Regarding the endorsements by editorial boards: I used to place great emphasis on them. Without the internet to do my own vetting, I leaned hard on my papers (the ones I actually liked and trusted) to give a balanced and reasoned opinion of the candidates. Then (years ago) the Trib endorsed a LaRouchie candidate which made me realize they are just a bunch of humans who maybe don't do all their homework. More recently, the Ed Board gave Biden the nod with a below the fold half hearted "well OK he's better than that con-artist anarchist antichrist that is there now." Like I said, just a bunch of humans.
You're misremembering the LaRouchie thing. In 1986, LaRouche followers Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart, trading on their WASPy nams and the ignorance of voters, won the Illinois Democratic primary for lieutenant governor and secretary of state, which threw everyone into a tizzy, but no major editorial board endorsed them. Many endorsements over the years have been half-hearted, as wildly imperfect people put themselves forward as candidates.
The 911 calls in itself runs down that entertainment path - but often I hate seeing children interviewed or shown in certain circumstances. I'm always suspect on whether parents were asked for permission, were they coerced, or chosen for the most dramatic presentation. It's in line with seeing children at protests - such as the prochoice/prolife rallies. 4-5 year old children holding signs for adults point of views. Similarly, 'representing' political parties, pro-teacher/pro-city during contract disputes ('You're taking my education from me', "I want to be safe in my classroom) Back to 911 - those who want to get the recordings will say "the public has a right to know' or we're permitted through FOIA have gone to far.
EDITORIAL BOARD: I suppose it could sway people - although I never was one to say "Finally, I'll be told who to vote for" it was always good to read both paper's endorsements. Clinton/Trump always felt like - we don't want to endorse either, Clinton is going to win the state regardless, let's talk Johnson. The Trib offered the Anti-SNL. SNL was bring them both on we have character actors for both -where are we going to find someone to do Johnson?
"Why should the “institution” of a newspaper..." oh great! I can see it now... People Magazine endorses... TMZ endorses... Fox Sports endorses... MLB endorses... Northwestern University endorses... Barnes and Nobles endorses... McDonald's Happy Meal Endorsement Meal Deal... The Golden Globes endorses...
Copless Pride Parade... BIG MISS. Acceptance, coming together, showing unity... except for you people because you make us feel uneasy. Many Pride Parades evolved from being banned from parades and said, fine we'll have our own and everyone can join. One of the many reasons being "I support LGBTQ. I support the Blue. So you want me to choose one over the other?"
Ohio Rep. Waiting for the statement "I know pornography when I see it."
The “matter” of cops at Pride parades is, like most of these issues, an example of lib/rad progressive politics run completely amok. As someone who actually knows and is related to various LGBT people and African Americans (unlike the brain trust at the New York Times and similar publications) I can assure you that none (as in, zero) of the “victimised” classes that you describe here have any objections at all to the police participating in these events, and are are usually unable to comment on them because they are too busy laughing hysterically when I describe the “controversy” to them.
We should keep traditional editorials. They're pithy, non-personal, and tightly argued. Their anonymity focuses attention on the arguments themselves and away from the person making them. The idea of serving an "institutional voice" raises the stakes for the writer and encourages some degree of collaboration, responsible persuasion, and fidelity to principle. The label affixed to the viewpoint -- that of the institution -- is similar to a partisan label and similarly useful for the reader. It is thus clearly meaningful when a conservative publication like the Wall Street Journal endorses a liberal view or a liberal publication like the New York Times endorses a conservative view. For example, it stands out when
Similarly, if you want the best expression of a conservative or liberal view on a topic, it's nice to be able to turn toward the editorial positions of such organizations.
Editorials are some of my favorite reads of the week. The Economist magazine's unsigned "leaders" give me, in some 15 minutes or so, a world's-eye view on a range of major issues from the perspective of a market-oriented, socially liberal "radical centre," as they put it. (By American standards, they're left of center, even economically.) I read the Journal's editorials, even if many seem like partisan hackery written with the specific purpose of pissing me off, to get a quick read on the other side's best arguments, something Eleanor Roosevelt wisely encouraged citizens to do. I wish the Times would return to the practice of writing multiple daily editorials, with the goal of not just consolidating Democratic or progressive talking points but "steel-man"-ing and refuting opposing views as well.
Endorsements are particularly useful given our excessive democracy where too many officials are elected rather than appointed. The Tribune isn't my only source on such down-ballot races, but it's an important one. Their choice will probably be a reasonable sort. I have more trust in those endorsements than I do in endorsements by advocacy groups.
I had no idea that columnists were forbidden from making their own endorsements. That strikes me as wrong-headed. Columnists should feel free to contradict -- directly and explicitly -- any view taken by the editorial board. The reader can only benefit from such an exchange of views. I can see it perhaps getting out of hand, if every columnist served up their own alternative slate, but I don't see the need for a rigid rule.
I agree that "institutional voice" is a vestige of the days of the partisan press, a model we have otherwise wisely moved away from ever since the post-WWII years, when, perhaps prodded by television network news that wanted to be in everyone's living room and not just conservatives' or liberals', newspapers adopted more professional standards and embraced objectivity in news reporting. At the same time, on the opinion pages, that institutional voice can anchor presentation of a wide variety of compelling arguments. Editorials remain vital and I miss them when, as at the Times for the most part, they're gone.
You asked why the national anthem is so often played/sun before sporting events, but not movies, etc. It was begun as a spur-of-the-moment thing before a Cubs game during WWI. It was very relevant then, and caught on ... and was turned into a minor monster insofar as all the attending controversies. I haven't checked lately, but I found an excellent article with the full story on the website of The History Channel. I was first tipped off by a book about Chicago in WWI I read for a local book discussion group. I don't doubt it would be surprising to learn how small a percentage of Americans actually know how, when, and where this custom began.
"If the parents consent, the media should post those photos and the public should not turn away from the horror."
I'd take this one step further. The photos should be displayed in the Senate with parents testifying to their agony and despair as they waited to hear of their children's fate. Force Republicans to defend the inevitable vote to refuse any weapons reform.
So, if you promote the use of graphic photos as ammunition in a partisan debate, how about very explicit photos of the disembodied parts of a child killed in a late-term abortion in pro-life advocacy? I dare say this would be extremely revolting to the great majority of people, and may well influence some to reconsider tolerance for the grizzly late-term abortion procedures. You can't have it just one way, and if these types of shocking photos are to be used in one debate, they will undoubtedly be utilized in another.
The enlarged photos of aborted fetuses have been on display for decades, from local protests to Congress. The hypocrisy from Republicans voicing outrage over the unborn while shrugging their shoulders at the mass annihilation of children by assault rifle is inexcusable. Shootings are now the leading cause of death in children (CDC).
I am quite certain that the overwhelming majority of Americans have never been confronted with photographs of the disembodied parts of a full-term baby, and feel very confident that the same overwhelming majority would feel revulsion and be strongly opposed to this. So if this is the level of which you wish to have debates, then it must go both ways.
And BTW, the deaths of the 19 innocent children in Texas were incredibly tragic, as were the innocent child deaths at Sandy Hook, as well as the many children caught in the ongoing primarily gang related crossfire in Chicago and other Urban areas. But for context, according to the Gutemacher Institute, there have been over 63 MILLION babies aborted since Roe v Wade in 1973 with a shocking high of 1.8 million in 1990 alone.
Regarding the resignation of teacher Stukel from the Lyons School District in objection to lax grading policies, the reality is that these policies are already widespread in urban areas.
Through participation in our church sponsored Safe Families program, my wife and I a few years ago fostered a teenage girl in our home for her junior year attending Senn High School on the north side of Chicago.
We were saddened to discover that she read at about a third grade level, could not even do the 2's of her multiplication tables, and was essentially functionally illiterate. She told us she had never done homework before in her life, and that her teachers allowed her to watch videos on her phone during class.
And here's the most disconcerting part- she received A's and B's from her teachers! I worked with her every night after dinner at the dining room table on her school assignments and also math worksheets, and while she materially improved over the course of the school year, it was very apparent that she was not in any way mastering the content of her classes. We questioned her counselor and teachers at the parent-teacher conferences, but the response was generally that she was not disruptive in class and therefore received the A's and B's.
This young lady happened to be black, but we have no way of knowing if these unearned grades were given specifically to students of color, or whether this was the norm for students of all races at Senn High School. But the net effect is to provide students with diplomas who are functionally illiterate, and not in any way at all prepared to advance themselves in this world either in higher education or in the workforce. This does nothing but great harm to these children!
Kudos to teacher Stukel for publicly and personally taking a stand on this problem, but it truly is something that appears to be the norm in the city public education schools.
Sadly, it is not merely the norm, but the generally accepted standard. At the end of the 2021 school year CPS announced that they had achieved an 84% high school graduation rate (allowing five years to graduate). This is in spite of the fact that only 26% of students are grade level proficient in reading or math. And this was after two years of 'remote learning' due to covid school closures, which are widely understood to have had significant negative effects on attendance and learning. Not a single major news organization or politician made a peep because social promotion has been the accepted standard since the 80's. Essentially, chronic truancy and dropping out are the only way to fail to graduate. Now 60% of community college students start in remedial classes, making CC's the world's most expensive high schools. This is also why the CTU only wants teachers to be measured on 'progress', because they know that social promotion guarantees that most students will not be grade level proficient. It is also why the CTU opposes any kind of testing, which would make the deficiency obvious.
Good for you and your wife for doing the Lord's work, as they say. I hope it was rewarding, if frustrating at times.
My first career was as a lawyer, my second as a high school history teacher (a lot more fun and rewarding). I've had up close experience with a few different schools so far in that second career, and I can tell you that your concerns, and those expressed by this LT guy, ring very true to me -- not across the board, mind you, but the trends look ominous.
Students are not being held accountable for meeting academic standards. George W. Bush, in the best words he ever uttered and the best words David Frum ever wrote, called it "the soft bigotry of low expectations." The ascendency of the most wrong-headed progressive voices on race in recent years has exacerbated the problem. I recently joked with some teacher friends in reference to a new policy, "Well, you know there's no educational problem that can't be solved by asking students to do less." Lots of laughs, believe it or not, in recognition of the bitter reality.
Thanks for the story from Senn, where I went, before standards were apparently slackened. I still remember one English teacher who made us diagram sentences out the wazoo. I assume that partly as a result of that, I've never ever committed the dangling participle error; in fact I didn't know what it was until maybe 5 years ago, after I'd had it up to here with reporters making the error ... and then the employers make the excuse that the public does it, so they just talk like their public.
Some years ago I did a job which included occasionally laying out a number of objects in a grid. Another worker needed to know the number of these objects for his own task. I and a co-worker laid them out in the grid. When the time came to provide the count, this co-worker - a young black woman who'd graduated high school, I assume - began to count them one by one. Shocked, I just multiplied 6x7=42, saving many seconds. She didn't know the multiplication table! I can't remember when, but it was my father who made me memorize it. And many decades earlier, he'd had to drop out of high school to work to help his family, when there wasn't such a stigma. He also taught me how to read when I was four.
Senn has been a very diverse school for decades, but when I went there, the academic standards were not slack as you describe.
I couldn’t agree with you more on the matter of broadcasting 911 calls. In addition to all of the valid points that you already make, there is the matter of what this all does to for the media and it’s reputation in general; the Washington Post’s clarion call of “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is obliterated, or at least exposed as the sanctimonious blather that it is, when one considers that that maxim is being used to perpetuate the shameless, blatant, and highly exploitative pornography that you describe here.
Some people have suggested that the damage done to the victims' bodies by the AR-15 type rifle in Uvalde should be shown to the public in photos, with families' consent. I second the motion. Meanwhile: it would be easier if authorities obtained the body of a deer who died from a cause with little physical damage, and shot it through with an AR-15, then took good photographs of the damage and showed these to the public. The consequences would be very comparable. In addition to helping teach people why these assault-type rifles have, arguably, no place in civilian life, it would also show why they're really not good for hunting, because of all the damage done to the meat and hide, compared to our normal projectile weapons (including the bow and arrow). The only exception I might make for hunting is where people are trying to eradicate highly dangerous, destructive, invasive alien species, which in the USA pretty much means feral hogs. I've read these are an ecological scourge in many parts of the South, as well as being extremely dangerous. One well-placed shot from an assault-style rifle should be enough, but it's important to kill the animal right away.
Regarding the endorsements by editorial boards: I used to place great emphasis on them. Without the internet to do my own vetting, I leaned hard on my papers (the ones I actually liked and trusted) to give a balanced and reasoned opinion of the candidates. Then (years ago) the Trib endorsed a LaRouchie candidate which made me realize they are just a bunch of humans who maybe don't do all their homework. More recently, the Ed Board gave Biden the nod with a below the fold half hearted "well OK he's better than that con-artist anarchist antichrist that is there now." Like I said, just a bunch of humans.
You're misremembering the LaRouchie thing. In 1986, LaRouche followers Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart, trading on their WASPy nams and the ignorance of voters, won the Illinois Democratic primary for lieutenant governor and secretary of state, which threw everyone into a tizzy, but no major editorial board endorsed them. Many endorsements over the years have been half-hearted, as wildly imperfect people put themselves forward as candidates.
Thank you, Eric. I most certainly did misremember the story. I appreciate being set straight. Apparently I am one of the wildly imperfect people ! lol
The 911 calls in itself runs down that entertainment path - but often I hate seeing children interviewed or shown in certain circumstances. I'm always suspect on whether parents were asked for permission, were they coerced, or chosen for the most dramatic presentation. It's in line with seeing children at protests - such as the prochoice/prolife rallies. 4-5 year old children holding signs for adults point of views. Similarly, 'representing' political parties, pro-teacher/pro-city during contract disputes ('You're taking my education from me', "I want to be safe in my classroom) Back to 911 - those who want to get the recordings will say "the public has a right to know' or we're permitted through FOIA have gone to far.
EDITORIAL BOARD: I suppose it could sway people - although I never was one to say "Finally, I'll be told who to vote for" it was always good to read both paper's endorsements. Clinton/Trump always felt like - we don't want to endorse either, Clinton is going to win the state regardless, let's talk Johnson. The Trib offered the Anti-SNL. SNL was bring them both on we have character actors for both -where are we going to find someone to do Johnson?
"Why should the “institution” of a newspaper..." oh great! I can see it now... People Magazine endorses... TMZ endorses... Fox Sports endorses... MLB endorses... Northwestern University endorses... Barnes and Nobles endorses... McDonald's Happy Meal Endorsement Meal Deal... The Golden Globes endorses...
Copless Pride Parade... BIG MISS. Acceptance, coming together, showing unity... except for you people because you make us feel uneasy. Many Pride Parades evolved from being banned from parades and said, fine we'll have our own and everyone can join. One of the many reasons being "I support LGBTQ. I support the Blue. So you want me to choose one over the other?"
Ohio Rep. Waiting for the statement "I know pornography when I see it."
The “matter” of cops at Pride parades is, like most of these issues, an example of lib/rad progressive politics run completely amok. As someone who actually knows and is related to various LGBT people and African Americans (unlike the brain trust at the New York Times and similar publications) I can assure you that none (as in, zero) of the “victimised” classes that you describe here have any objections at all to the police participating in these events, and are are usually unable to comment on them because they are too busy laughing hysterically when I describe the “controversy” to them.
I counted syllables on the haiku, and was delighted to discover that it wasn't a haiku.
Had she written just "haiku" instead of "a haiku," it would have been. I counted. And I think that would have been grammatically correct.
What we'll never know is whether she realized she didn't write a haiku.
We should keep traditional editorials. They're pithy, non-personal, and tightly argued. Their anonymity focuses attention on the arguments themselves and away from the person making them. The idea of serving an "institutional voice" raises the stakes for the writer and encourages some degree of collaboration, responsible persuasion, and fidelity to principle. The label affixed to the viewpoint -- that of the institution -- is similar to a partisan label and similarly useful for the reader. It is thus clearly meaningful when a conservative publication like the Wall Street Journal endorses a liberal view or a liberal publication like the New York Times endorses a conservative view. For example, it stands out when
- the Times comes out against cancel culture:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/cancel-culture-free-speech-poll.html
- or the Journal comes out against Trumpist shenanigans in Wisconsin, blaming Trump for losing the state:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wisconsin-gops-latest-meltdown-dean-knudson-election-commission-donald-trump-11653689063?mod=hp_opin_pos_1
- or where the Tribune endorses Obama:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement-story.html
Similarly, if you want the best expression of a conservative or liberal view on a topic, it's nice to be able to turn toward the editorial positions of such organizations.
Editorials are some of my favorite reads of the week. The Economist magazine's unsigned "leaders" give me, in some 15 minutes or so, a world's-eye view on a range of major issues from the perspective of a market-oriented, socially liberal "radical centre," as they put it. (By American standards, they're left of center, even economically.) I read the Journal's editorials, even if many seem like partisan hackery written with the specific purpose of pissing me off, to get a quick read on the other side's best arguments, something Eleanor Roosevelt wisely encouraged citizens to do. I wish the Times would return to the practice of writing multiple daily editorials, with the goal of not just consolidating Democratic or progressive talking points but "steel-man"-ing and refuting opposing views as well.
Endorsements are particularly useful given our excessive democracy where too many officials are elected rather than appointed. The Tribune isn't my only source on such down-ballot races, but it's an important one. Their choice will probably be a reasonable sort. I have more trust in those endorsements than I do in endorsements by advocacy groups.
I had no idea that columnists were forbidden from making their own endorsements. That strikes me as wrong-headed. Columnists should feel free to contradict -- directly and explicitly -- any view taken by the editorial board. The reader can only benefit from such an exchange of views. I can see it perhaps getting out of hand, if every columnist served up their own alternative slate, but I don't see the need for a rigid rule.
I agree that "institutional voice" is a vestige of the days of the partisan press, a model we have otherwise wisely moved away from ever since the post-WWII years, when, perhaps prodded by television network news that wanted to be in everyone's living room and not just conservatives' or liberals', newspapers adopted more professional standards and embraced objectivity in news reporting. At the same time, on the opinion pages, that institutional voice can anchor presentation of a wide variety of compelling arguments. Editorials remain vital and I miss them when, as at the Times for the most part, they're gone.
You asked why the national anthem is so often played/sun before sporting events, but not movies, etc. It was begun as a spur-of-the-moment thing before a Cubs game during WWI. It was very relevant then, and caught on ... and was turned into a minor monster insofar as all the attending controversies. I haven't checked lately, but I found an excellent article with the full story on the website of The History Channel. I was first tipped off by a book about Chicago in WWI I read for a local book discussion group. I don't doubt it would be surprising to learn how small a percentage of Americans actually know how, when, and where this custom began.
"If the parents consent, the media should post those photos and the public should not turn away from the horror."
I'd take this one step further. The photos should be displayed in the Senate with parents testifying to their agony and despair as they waited to hear of their children's fate. Force Republicans to defend the inevitable vote to refuse any weapons reform.
So, if you promote the use of graphic photos as ammunition in a partisan debate, how about very explicit photos of the disembodied parts of a child killed in a late-term abortion in pro-life advocacy? I dare say this would be extremely revolting to the great majority of people, and may well influence some to reconsider tolerance for the grizzly late-term abortion procedures. You can't have it just one way, and if these types of shocking photos are to be used in one debate, they will undoubtedly be utilized in another.
The enlarged photos of aborted fetuses have been on display for decades, from local protests to Congress. The hypocrisy from Republicans voicing outrage over the unborn while shrugging their shoulders at the mass annihilation of children by assault rifle is inexcusable. Shootings are now the leading cause of death in children (CDC).
I am quite certain that the overwhelming majority of Americans have never been confronted with photographs of the disembodied parts of a full-term baby, and feel very confident that the same overwhelming majority would feel revulsion and be strongly opposed to this. So if this is the level of which you wish to have debates, then it must go both ways.
And BTW, the deaths of the 19 innocent children in Texas were incredibly tragic, as were the innocent child deaths at Sandy Hook, as well as the many children caught in the ongoing primarily gang related crossfire in Chicago and other Urban areas. But for context, according to the Gutemacher Institute, there have been over 63 MILLION babies aborted since Roe v Wade in 1973 with a shocking high of 1.8 million in 1990 alone.
I guess continued mass slaughter is minimal for "pro-lifers" when considering "context".
Those of us who are pro-life never consider any loss of innocent life minimal. Every life is sacred, and the loss of any life is a tragedy.
Thank you. But please note that Ursus horribilis is not involved with any abortions.
Regarding the resignation of teacher Stukel from the Lyons School District in objection to lax grading policies, the reality is that these policies are already widespread in urban areas.
Through participation in our church sponsored Safe Families program, my wife and I a few years ago fostered a teenage girl in our home for her junior year attending Senn High School on the north side of Chicago.
We were saddened to discover that she read at about a third grade level, could not even do the 2's of her multiplication tables, and was essentially functionally illiterate. She told us she had never done homework before in her life, and that her teachers allowed her to watch videos on her phone during class.
And here's the most disconcerting part- she received A's and B's from her teachers! I worked with her every night after dinner at the dining room table on her school assignments and also math worksheets, and while she materially improved over the course of the school year, it was very apparent that she was not in any way mastering the content of her classes. We questioned her counselor and teachers at the parent-teacher conferences, but the response was generally that she was not disruptive in class and therefore received the A's and B's.
This young lady happened to be black, but we have no way of knowing if these unearned grades were given specifically to students of color, or whether this was the norm for students of all races at Senn High School. But the net effect is to provide students with diplomas who are functionally illiterate, and not in any way at all prepared to advance themselves in this world either in higher education or in the workforce. This does nothing but great harm to these children!
Kudos to teacher Stukel for publicly and personally taking a stand on this problem, but it truly is something that appears to be the norm in the city public education schools.
Sadly, it is not merely the norm, but the generally accepted standard. At the end of the 2021 school year CPS announced that they had achieved an 84% high school graduation rate (allowing five years to graduate). This is in spite of the fact that only 26% of students are grade level proficient in reading or math. And this was after two years of 'remote learning' due to covid school closures, which are widely understood to have had significant negative effects on attendance and learning. Not a single major news organization or politician made a peep because social promotion has been the accepted standard since the 80's. Essentially, chronic truancy and dropping out are the only way to fail to graduate. Now 60% of community college students start in remedial classes, making CC's the world's most expensive high schools. This is also why the CTU only wants teachers to be measured on 'progress', because they know that social promotion guarantees that most students will not be grade level proficient. It is also why the CTU opposes any kind of testing, which would make the deficiency obvious.
Good for you and your wife for doing the Lord's work, as they say. I hope it was rewarding, if frustrating at times.
My first career was as a lawyer, my second as a high school history teacher (a lot more fun and rewarding). I've had up close experience with a few different schools so far in that second career, and I can tell you that your concerns, and those expressed by this LT guy, ring very true to me -- not across the board, mind you, but the trends look ominous.
Students are not being held accountable for meeting academic standards. George W. Bush, in the best words he ever uttered and the best words David Frum ever wrote, called it "the soft bigotry of low expectations." The ascendency of the most wrong-headed progressive voices on race in recent years has exacerbated the problem. I recently joked with some teacher friends in reference to a new policy, "Well, you know there's no educational problem that can't be solved by asking students to do less." Lots of laughs, believe it or not, in recognition of the bitter reality.
Thanks for the story from Senn, where I went, before standards were apparently slackened. I still remember one English teacher who made us diagram sentences out the wazoo. I assume that partly as a result of that, I've never ever committed the dangling participle error; in fact I didn't know what it was until maybe 5 years ago, after I'd had it up to here with reporters making the error ... and then the employers make the excuse that the public does it, so they just talk like their public.
Some years ago I did a job which included occasionally laying out a number of objects in a grid. Another worker needed to know the number of these objects for his own task. I and a co-worker laid them out in the grid. When the time came to provide the count, this co-worker - a young black woman who'd graduated high school, I assume - began to count them one by one. Shocked, I just multiplied 6x7=42, saving many seconds. She didn't know the multiplication table! I can't remember when, but it was my father who made me memorize it. And many decades earlier, he'd had to drop out of high school to work to help his family, when there wasn't such a stigma. He also taught me how to read when I was four.
Senn has been a very diverse school for decades, but when I went there, the academic standards were not slack as you describe.
I couldn’t agree with you more on the matter of broadcasting 911 calls. In addition to all of the valid points that you already make, there is the matter of what this all does to for the media and it’s reputation in general; the Washington Post’s clarion call of “Democracy Dies in Darkness” is obliterated, or at least exposed as the sanctimonious blather that it is, when one considers that that maxim is being used to perpetuate the shameless, blatant, and highly exploitative pornography that you describe here.
Some people have suggested that the damage done to the victims' bodies by the AR-15 type rifle in Uvalde should be shown to the public in photos, with families' consent. I second the motion. Meanwhile: it would be easier if authorities obtained the body of a deer who died from a cause with little physical damage, and shot it through with an AR-15, then took good photographs of the damage and showed these to the public. The consequences would be very comparable. In addition to helping teach people why these assault-type rifles have, arguably, no place in civilian life, it would also show why they're really not good for hunting, because of all the damage done to the meat and hide, compared to our normal projectile weapons (including the bow and arrow). The only exception I might make for hunting is where people are trying to eradicate highly dangerous, destructive, invasive alien species, which in the USA pretty much means feral hogs. I've read these are an ecological scourge in many parts of the South, as well as being extremely dangerous. One well-placed shot from an assault-style rifle should be enough, but it's important to kill the animal right away.