One of the tricks in life is knowing the difference between the ridiculous and the reasonable.
My community has weekly outdoor municipal band concerts during the summer, as they have had for most of the last century. The concerts are financed by "the city"; band members are considered temporary city employees. Recently, the city council announced they were making various budget cuts, including ending the concerts. The concerts don't cost much, so cutting them from the budget didn't save much money, but it was a high-profile cutback -- something that everyone noticed. A concerned citizen stepped forward with enough money to finance the concerts for several years. Since that time, more citizens have come forward with cash, and the concerts have continued uninterrupted with no more city funding. It has all been quite reasonable.
My favorite high school teacher used to regularly include some "joke" answers on his multiple choice history exams. So, for example, even if a student did not know precisely who the "condottieri" were, he or she might be able to correctly rule out that they were the Superbowl champions from 1970. You would THINK that this would make the exams slightly easier. Imagine my surprise in learning that the CORRECT answer to one of the questions was an answer that I had ruled out as a joke, "the Venerable Bede".
This points out the fact that it is not always easy to distinguish between the ridiculous and the reasonable. People hold a wide variety of beliefs. I have known for some time that the "Flat Earth Society" continues to exist, at least on paper, but I only recently learned it is not strictly a joke. There really ARE people who claim to still believe that the earth is flat, just as there are even more people who claim to still believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old, despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Then there is politics. Some of the positions taken by politicians and their parties and supporters seem to defy all logic, yet there are large numbers of people who accept these positions as reasonable.
The United States government is trillions of dollars in debt, and that debt is growing at a shocking rate, yet many politicians, and regular citizens, argue that we do not have a spending problem. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama fights any effort to cut spending, arguing that the IMPORTANT thing is to raise taxes on "the rich". Perhaps after we do THAT, he will be willing to consider spending cuts.
Now we have "the sequester", a set of government spending limits (not necessarily cuts) that kicked in automatically after the various political bodies were unable to reach any better compromise. Critics of President Obama argued in advance of the sequester that he was misrepresenting the potential impact of the sequester, and would purposely TRY to make the impact as painful as possible.
When the sequester came, it was soon announced that there would be no more tours of the White House, due to funding cuts caused by the sequester. In response to the public outcry, billionaire Donald Trump eventually offered that he would personally pay for continuing the White House tours (an amount which it seems he could easily afford, based on the available information about his wealth and income, and the cost of the tours).
I would have thought this would be the end of this part of the story. The American people want to be able to tour their White House, many people want to reduce government spending, President Obama wants "the rich" to pay more, and Donald Trump is rich. The tours would continue, government spending would be reduced, and the rich would pay more. Everybody wins.
I was wrong. A White House "senior adviser" rejected Donald Trump's offer, stating that it is important that the American public learn that there are real consequences of the sequester. Apparently, we have misbehaved, and now must face the consequences, rather than have rich Donald Trump take care of the problem.
To me, this seems quite ridiculous. IF cutting the tours was truly necessary for economic reasons, and a rich person is offering to pay for the tours, then why haven't the tours already been restored? Is the Obama administration really willing to continue to block the tours, just to attempt to teach the American people a lesson?
Perhaps the most ridiculous aspect of this issue is that there are those who attacked Donald Trump for making the offer, and defended President Obama. I am not saying there is nothing to attack about Donald Trump, but if a rich person offers to pay for something, no strings attached, and the President continues to argue that we don't have enough money to pay for it ... it all seems quite ridiculous. But perhaps I am missing something. I MUST be missing something. It CAN'T be that ridiculous.
Trump's offer was many months ago. Someday soon, the tours will resume, at least on a limited basis, and the Obama administration will take credit, and ask for gratitude, for dealing with a problem that they themselves created. THAT seems ridiculous.
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Trayvon Martin
A young man named Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by another man during an altercation. The details of the altercation, and the events leading up to the altercation, will never be precisely known. The shooter claimed self defense; the law allows the use of deadly force to protect your own life. The man was placed on trial for murder and/or manslaughter, and found "not guilty" of breaking the law.
Given that we are a nation of laws, and a nation that embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the man is therefore innocent. Not just "not guilty", but INNOCENT. Those are the ONLY relevant facts in this case.
I have not stated the shooter's widely-known name, because I believe that it would be better if the names of those charged with crimes were withheld, and only published if they were found guilty. There is no compelling reason for the name of an innocent person to become public knowledge -- but that is a separate issue, involving freedom of the press.
There are many who would argue that other facts are relevant to this case. The race, clothing, age, and other attributes of both men MAY have played a role in their thoughts and actions -- but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. One or both may have made questionable or even wrong decisions, but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. The precise events leading up to the moment of the shooting may be relevant, but, as nearly as they can be legally determined, they do not disprove the idea that the shooter was defending himself.
Given the limitations of human perception and memory, not even the shooter himself knows precisely what happened. Had Trayvon Martin survived, he also would not know precisely what happened. IF there was some way of knowing precisely what happened, perhaps the shooter would have been found "guilty". The jury did their best with the available evidence. The case SHOULD be closed.
The verdict has been controversial and unpopular. As I have stated elsewhere, we are facing an epidemic of personal certainty, and many are convinced that THEY know the truth of the case, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The verdict is politically unpopular, and people in positions of power are threatening to re-examine the case, to try and come up with SOMETHING for which the shooter can be found "guilty". I fear those people who place their own opinions above the law, and I fear those authorities who feel free to try a case over and over until they can find the defendant guilty of SOMETHING. It is tragic that a young man died. It is also tragic if large segments of our society decide that their opinions outweigh our legal process.
Since the verdict, I have heard people loudly complain that the case has negatively impacted race relations and civil rights in America. At first, I disagreed, but now I find myself totally disgusted by those who would use the tragic death of a teenager to further their own agendas, and I find myself wrongly viewing all black people with suspicion -- NOT with suspicion that they will harm me, but with suspicion that they will ignore the legal truth of this and other cases, and instead focus on all those true but irrelevant details. Certainly, there is still racism in America -- but there has been no evidence that this case involved racism.
Another troubling fact is that some are using the case to attack "stand your ground" laws. The case does not involve "stand your ground" laws in any particular way, other than that I suppose ALL laws are somehow related.
The case is complicated and tragic, but the legal truth is straightforward. The shooter was rightly found not guilty, based on the evidence presented in court. Given the evidence, any other verdict would have been a miscarriage of justice. The case is, and should be, closed.
Given that we are a nation of laws, and a nation that embraces the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", the man is therefore innocent. Not just "not guilty", but INNOCENT. Those are the ONLY relevant facts in this case.
I have not stated the shooter's widely-known name, because I believe that it would be better if the names of those charged with crimes were withheld, and only published if they were found guilty. There is no compelling reason for the name of an innocent person to become public knowledge -- but that is a separate issue, involving freedom of the press.
There are many who would argue that other facts are relevant to this case. The race, clothing, age, and other attributes of both men MAY have played a role in their thoughts and actions -- but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. One or both may have made questionable or even wrong decisions, but this is not relevant to the outcome of the trial. The precise events leading up to the moment of the shooting may be relevant, but, as nearly as they can be legally determined, they do not disprove the idea that the shooter was defending himself.
Given the limitations of human perception and memory, not even the shooter himself knows precisely what happened. Had Trayvon Martin survived, he also would not know precisely what happened. IF there was some way of knowing precisely what happened, perhaps the shooter would have been found "guilty". The jury did their best with the available evidence. The case SHOULD be closed.
The verdict has been controversial and unpopular. As I have stated elsewhere, we are facing an epidemic of personal certainty, and many are convinced that THEY know the truth of the case, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The verdict is politically unpopular, and people in positions of power are threatening to re-examine the case, to try and come up with SOMETHING for which the shooter can be found "guilty". I fear those people who place their own opinions above the law, and I fear those authorities who feel free to try a case over and over until they can find the defendant guilty of SOMETHING. It is tragic that a young man died. It is also tragic if large segments of our society decide that their opinions outweigh our legal process.
Since the verdict, I have heard people loudly complain that the case has negatively impacted race relations and civil rights in America. At first, I disagreed, but now I find myself totally disgusted by those who would use the tragic death of a teenager to further their own agendas, and I find myself wrongly viewing all black people with suspicion -- NOT with suspicion that they will harm me, but with suspicion that they will ignore the legal truth of this and other cases, and instead focus on all those true but irrelevant details. Certainly, there is still racism in America -- but there has been no evidence that this case involved racism.
Another troubling fact is that some are using the case to attack "stand your ground" laws. The case does not involve "stand your ground" laws in any particular way, other than that I suppose ALL laws are somehow related.
The case is complicated and tragic, but the legal truth is straightforward. The shooter was rightly found not guilty, based on the evidence presented in court. Given the evidence, any other verdict would have been a miscarriage of justice. The case is, and should be, closed.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
100 years old
Last Monday, I celebrated Mother's Day with my mother and a few other relatives. There was a special meal, cards, flowers, and other gifts.
The "official" Mother's Day was Sunday, but Sunday was one of those days when my mother had trouble waking up. My mother is one hundred years old. Technically, one hundred and a half -- slightly closer to one hundred and one; somehow, the half years seem significant again in the very old, as they are in the very young. She has lived a good, happy, long life, and now her time is drawing to a close. She is weak and frail, both mentally and physically, and is slowly declining.
When anyone asks me about her health, the hardest thing to describe is the dramatic variability in her mental status from day to day. She has several different types of "bad" days. Some days, she is almost comatose, and almost impossible to rouse at all. Very rarely, she does not recognize the people closest to her. On the very worst days, she is agitated and worried, often about things that cannot be defined, or that seem impossible to worry about.
On her best days, she is almost crystal clear, mentally -- though I doubt she is ever one hundred percent clear now. There are also those days when she approaches mania, and finds it almost impossible to stop talking. Those are not horrible days, since she is sometimes able to tell long-forgotten stories or sing long-forgotten songs.
(Music has always been important to Mom, and seems almost more important now. She will often sing a fragment of a song, and then wonder what the rest of the song is. Armed with a certain amount of musical knowledge and the internet, she has yet to stump me.)
Most days, she is somewhere between these various extremes. When people inquire about her condition, and I attempt to tell them, I often feel that they suspect I am being evasive, or sugar-coating the situation, when I tell them her condition constantly changes, but is always declining.
Crucially, she is uncommonly pleasant and happy almost all of the time, except on those few days when she is agitated and worried. Even when she cannot seem to wake up, she will smile when someone speaks to her.
Physically, she grows weaker and thinner each day. She does not eat much, or enough, and is in danger of falling when she walks, even with a cane -- though until recently she has been able to get out of bed and walk to the bathroom without assistance. She also has a "walker" and a wheelchair for different occasions.
Which brings up the fact that she can no longer live without the assistance of others. For now, she lives with family members, though it is altogether possible that she may someday live in an institution of some sort. This gets complicated, as caring for her is simultaneously a blessing and an almost-unbearable burden. Among other things, there are never-ending philosophical questions involving issues of whether to keep her alive or let her go -- such as how hard to try to get her to eat more, and whether to urge her to get out of bed.
Anyone who has cared for her -- that is, who has taken care of her -- in recent years has had the experience of suspecting she would not survive the next few hours, let alone days. So far, she always rallies and bounces back from the edge of life. Logic dictates that she grows closer to death every day, as all of us do. Logic also dictates that her death, when it comes, should not come as a shock to those she leaves behind, but I suspect that it still will.
Personally, I have long realized that one of the ways I cope with difficult situations is by becoming increasingly analytical -- I step back from the situation, mentally, and view it as a scientist would, noting my own responses and emotions, and thinking, "Isn't that interesting!"
Truth is complicated.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Stranded Travelers
A few weeks ago, an engine fire on a cruise ship left over four thousand passengers and crew essentially stranded, dead in the water, onboard ship in the Gulf of Mexico. Once the initial fire was put out, no one was in any immediate danger, but there was no particularly safe way to get the people off of the vessel in the middle of the water, so the ship had to be slowly towed to port with everyone still aboard. The details are controversial, but the ship was left with only emergency generators providing minimal electricity. Food and other supplies were delivered from other sources, but there was no air conditioning, and basic sanitation was said to be a problem. It took almost a week for the ship to reach land.
The entire incident was covered by the news media. I watched live on television as the ship finally docked. Several of the passengers were interviewed by cell phone as they prepared to disembark. Most of the interviews that I heard were quite similar. The interviewer would ask the passengers about their horrible ordeal, and the passengers would reply that it really wasn't that bad. They stressed the fact that the crew did everything it could to alleviate their discomfort. When interviewers asked about the lack of food, the passengers responded that food was regularly delivered, and plentiful and quite good, though they mentioned having to wait in long lines for their food. The interviewers became frustrated, trying to get the passengers to complain and discuss their "hellish experience". Now and then, a passenger would agree that the experience was indeed horrendous, but most would dispute that idea and attempt to correct the interviewer.
This response was not universal. Some of the passengers complained bitterly about their experience. As I type, lawsuits are pending.
I got to thinking about my own experiences with being a stranded traveler. I am NOT saying I have ever experienced anything like being stranded on a cruise ship for a week. I was not there, and I do not know the details, and I do not know how bad it was. I am in no position to offer an opinion on their particular ordeal.
(I have elsewhere discussed my general position on those seeking monetary awards for "damages". Since any money awarded will come from insurance premiums and ultimately from the shared resources of the entire population, I continue to question why being stranded on a cruise ship entitles anyone to a large cash award.)
On more than one occasion, I have been stranded in airports. Once, while awaiting departure from Paris, a mechanical problem was found on board our plane (well, technically, a jet). The passengers had already cleared customs, and were kept in a large waiting room while they tried first to remedy the problem, then bring in a fresh aircraft. All in all, we were in that waiting room for six to eight hours -- not much of an ordeal, especially since we had access to bathrooms and water; I do not recall having any access to food, other than that already possessed by the passengers.
The thing that stands out in my memory about that experience, and others like it, was that the stranded travelers ended up falling into two groups. One group made the best of a bad situation, producing and sharing whatever they had to make the experience more pleasant -- food, drinks, playing cards, other games, even musical instruments. The other group sat glumly when they were not complaining or demanding that the situation be immediately rectified. Perhaps most interestingly, that group became quite irritated with those of us who were NOT complaining, and who were happily making the best of a bad situation.
I have happy memories of that day stranded in the Paris airport, and of another day stranded at the airport in Asuncion, Paraguay, and of a night spent stranded on a train in the middle of nowhere -- a train which did, by the way, run out of food and drink. All of those experiences were adventures for me, and all of those experiences also included glum, angry travelers complaining bitterly.
I must acknowledge that my personal experiences with being a stranded traveler never involved a feeling that I was being mistreated by those responsible for my well-being. When our plane was grounded due to a mechanical problem, I was GLAD that they had discovered the problem before takeoff. When our train had to remain motionless for hours while a team arrived to investigate a collision, I understood the need to wait for the investigators. Things happen.
I COULD expand this discussion into other areas of life, beyond being a stranded traveler, but I would rather not. The nice thing, in terms of discussion, about being a stranded traveler is that you really only have two choices: You can do your best to be happy, or you can be unhappy. There's not much else you can do. You generally cannot personally fix the airplane or the train or the cruise ship (although, in the case of the airport in Paraguay, I was eventually able to secure cold water for all the waiting passengers ... not by complaining, but by being helpful and friendly and using my minimal Spanish).
The rest of life gets more complicated.
Regarding the large amounts of cash being sought by some of the cruise ship passengers:
The passengers may have had horrible experiences; possibly worse than I can imagine. At the very least, they were deprived of their expected pleasure cruise, and kept at sea for longer than they expected to be there -- and their extended period at sea may have caused countless problems, including missed work, lost wages, and other unanticipated expenses. IF it can be shown that human error was involved in their misfortune, then the humans involved should be fined, fired, or otherwise penalized. Still, I fail to see where the large sums of cash are supposed to come from, or why the passengers are entitled to large sums of cash based on having had a horrible experience. Perhaps if human error was involved, they should at least be compensated for any monetary expense that they incurred. IF there was no clear human error -- if it was just a horrible accident -- then I believe we all should offer them our sympathy, but nothing more.
Life involves risk. When you sail on a cruise ship, YOU dramatically increase the odds of being stranded at sea. The crew and company executives have nothing to gain by you becoming stranded, and will strive to prevent it, but it may happen anyway. OR you may fall off the ship, or the ship may wreck, or you may have a medical emergency and be far from a hospital. All of these risks can be minimized by not boarding the ship in the first place. It's up to YOU.
The entire incident was covered by the news media. I watched live on television as the ship finally docked. Several of the passengers were interviewed by cell phone as they prepared to disembark. Most of the interviews that I heard were quite similar. The interviewer would ask the passengers about their horrible ordeal, and the passengers would reply that it really wasn't that bad. They stressed the fact that the crew did everything it could to alleviate their discomfort. When interviewers asked about the lack of food, the passengers responded that food was regularly delivered, and plentiful and quite good, though they mentioned having to wait in long lines for their food. The interviewers became frustrated, trying to get the passengers to complain and discuss their "hellish experience". Now and then, a passenger would agree that the experience was indeed horrendous, but most would dispute that idea and attempt to correct the interviewer.
This response was not universal. Some of the passengers complained bitterly about their experience. As I type, lawsuits are pending.
I got to thinking about my own experiences with being a stranded traveler. I am NOT saying I have ever experienced anything like being stranded on a cruise ship for a week. I was not there, and I do not know the details, and I do not know how bad it was. I am in no position to offer an opinion on their particular ordeal.
(I have elsewhere discussed my general position on those seeking monetary awards for "damages". Since any money awarded will come from insurance premiums and ultimately from the shared resources of the entire population, I continue to question why being stranded on a cruise ship entitles anyone to a large cash award.)
On more than one occasion, I have been stranded in airports. Once, while awaiting departure from Paris, a mechanical problem was found on board our plane (well, technically, a jet). The passengers had already cleared customs, and were kept in a large waiting room while they tried first to remedy the problem, then bring in a fresh aircraft. All in all, we were in that waiting room for six to eight hours -- not much of an ordeal, especially since we had access to bathrooms and water; I do not recall having any access to food, other than that already possessed by the passengers.
The thing that stands out in my memory about that experience, and others like it, was that the stranded travelers ended up falling into two groups. One group made the best of a bad situation, producing and sharing whatever they had to make the experience more pleasant -- food, drinks, playing cards, other games, even musical instruments. The other group sat glumly when they were not complaining or demanding that the situation be immediately rectified. Perhaps most interestingly, that group became quite irritated with those of us who were NOT complaining, and who were happily making the best of a bad situation.
I have happy memories of that day stranded in the Paris airport, and of another day stranded at the airport in Asuncion, Paraguay, and of a night spent stranded on a train in the middle of nowhere -- a train which did, by the way, run out of food and drink. All of those experiences were adventures for me, and all of those experiences also included glum, angry travelers complaining bitterly.
I must acknowledge that my personal experiences with being a stranded traveler never involved a feeling that I was being mistreated by those responsible for my well-being. When our plane was grounded due to a mechanical problem, I was GLAD that they had discovered the problem before takeoff. When our train had to remain motionless for hours while a team arrived to investigate a collision, I understood the need to wait for the investigators. Things happen.
I COULD expand this discussion into other areas of life, beyond being a stranded traveler, but I would rather not. The nice thing, in terms of discussion, about being a stranded traveler is that you really only have two choices: You can do your best to be happy, or you can be unhappy. There's not much else you can do. You generally cannot personally fix the airplane or the train or the cruise ship (although, in the case of the airport in Paraguay, I was eventually able to secure cold water for all the waiting passengers ... not by complaining, but by being helpful and friendly and using my minimal Spanish).
The rest of life gets more complicated.
Regarding the large amounts of cash being sought by some of the cruise ship passengers:
The passengers may have had horrible experiences; possibly worse than I can imagine. At the very least, they were deprived of their expected pleasure cruise, and kept at sea for longer than they expected to be there -- and their extended period at sea may have caused countless problems, including missed work, lost wages, and other unanticipated expenses. IF it can be shown that human error was involved in their misfortune, then the humans involved should be fined, fired, or otherwise penalized. Still, I fail to see where the large sums of cash are supposed to come from, or why the passengers are entitled to large sums of cash based on having had a horrible experience. Perhaps if human error was involved, they should at least be compensated for any monetary expense that they incurred. IF there was no clear human error -- if it was just a horrible accident -- then I believe we all should offer them our sympathy, but nothing more.
Life involves risk. When you sail on a cruise ship, YOU dramatically increase the odds of being stranded at sea. The crew and company executives have nothing to gain by you becoming stranded, and will strive to prevent it, but it may happen anyway. OR you may fall off the ship, or the ship may wreck, or you may have a medical emergency and be far from a hospital. All of these risks can be minimized by not boarding the ship in the first place. It's up to YOU.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Gun Control
For years, but especially over the last month, I have thought, watched, heard, read, and talked about the subject of school shootings. I consider the larger, more inclusive issue of "gun control" to be among the most difficult issues of our time -- and by "difficult" I mean that the issue is complicated, with no good, clear solutions or answers, and thoughtful, rational, intelligent, passionate people on various sides.
The thing that makes the more specific issue of school shootings even worse, and the reason I am reluctant to write about it, is that it involves horrible, senseless tragedy. There is nothing I -- nor anyone else -- can say, write, or do to bring back the victims, or to lessen the overwhelming, crushing pain of the survivors and loved ones of the victims. In a way, it seems obscene to discuss these incidents in terms of statistics, or intellectual or philosophical arguments.
In fact, I believe quite strongly that there is only ONE thing that we, as a society, can do that will definitely lessen the frequency and number of victims of future school shootings: Quit publicizing them! Quit showing them on television, quit having national discussions about them. That is the ONLY sure-fire way to combat them. However, in a free society, with a free press, that is not going to happen.
So I am left to discuss the issue in mostly in terms of intellectual and philosophical arguments (I will leave the statistics to others, at least for now) -- which is NOT what the loved ones of the victims want to hear, and I cannot blame them.
As with most troubling, divisive, controversial issues, school shootings and gun violence involve a number of related and complicated philosophical issues. One of the most basic is the issue of control. As the human race marches forward through time, we like to believe we are achieving increasing control over the world around us. We do not want to hear that something "just happens" -- we want to assign responsibility and blame, and we want to vow to prevent it from happening again. In fact, I would argue that one of the more destructive forces in human nature is the need to "do something!" Often, there is simply nothing to be done -- a fact which few of our political leaders have the courage to embrace.
The most recent school mass shooting particularly lends itself to oversimplification and false arguments. A few days ago, I heard the President of the United States say something to the effect of, "If we can do something that might save even one life, then we must DO it!" On the face of it, this is a compelling argument, especially when the President surrounded himself with children as he said it. On closer examination, it is absurd. We could save many human lives by banning automobiles, and some by banning all forms of mass transit -- planes, trains, even boats. Every year, people are electrocuted; we could stop using electricity. Sporting events account for deaths every year; there is no definite human "need" for sports. And the list goes on.
I expect that those who agree with the President would counter with the argument that whereas we NEED automobiles and planes and trains and boats and electricity -- and possibly even sports -- there is no compelling "need" for the right to bear arms. The TRUTH is that the President is NOT simply interested in the possibility of saving a single human life -- he is interested specifically in doing things that he claims may decrease the likelihood of shootings, and only by decreasing the availability of guns.
One of the problems with this discussion is that it easily leads off in many different directions, like a maze. I COULD focus on the fact that all of the President's ideas are pure conjecture, and while many of them may sound "obvious" there is little objective, factual support for the idea that they might "save even one life".
I will instead focus on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There continues to be debate over the precise intentions of these words. In recent decades, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, some attempted to argue that the term "militia" referred to government organizations such as the National Guard. The founding fathers were quite clear on this point, with George Mason, one of the writers of the amendment, stating, “What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Mason also wrote, "“A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army.” The entire POINT of the Second Amendment is for INDIVIDUALS to retain their firearms so that they might rise up against our own or foreign armies. Incidentally, this view -- the individual right to bear arms -- has been clarified and accepted by Supreme Court decisions.
In the modern world, we do and require lots of things to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies. We design our buildings to attempt to withstand floods, earthquakes, storms, and fires. To prepare for and prevent fires, we install sprinkler systems and smoke detectors, and we have fire extinguishers at the ready. Our automobiles have seat belts and air bags, and are constructed to protect us from injury in the event of a collision. These are just a few examples.
My mother, who is 100 years old, has always scoffed at such preparations. Her general logic is along the lines of, "I have lived in this house for over fifty years, and there has never been a fire, or an earthquake, or a tornado, and therefore there never WILL be, and it is foolish to prepare for such things. And I have never been in a significant automobile collision where I would have needed seat belts or airbags, so there is no reason for them." Furthermore, she has never called the police, the fire department, or an ambulance. Perhaps there is no need for any of these things.
I must confess that I, too, have never had need of seat belts, or airbags, or smoke detectors, or fire extinguishers, yet I accept the fact that they, along with the police, fire department, and ambulance services, are all good ideas.
This is the same way that I view the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the citizens' right to bear arms. The founders of the United States of America believed quite strongly that circumstances might arise calling for the citizens to have weapons capable of defending against foreign armies or the tyranny of our own government. That is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. They were NOT concerned about being allowed weapons for hunting small game -- they were concerned about being able to fight against other armed humans.
So far, I have never needed to possess an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol to defend myself against tyranny, just as I have never needed seat belts or a fire extinguisher. I suppose my mother would argue that since I have never needed such weapons, I will never need them. Still, I accept the fact that they are all good ideas. I view the concept of banning these weapons just as I would view the concept of banning seat belts or fire extinguishers. All are intended to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies, and it would be morally wrong -- not to mention stupid -- to eliminate them.
Some will argue, "Wait! Each year, innocent people are harmed by people using guns!" I would reply that each year, innocent people are harmed by people using cars -- and cars are NOT necessary to preserve all of our freedoms, including the freedom to drive cars. Most dangerous things are NOT necessary to preserve our freedom. Guns ARE necessary to preserve our freedom, should the worst case arise.
Personally, I am willing to accept the possibility of stupid, needless, tragic deaths, in order that our civilized, free society might survive.
Ultimately, this is the debate, and the problem for which I see no solution. Some of us believe that firearms are a crucial safety device, perhaps the very foundations of our rights, liberties, and our way of life -- whereas others simply scoff at this view, arguing that "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" are "used only to kill people, and are therefore unnecessary in modern, civilized, society." Scoffing at and dismissing the views of those who disagree with you is never a fruitful way to begin a discussion, yet it is the normal, typical way for President Obama to do business. President Obama wants us to "stand up to the gun lobby". President Obama refuses to acknowledge that millions of Americans -- Americans who have nothing to do with the National Rifle Association, and who have no financial interest in firearms -- are simply concerned with upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, a Constitution that has nothing to do with "hunting", and everything to do with protecting individual liberty and the rights of the minority.
Perhaps the time has come that we can no longer afford to be concerned with individual liberty, when we must let the government assume control over our choices and our lives, in the interest of saving "even one life". If that is what President Obama believes, then he should SAY what he believes -- that is, that he wishes to do away with the Second Amendment and assume additional power. Then, and only then, can we at least begin an honest discussion.
Truth is complicated.
The thing that makes the more specific issue of school shootings even worse, and the reason I am reluctant to write about it, is that it involves horrible, senseless tragedy. There is nothing I -- nor anyone else -- can say, write, or do to bring back the victims, or to lessen the overwhelming, crushing pain of the survivors and loved ones of the victims. In a way, it seems obscene to discuss these incidents in terms of statistics, or intellectual or philosophical arguments.
In fact, I believe quite strongly that there is only ONE thing that we, as a society, can do that will definitely lessen the frequency and number of victims of future school shootings: Quit publicizing them! Quit showing them on television, quit having national discussions about them. That is the ONLY sure-fire way to combat them. However, in a free society, with a free press, that is not going to happen.
So I am left to discuss the issue in mostly in terms of intellectual and philosophical arguments (I will leave the statistics to others, at least for now) -- which is NOT what the loved ones of the victims want to hear, and I cannot blame them.
As with most troubling, divisive, controversial issues, school shootings and gun violence involve a number of related and complicated philosophical issues. One of the most basic is the issue of control. As the human race marches forward through time, we like to believe we are achieving increasing control over the world around us. We do not want to hear that something "just happens" -- we want to assign responsibility and blame, and we want to vow to prevent it from happening again. In fact, I would argue that one of the more destructive forces in human nature is the need to "do something!" Often, there is simply nothing to be done -- a fact which few of our political leaders have the courage to embrace.
The most recent school mass shooting particularly lends itself to oversimplification and false arguments. A few days ago, I heard the President of the United States say something to the effect of, "If we can do something that might save even one life, then we must DO it!" On the face of it, this is a compelling argument, especially when the President surrounded himself with children as he said it. On closer examination, it is absurd. We could save many human lives by banning automobiles, and some by banning all forms of mass transit -- planes, trains, even boats. Every year, people are electrocuted; we could stop using electricity. Sporting events account for deaths every year; there is no definite human "need" for sports. And the list goes on.
I expect that those who agree with the President would counter with the argument that whereas we NEED automobiles and planes and trains and boats and electricity -- and possibly even sports -- there is no compelling "need" for the right to bear arms. The TRUTH is that the President is NOT simply interested in the possibility of saving a single human life -- he is interested specifically in doing things that he claims may decrease the likelihood of shootings, and only by decreasing the availability of guns.
One of the problems with this discussion is that it easily leads off in many different directions, like a maze. I COULD focus on the fact that all of the President's ideas are pure conjecture, and while many of them may sound "obvious" there is little objective, factual support for the idea that they might "save even one life".
I will instead focus on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There continues to be debate over the precise intentions of these words. In recent decades, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, some attempted to argue that the term "militia" referred to government organizations such as the National Guard. The founding fathers were quite clear on this point, with George Mason, one of the writers of the amendment, stating, “What is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Mason also wrote, "“A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army.” The entire POINT of the Second Amendment is for INDIVIDUALS to retain their firearms so that they might rise up against our own or foreign armies. Incidentally, this view -- the individual right to bear arms -- has been clarified and accepted by Supreme Court decisions.
In the modern world, we do and require lots of things to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies. We design our buildings to attempt to withstand floods, earthquakes, storms, and fires. To prepare for and prevent fires, we install sprinkler systems and smoke detectors, and we have fire extinguishers at the ready. Our automobiles have seat belts and air bags, and are constructed to protect us from injury in the event of a collision. These are just a few examples.
My mother, who is 100 years old, has always scoffed at such preparations. Her general logic is along the lines of, "I have lived in this house for over fifty years, and there has never been a fire, or an earthquake, or a tornado, and therefore there never WILL be, and it is foolish to prepare for such things. And I have never been in a significant automobile collision where I would have needed seat belts or airbags, so there is no reason for them." Furthermore, she has never called the police, the fire department, or an ambulance. Perhaps there is no need for any of these things.
I must confess that I, too, have never had need of seat belts, or airbags, or smoke detectors, or fire extinguishers, yet I accept the fact that they, along with the police, fire department, and ambulance services, are all good ideas.
This is the same way that I view the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the citizens' right to bear arms. The founders of the United States of America believed quite strongly that circumstances might arise calling for the citizens to have weapons capable of defending against foreign armies or the tyranny of our own government. That is why they included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. They were NOT concerned about being allowed weapons for hunting small game -- they were concerned about being able to fight against other armed humans.
So far, I have never needed to possess an assault rifle or semi-automatic pistol to defend myself against tyranny, just as I have never needed seat belts or a fire extinguisher. I suppose my mother would argue that since I have never needed such weapons, I will never need them. Still, I accept the fact that they are all good ideas. I view the concept of banning these weapons just as I would view the concept of banning seat belts or fire extinguishers. All are intended to minimize risk and prepare for emergencies, and it would be morally wrong -- not to mention stupid -- to eliminate them.
Some will argue, "Wait! Each year, innocent people are harmed by people using guns!" I would reply that each year, innocent people are harmed by people using cars -- and cars are NOT necessary to preserve all of our freedoms, including the freedom to drive cars. Most dangerous things are NOT necessary to preserve our freedom. Guns ARE necessary to preserve our freedom, should the worst case arise.
Personally, I am willing to accept the possibility of stupid, needless, tragic deaths, in order that our civilized, free society might survive.
Ultimately, this is the debate, and the problem for which I see no solution. Some of us believe that firearms are a crucial safety device, perhaps the very foundations of our rights, liberties, and our way of life -- whereas others simply scoff at this view, arguing that "assault rifles" and "high-capacity magazines" are "used only to kill people, and are therefore unnecessary in modern, civilized, society." Scoffing at and dismissing the views of those who disagree with you is never a fruitful way to begin a discussion, yet it is the normal, typical way for President Obama to do business. President Obama wants us to "stand up to the gun lobby". President Obama refuses to acknowledge that millions of Americans -- Americans who have nothing to do with the National Rifle Association, and who have no financial interest in firearms -- are simply concerned with upholding the Constitution of the United States of America, a Constitution that has nothing to do with "hunting", and everything to do with protecting individual liberty and the rights of the minority.
Perhaps the time has come that we can no longer afford to be concerned with individual liberty, when we must let the government assume control over our choices and our lives, in the interest of saving "even one life". If that is what President Obama believes, then he should SAY what he believes -- that is, that he wishes to do away with the Second Amendment and assume additional power. Then, and only then, can we at least begin an honest discussion.
Truth is complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)