Shootings

Three trains of thought having to do with recent shootings:

1. I've always gone back and forth on the phenomenon of being infinitely more outraged by tragic events that occur within our borders than those without. Not that we should be caring less about a horrific event...but what exactly is it that guides our instincts to feel vastly more sympathy for something that happens to a group of people just because they happen to reside within our borders? Is this merely a product of nationalism? (And if so, what is the "better" option - according this level of attention to every worldwide tragedy?) Or is there something more intrinsic about culture...and the disease, the weakness is rather mine for not seeing myself more fundamentally connected to it? On the one hand, I think that it is peculiar for such a unique and deep event such as grief (or prayers, for those that do such things) to be contingent upon borders on a map decided by imperalistic forces centuries ago. On the other, it may well be the case that there are positive reasons to be affected more by those who have a cultural attachment (and, for this to be the case, being affected by someone has to operate independently of the economy of "valuing" lives...in that these lives cannot be "worth" more). I'm not sure.

2. As early as yesterday afternoon, TV pundits were debating what effect this event would have on the relapsed ban on assault weapons (I saw this because Walter has a vastly higher prediliction for subjecting himself to the absurdity of Bill O'Reilly than I could ever stomach, along with a prediliction for leaving the TV on). Bill's guest, of course, claimed that restricting deadly weapons was not the right course here - she even suggested that banning assault weapons would be "counterproductive" (I would have given much to hear this woman's explanation as to how that could possibly be the case, but giving full accounts for one's arguments is passe in contemporary political discourse).

I have a fairly radical opinion on gun control: I think private ownership of lethal firearms should be entirely abolished. But I'm also protective of the constitution for the preservation of privacy and the like. How do I reconcile these positions? Through the magic of hermeneutics, that's how! (Otherwise known as: the belief that words have a living meaning, and we should pay attention to see what that meaning is).

The rationale given for the the right to keep and bear arms was not because humans have some inalienable right to guns, but to allow the preservation of a well-regulated militia. Why a well-regulated militia? The theory was that should the federal government ever try to turn tyrranical (terrible terrycloth tyrranasaurus!), the people could band together and check this by threatening to secede again. Basically, making sure that an American Revolution 2.0 could happen if it really needed to. What no one foresaw was the advancement of technology - at the time, anti-federalists were fairly mollified by the fact that they were well-assured the federal government's standing army would its ass kicked if the citizens ever saw the need to take action. Nowadays? Not so much - even a "well regulated militia" has basically zero chance against the federal army, since we don't got bombs, planes, tanks, body armor, etc. etc. The purpose, the organizing telos behind the amendment is deader than Thomas Jefferson.

That means that hand guns, shotguns...fuck, even assault rifles are insufficient to make a well-regulated militia that can "defend the security of the free state" (to quote the 2nd amendment). Does this mean we citizens get to have bombs and stealth fighter jets?? Of course not. Here's the logical problem confronting interpreters of the constitution. The original argument ran, that in order to have A (militia that counterbalances federal gov), we need B (rifles!). But no one can claim with a straight face nowadays that B leads to A any longer...it does, however, lead to rampant criminal violence! This is a case where the letter of the constution has come into *direct* conflict with the necessary meaning of that very bit of text. Does this mean we side with the technicality and continue to fuck up our country?

For defense against animals and rampaging humans, get tranq guns (you bet some efficient non-lethal tranquilizer handguns would hit the market soon after the repeal of the 2nd amendment, or recognition of its vestigial nature). For offense against animals (for those who just need to kill shit), get those fancy bow and arrows. How much easier would it be to stop gun violence if only police and military were allowed to have the lethal variety? There'd be a black market...but combating that would be a lot easier than leaving things the way they are now. Besides, schools could take most of that money being spent on metal detectors and the like and put it towards better counseling programs, for instance!!

Of course, this ought not be reduced to a gun violence issue...much more at stake. Just my train of thought touched off by the absurd "assault weapons are great!" claim that some talking head had the audacity to say on the day of this tragedy. One of the many ways I would fix the country if I suddenly had power to influence national policy.

(a few others: strict greenhouse gas emission limits and renewable energy standards, tighten restrictions on products that aren't energy efficient, replace the legal consideration of marriage with those of "civil union" and "civil union with children", legalize and tax the shit out of marijuana, replace sales tax with a flat income tax that affects all income earned in addition to 50 grand a year (in addition to a graduated income tax similiar to what we have now, but tweaked), increase state power to deal with envirnomental problems, universal health care, stop billions of useless military funding, add an amendment preventing congress from giving the president blank checks in wartime, abolish the electoral college, equal rights amendment...and transform the federal government into a committee run by 21 philosopher-kings appointed by SPEP)

3. Multiple people have requested that I pray - even ones who know full well that the notion of prayer does not play into any notion of the divine I have. So what does that accomplish? Does it really honor the memories of those who have died to offer an empty gesture that is ultimately just for the sake of people who want to feel like they're doing some by spreading prayer? I understand religious people doing it...but when they expect others to, it seems very strange to me. Being true to oneself is an ethical demand, I believe, and one especially relevant in the impossible task of honoring the dead. But maybe they're just reminding everyone who meant to pray but forgot to or something...maybe I sound cold, but a dedication to truth and ethics go hand in hand, broadly speaking.

4. On a totally different kind of shooting....what was up with Phoenix playing its starters in the game against the Clippers today?!? That's fucking absurd. They can't move up or down in any spot, and the Clippers are playing to stay alive in the playoff race. All that Phoenix is doing is creating a risk that one of its starters gets hurt, and an injury to Nash, Barbosa, Amare, or Marion would end their championship hopes RIGHT AWAY. Even injuries aside, the biggest threat facing these folks, given their weak bench, is getting tired (Nash especially sucks it up when he has his back spasms/has no legs under him)...were they just too competitive to give up a game that had no meaning to them? Dallas played the janitor and Mark Cuban's cousin against the Warriors tonight...who are going to get that playoff spot over the Clippers unless the Clips beat the Hornets (very doable) *and* the Warriors lose to Portland tomorrow (less likely). I'd rather see the Warriors in that 8th spot, so I'm not super pissed or anything (I bet a bunch of Clips fans will be), but Phoenix just ruined a chance to rest their crucial guys while losing the damn game ANYWAY. Idiots!

That being said, I can't wait for the playoffs.