elected. I think a good number in our country will not, did not and would not accept an African American as their president. You can rise up to be a little bit of a manager. You cannot be the number one. You know, gender, race differences. I don't know the answer to that, but I think we have got to tackle gun control. Take, I think that will have an impact on the kind of gun violence that you're seeing as a step. You can't just talk about it, but I don't think that having this representation is, is going to calm things down. I think it'll just add fuel to that segment, the community that's angrier than ever. I do think that if the Republicans have some kind of common sense to have a representative other than Donald Trump, who is not as much of a radical or a lunatic that may bring people to a more moderate position and we could start conversation again. That takes me to Tim, Tim. So the Santas, Ron DeSantis is a possibility for 2024. And if Trump keeps stepping on his own tie, you know, it may happen. I don't know. I believe he's capable of resurrecting himself. He's done that before. Hitler did that before. Come out of jail and then, you know, become a national furor. So I guess the question I put to you is, is it better under DeSantis? Would DeSantis be a solution to all this violence? Would he, will he calm, you know, the nerves of the racist? Or would he exacerbate the racism? Oh, I think there's a lot of room left for the MAGA concept. Remember, MAGA, Make America Great Again, is really just a dog whistle to white males that you've been pushed and shoved to the back of the room, and it's time to get back to the front of the room. And so I think DeSantis or any, any politician that wants to glom onto power will use that as an effective tool. And I don't think it goes away with Donald Trump. Donald Trump has released MAGA and the MAGA concept, and that's not going away. So DeSantis will, I think, will continue on with it, and even hone in on that, and refine it more. And it will serve him well politically. Yeah, Manfred, you know, we touched on the sides of what happened in Europe in the 30s, and how violence became a kind of political tool, and it still is, among autocrats and dictators everywhere. Where are we going globally? And what is the exchange relationship with the phenomena that we've been talking about in the United States, and in these other places? You want to have a protest, we're going to fix your wagon, and a thing. And we'll put you down, put you in chair, we'll beat you up, we'll kid you or whatever, as in Russia. What is the relationship? Is this part of climate change? What is it? No, I mean, look, you have this replacement ideology popping up in some countries in Europe, you have it in Hungary. Strangely enough, you have it had, you have it also in some Scandinavian countries in Sweden and Denmark and Norway. But I think in the United States, this issue will become worse, the closer become to the change of the ethnic majority. That's what Vicki was saying. Unless, you know, once we have reached that point, I think we will see more of this white male anger manifest itself. Maybe you could say it's also a hopeful sign, because one of the interesting results of the midterms was that contrary to popular belief, young people of all colors voted in greater numbers than ever before. And for some reason, you know, these young people do not buy into this white supremacy ideology that the older male population in the United States does. And you have the same phenomenon, by the way, in Germany, you know, because most Americans do not know that 25% of Germans today have a migrant background. So you have, you know, an ethnic diversity in the center of Europe, you know, that is quite extraordinary. Yeah, Europe has changed. It has changed in the past few years. I have a movie for you guys to watch. Well, the swimmers make a note of that to swimmers. It's about migration into Germany today. Yeah, but some have not, you know, what bothers me sometimes, you know, my name Henningson has a Danish background. And when I go to Denmark, you know, and when I go to Sweden, what you have there is right wing racism spreading the end. And I have also told remember that the Brexit had to do with a lot of that and the story of Megan, you know, being not liked by other members in the Royal household. It was a very, very powerful motivation for Megan and Harry to move to the United States. What is it? What explains this phenomenon happening all over the place? Is it the water? Is it some effect of climate change? You know what it is. It's pure racism. We have an attack and we have a viral racism. So Stephanie, you know, we talk about we all talk about let's get another generation in here. Let's have diversity. And there's a certain concern that may exacerbate, that that may exacerbate, you know, the racism and replacement problem. But Stephanie, what about the old guys? What is their role? Should Manfred run for office? Should I run for office, Tim? You know, Vicki, Vicki's already done that. She may do that again. But what is the role of the older people, you know, who are not necessarily in that 25 year old group? What can they do about this? Because in a funny way, they may be part of the solution, at least part. A lot. Unarguably, and in appreciation, males, white males, European males of the world have built civilizations and they've contributed greatly. They've also taken all the power where they could. But they are now in position of moving back. I mean, they have no choice. But the changes are now in pinging upon their power structures and even their contributions. And I think that that's where there's some difficulty here, is that these, in our country, European males, they have been the leaders. I mean, they have taken us where we are now. But now they're starting to tear it apart and it's time for them to step up and move us into how we know to live together and to solve problems in ways that they've learned from their corporate challenges. Presumably, they have a little wisdom. A little wisdom. Yes, they need to bring that and put the guns aside and start operating in a 21st, 22nd century manner. We've got to move off the violent go to war thing. There is no war to go to. It's nuclear disaster. Okay, so these guys, as they have contributed throughout time, need to take it on again. It'll be a little different because they don't get to be Emperor King and Prince and I've got it all myself. I do appreciate that as a female. I do appreciate that the males have had to give on this and and they're getting, they're getting with it, some of them are, but it's all changing and the best thing they can do is what they've always done, which is this tremendous capacity to reinvent the world, build civilization and take us to the next, the next levels. Okay, world. You know, do you agree with Stephanie you would like to rebut anything about that. I'm talking to Vicki. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I would just remind everyone that yes, acknowledge what they've done but they couldn't have done it without all those on the backs of the immigrants of the women who did so much and never got any credit. And that is a fact as well. But I agree with you balance acknowledgement, you know, that kind of bigger picture, rather than this narrow minded, we want to get only for us mentality will serve to bring us more peace. Oh God, that is so true that is profoundly true. Hey, can we can we go around for final comments now Tim. I'd like to go first or would you have a comment about what we've been talking about. I'd love to go first because as we talk about male replay white male. Have to talk about insecurity, and was insecurity for white male is the provider mentality that since the caveman days that the white male was the provider or the male is the provider. We're going to make a causal connection or we ought to make a causal connection between economic insecurity and racism or white male replacement, because they go hand in hand. And so we're dealing with thousands of years of mentality, and it's got to be addressed somehow some way because Vicki and Manfred are correct. It's inevitable. It's going to happen demographics don't lie. And we got to address it before it becomes even more problematic, as far as violence in our society. Oh, we're really hitting some good points here. Manfred I'm thinking that there may be a common denominator in uncertainty, uncertainty about the future, uncertainty about whether you can feed your family, uncertainty about the political stability of your jurisdiction. You think that might be I'm really asking for your summary comments here, but do you think that might be a common denominator. Stephanie said, you know, white males should change. It's very interesting, you know, I got married in 74 to a young black American woman. And when we in 75 when for the first time to Germany. Germany was stunned by the response, the acceptance. The delight you know that people showed us. But in 1990, we went to East Germany. And here we looked at as an exotic example of what really should not happen. These Germans had not had the experiences the West German had. You know, there was three and a half million black soldiers from 1945 to 1990 stationed in Germany. They had a wonderful experience also because they lived in a white country where they didn't have, you know, colored bathrooms and all kinds of other things that they knew from the south. So Germany was not segregated. But these back soldiers were sent to Germany to cure Germans of racism, and they didn't know what that really meant for them. And Paul and Paul has written about that in his memoirs, because he was one of them. So when I look at Germany today, it is really radically changed country. And for that reason, you know, I am when I'm looking at the midterms in the US. I see the US as a troubled but as a changing country, positively changing country. And for that reason, I'm not as pessimistic as I was before the midterms. And whatever happens, you know, in the Santa's minds or in Trump's mind still disturbs me, but I am not any longer as troubled as I was before America has a future that is not as sick as I thought it was. Okay, all right, wow, we're really hitting some good points. Vicki, let me, let me repeat the one question I would be interested in hearing from you about. And of course you summarize anyway you want but you think uncertainty is nervousness about the future about, you know, the future of the economies ability to earn a living get a fair deal is part of the malaise that we have. And I think that the world is changing businesses are changing. It is tough for a middle age white person who's been doing things a certain way to to adapt and I think you've got to recognize that with some empathy before we, you know, go on a rampage like they're doing. But having said that there is no doubt this difficulty to to bridge together their defiant position that they will not accept leaders who are of color, or who are women I think that's going to be very difficult. And really we just hold it together so that the next generation can lead with better judgment and decisions I think for this generation our generation we just got to try to keep it all together before it explodes on us. And you know, Stephanie, you've had time in education and you must put yourself in the school as a teacher or administrator in the school in Uvali, for example. And you see these guys burst in the door or some loner burst in the door with an assault weapon. And you know your, your moments are numbered. What is your philosophical reaction to that risk. That would be the end of the game. It's hard. It's hard. So what we have to do goes back to a point I was trying to make that we know so much more now. Especially males because of their leadership roles and how to problem solve, and how to decide on policies that will keep us safe and protect us and move off of these power structures and domains and, and, and this fierceness of opposition that that permeates our politics. We know how I mean how did we get to the moon. I mean, how do we go to Mars. I mean we know how to do these things and to bring people into situations that are very complicated and socially complicated as well and we bring all these best minds to those. And we need to that to proliferate so that we have these problems on in hand and in treatment as they should be whoever that person coming in the door. Okay, for our final comment here let me let me just ask Mitch what he thinks a Mitch are you there. Yes. Mitch knows how to think complicated despite the difficulty of the subject today I compliment you all on reaching new issues, profound issues philosophical issues issues that really have a chance at understanding and succeeding here. Tim Apichella, Manfred Ericsson, Vicki Caitano, and of course Stephanie Stoltalter. Thank you so much all of you. Aloha. Aloha.