The Murder of Charlie Kirk

Right-wing influencer and shouting head Charlie Kirk, the head of the conservative youth movement Turning Point USA and vocal supporter of Der Furor, was murdered yesterday afternoon during a speech at Utah Valley University. 

Any murder is a heinous crime, and yet there are those who will celebrate Mr Kirk’s death. He was, after all, a mouthpiece for hateful political views, and was once quoted as saying 

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe." 

I wonder if he ever thought that he would end up as one of those whose death was rational and worth it.

Although I detested Charlie Kirk and everything he stood for, there is no - I repeat - no excuse for political violence in this country. When we have national leadership that not only excuses the violence of January 6th, 2021, but pardons and glorifies the participants, we encourage political violence at the expense of rational discourse. When the Air Force grants a funeral with full military honors for Ashli Babbitt, a woman who traitorously stormed the nation's capitol, we encourage political violence at the expense of rational discourse. When we fail to denounce the murder of political figures of any party, we encourage political violence at the expense of rational discourse. 

Political violence today seems to be excusable when it's one's own partisans who engage in it, but horrible when it's the other side that does it.

This has to end, but I doubt that anyone - particularly on the extreme MAGA right - will see it as a problem. It is, after all, the ultimate owning of the libs.

We would do well to remember the words of John Donne in his famous poem "No Man Is an Island:"

Each man's death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.

We need to stop the tolling of the bell.

Have a good day. Denounce all political violence, no matter who is engaging in it. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

Here We Go Again

As I write this, the person who murdered at least 18 people and injured dozens more in a mass murder by gunfire in Lewiston, Maine, is still at large.

I'm tired of writing about the carnage we can lay at the feet of the gun lobby and those besotted with a desire to own and brandish military-style deadly weapons. Nobody listens, anyhow. Instead, I thought I'd perform a public service and offer something useful at times like this ... 

Mass Shooting Checklist

1. Send thoughts and prayers. Tearful performance in front of cameras is optional.

2. Lower flags to half-mast.

3. Declare that the aftermath of a mass murder is not the right time to discuss remedial actions. Consult the diagram below to determine an appropriate time.

4. Describe the precipitating cause as “mental illness,” “troubled childhood,” or “workplace issues.” Divert attention from the gun as the instrument of violence by noting that people are killed by knives, explosives, strangulation, and other methods as well.

5. Argue over semantics of the term "assault rifle."

6. Invoke the supremacy of the Second Amendment and describe firearms deaths as “the price of freedom.”

7. Ensure proper terminology is used (NOTE: never use the term “murder” or “murderer.” Approved terms include “incident,” “active shooter incident,” “shooter,” “perpetrator,” “suspect,” or similarly fuzzy expressions which do not reflect negatively on the Constitutionally-protected status of firearms. Minimize use of the term “gunman” ... the more generic “shooter” should be used instead, as it implies that the victim might have been shot with a bow and arrow, blowgun dart, or the like.)

7a. If the suspect is Muslim, use "terrorist." 

7b. If the suspect is Christian/White, use "lone wolf" and cite "mental illness" or "troubled past" as motivating factors

7c. If the suspect is Black, use “gang member.”

7d. If the shooter is Mexican/Latino, use “illegal immigrant” or “alien,” regardless of the actual citizenship status; “gang member” may also be used.

8. Congress takes no action other than to vote against funding for mental health care. 

8a. NRA increases donations to members of Congress just in case.

9. Ensure at least five copies of this checklist are on hand at all times.

That's all. Hug your children when they leave the house, duck at loud noises, and put kevlar clothing on your Christmas wish list. Nothing else will get done, anyhow.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

The Monopoly of Violence

The German historian and sociologist Max Weber, in his 1918 lecture “Politics as a Vocation,” defined the state as a “human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Political scientists in general tend to accept the fact that one of the defining characteristics of an independent state is the control of armed forces and/or police who alone are authorized to use violence in the state's name.

The importance of the "monopoly of force" or "monopoly of violence" to the state was of great interest as we watched events in Russia unfold last week, when mercenary forces of the Wagner Group under the leadership of Yevgeny Prigozhin marched on Moscow in what appeared to be an abortive coup ... whether against the leadership of the military (as Prigozhin claimed) or against Vladimir Putin himself remains unclear. 

Regardless of the final target, Mr Putin learned a valuable lesson about allowing a private army to operate outside the control of his government.

But Mr Putin wasn't the only one who should have learned a lesson.

Here in the United States, we have a proliferation of armed groups and amateur militias who believe in their right to use violence to implement their interpretation of the Constitution and the law ... the "Proud Boys," the "Oathkeepers," the "Three-Percenters" and others demonstrated their willingness on January 6th, 2021, to use force to overturn an election that didn't produce the results they wanted. These are not the "well-regulated militias" envisioned by the Founders in the Holy Second Amendment (let me hear you say, "halleluja!"), but groups who would impose their vision on you by force. 

What's worrisome about the home-grown militias is that they're not all a bunch of pudgy, bearded, military cosplay Gravy Seals pretending to be heroic figures ... some of them are serious, heavily-armed people with military training who absolutely believe that their freedoms (however they define them, and regardless of yours) are being trampled upon by a tyrannical government, and that they are justified in doing whatever it takes to get the government and the freedoms they want.

A "well-regulated militia" protects the nation and respects the rule of law. The home-grown equivalent of a Wagner Group does not.

Think about that when you cast your votes. 

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

The Duty to Protect

The mass murder of nineteen children and two teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24th has generated the usual post-massacre actions: politicians invoke thoughts and prayers for the victims in lieu of addressing the problem; Republicans urge the fielding of more guns to prevent murders using the guns already in use and invoke the need for the mental health care they refuse to fund; Democrats urge increased controls and the banning of certain classes of weapons; and gun enthusiasts and the conservative media wring their collective hands and wail that there's nothing we can do to prevent such mass murders. The general progression of events follows Bilbo's First Law of Temporal Suitability, depicted here:

There is, however, one aspect of the aftermath of the Uvalde massacre that is somewhat different from previous such bloodbaths ... a focus, however fleeting, on the activities of the police who responded to the scene and their delay in taking action to kill the murderer and save at least some of the victims. Some observers have noted that the police were outgunned by the murderer, who was armed with a military-style semiautomatic rifle, and were afraid to rush him until heavier firepower had arrived. The larger story, though, is that the police are not required to protect you.

In 1981, two separate lawsuits were filed against the Washington, DC, Metropolitan Police for "negligent failure to provide adequate police services" in that police officers who responded to a 911 call failed to intervene to stop a brutal sexual assault. In the original decision rejecting the lawsuits, the trial judge relied on "the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." The general rule, according to the published decision, is that

"The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists."

The final decision in the appeal of this case (Warren v District of Columbia) upheld the original ruling, with the comment that

"notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal (of the original case)."

But wait ... there's more!

The Supreme Court decided in 2004 in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez that local police were not required to enforce the terms of a restraining order against a man who, ultimately, murdered the children his wife had sought to protect by means of the order. The court's decision included this justification:

"Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband."

Apparently, in lawyer-speak a mother does not have a "property interest" in the safety of her children.

A federal judge also dismissed a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the 2018 mass murder at Margory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 students and staff members were murdered and another 17 were injured. The judge ruled that a "special relationship" did not exist for protection of the students, because schoolchildren are not in a "custodial relationship" with school or law enforcement officials which would require their protection.*

So, riddle me this, Batman: if the police are under no "specific legal duty" to protect you from a crime "absent a special relationship" with you as an individual, why do we have police forces at all? Why does almost every police car in the country have some variation on the slogan "To Protect and Serve" painted on it? 

Are the most extreme zealots of gun rights correct in maintaining that you have to pack maximum iron because only you can protect yourself? Are the "defund the police" zealots of the far left correct in maintaining that the money we spend on heavily-armed police could be better spent on correcting the conditions that make heavily-armed police necessary?

Further, what legally constitutes a "special relationship" between you as an individual and your police department that would establish a "specific legal duty" for that department - paid for by your taxes - to protect you and your family? 

We Americans have always had a tense relationship with our police, because many of us view them almost as an occupying force intent on limiting our rights ... at least until we call upon them for the protection they are not actually obligated to provide. Our black and brown fellow citizens, in particular, have little reason to trust or rely upon police who have all-too-often been guilty of horrific violence and repression against them, often without any significant repercussions.

Do our police have a duty to protect us? The courts say no. I say yes. 

What do you think? I'm anxious in particular to hear the opinion of my friends in the legal profession. I personally think that all the legal hairsplitting in Warren v. DC and Castle Rock v Gonzalez is an indefensible outrage no thinking citizen should accept. But then, what do I know? ... I'm just an outraged, curmudgeonly linguist who thinks that police really should protect us, even at the risk of their own lives. After all, if they're not willing to protect the innocent, perhaps they should seek safer employment.

Have a good day. Be outraged.

More thoughts coming. 

Bilbo

* I can't make this stuff up.

Whose Representative?

Here's an interesting question, Dear Readers: who does your Senator or Representative actually represent?

In the American version of representative democracy as laid out in the Constitution (as amended), each eligible citizen gets to cast a single vote for his or her national-level elected officials - the President/Vice President (it's a package), two Senators, and a single Representative - and we expect each of these officials to represent all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them.

But is that how it really works? There are plenty of examples to demonstrate that it doesn't. 

The most immediate and pressing example deals with the subject of "gun control" (to use a loaded and not-totally-accurate term). Each time the country suffers a mass murder by a murderer using a firearm (which virtually all of them do), there is a sudden burst of outrage over how can this happen here and what can we do about it?. Makeshift memorials spring up and are removed after a few days, the media reports in nauseating detail about the lives lost (particularly if children are involved), and everyone soon moves on to Ukraine, monkey pox, the economy, Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, or the next topic du jour. According to a survey conducted between 2008 and 2017 by the Gallup Poll, the nationwide sadness and anger engendered by a mass murder lasts - on average - four days before it fades into the background and we move on*. This means, of course, that the window of opportunity to take effective action while tragedy is still fresh is, in policy terms, quite short and conducive to stonewalling.**

Which brings us back to my original question: who do your Senators and your Representative actually represent?

In theory, of course, they represent you, the voting citizen. But you're not the only citizen who votes, and a lot of the other voters don't agree with you. So whose position does your Senator or Representative support?

The answer is, to me, twofold: (1) the loudest and best-organized group of voters; and, (2) the views and desires of those who are the biggest financial contributors to their campaigns ... and Number Two*** is probably the leading answer.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided (in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission) that financial contributions to political campaigns equate to free speech, and as such can not be regulated by the federal government, your voice has been drowned out by the unending whine of the banknote counter. What this meant is that the larger the monetary contribution to a particular candidate or party, the louder the voice that candidate or party is hearing, and the more likely it is that the views and desires of that contributor will be heard and acted upon. If you, Dear Reader, are an average low-to-middle income person like me, you probably won't be contributing millions of dollars to ensure the election of Senators and Representatives who support your modest desires: things like affordable health care and medicines, safe products, wholesome food, safe streets, and the like. The interests - which are not likely to be the same as yours - of those who can make those huge contributions will always trump^† yours.

Number One is also accurate, which is why a strongly-organized and focused political group will also wield outsized influence over an elected official. The single letter you write or phone call you make to your Senators or your Representative may be eloquent and soundly reasoned, but it will be swamped by the vast letter-writing, e-mail, and telephone scare campaigns organized by passionate and well-organized parties^†† and special interest groups^†††.

So, do you give up? Do you accept that your vote will always be lost amid the flood of special interests and their money?

No!

I know from personal experience that direct contact by letter or phone with my elected representatives gets noticed. But you have to be smart about it.

Don't just write a letter and grouse about something you don't like. Worse, don't send a form letter or e-mail provided by your party or group. Any moron can do that. Instead, write a letter, grouse about what you don't like, and then offer reasonable suggestions for what you want them to do.

Follow up. I almost always get a written reply to letters, even if they are boilerplate and don't always directly address my points ("hey, aide, send the #4 letter to Bilbo.") If you agree with their response, write back and say so. If you don't, write back or call and ask why they can't support your position. A while back, an assistant from my Representative's staff actually called tell me that Mr Beyer had received my letter advocating 100% tax deductibility for medical expenses and supported increasing the allowable deduction, but couldn't support 100%. She asked me to call back to discuss my ideas. They listened to me, a cranky old retired fart with no political power, money, or influence.

Our democracy is in danger from many directions - the flood of unrestricted money used to purchase power and influence, the desire in some quarters for a strongly authoritarian leader, a lack of reasonable civic education and engagement, the desire to impose particular religious ideas and standards, and a my-way-or-the-highway approach to solving problems. For better or for worse, your Senators and your Representative are the focal point for your voice. Let them know how you feel.

And, above all, VOTE in November. The stakes are high. If you think things are bad now, imagine hard-core conservative control of Congress and the judiciary.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* The level of sadness and anger remain higher in the immediate locale where the murders took place, but it fades out, too. It just takes a little longer because the impact is felt more personally.

** Can you imagine Congress taking action on anything in just four days?

*** I think "number two" is semantically appropriate for a lot of political discussion.

† Sorry.

†† Say what you will about the GOP (and I have), they're laser focused on simple, direct, bumper-sticker level ideas devoid of nuance ... guns are good, white majority interests are being undermined by evil outsiders, Democrats spend your money frivolously, abortion is bad, etc. On the other hand, as Will Rogers once pointedly commented, "I do not belong to any organized political party ... I'm a Democrat."

††† Think "NRA," "AARP," the AMA, Big Oil, Big Pharma, religious groups, etc.

Sticks, Stones, Words, and Guns

The classic expression "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" is meant to teach children that they cannot be hurt ... at least, physically ... by unpleasant things that are said to or about them. Unfortunately, words can hurt us, in many different ways.

There are a lot of ways to look at this, but the one that got me off on this tangent was consideration of the gun violence crisis in America. The importance of language in the context of this discussion is evident from one simple example: use of the term assault rifle to describe a civilian firearm derived from a military weapon and retaining various military characteristics. Firearms advocates believe persons using this term are ignorant and cannot be taken seriously in debate because there's no such precisely-defined thing as an assault rifle. To gun safety advocates, on the other hand, this insistence on linguistic purity obscures legitimate concern over the dangers posed by high-powered semiautomatic weapons, whatever they're called, in ordinary society.

While preparing this post, I spent some time reading the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in the famous case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the DC ban on ownership and storage of handguns. The original DC law was intended to help reduce gun violence on the streets of the nation's capitol, but it was opposed by those who believed they needed guns to protect themselves from other people with guns. When the case reached the Supreme Court and was finally decided, the 157-page decision (including dissents) was loaded not only with the usual dense legal analysis but, oddly enough, dense semantic analysis. The justices devoted page after page to parsing the exact meaning of the individual words of the Second Amendment - militia, state, keep, bear, keep and bear, arms, and people - as they were understood in 1789. Such linguistic exactitude is important to those who believe the Constitution means only and exactly what those who wrote it meant in the 18th century. 

Of course, 2021 is a bit removed from 1789, and the technology and power of weapons commonly available to the average citizen is quite a bit different. The justices halfheartedly acknowledged this when they wrote 

"It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks ..."

Nevertheless, the words of the Second Amendment have been construed by the 21st century Supreme Court to mean the exact same thing they would have meant to a citizen of the 18th century.

The Court also wrote (somewhat disingenuously, in my opinion), in the Heller decision, 

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by

felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

And we enter the realm of semantics once again, as lawyers buy big houses, cars, and yachts on their earnings from the endless parsing of phrases like common use and dangerous and unusual. Is an AR-15 dangerous and unusual? Dangerous? Absolutely. Unusual? As a weapon designed to provide maximum personal firepower on the battlefield, not at all; for personal protection at the local Starbucks, perhaps. Is it in common use? It certainly is, although one might reasonably ask whether it ought to be in common use on America's streets rather than wartime battlefields.

Want to spend more time down the rabbit hole of Second Amendment semantics? One of the references cited by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision is a study by attorney Stephen Halbrook titled What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Analysis of the Right to "Bear Arms." Although the document is fairly short (only 12 pages, including 78 footnotes), it addresses in succinct but comprehensive detail the historical meaning of the key terms contained in the Second Amendment, and concludes that

"The framers of the second and fourteenth amendments intended to guarantee an individual right to carry firearms and other common hand-carried arms."

And there's that sneaky word common again. Time to deploy the reinforced platoons of lawyers to breach the ramparts of its intended meaning.

So, my bottom line is ...

Words can, in fact, hurt you. Not by themselves, but by the passions they release and the weapons they are used to justify. Be careful how you use them.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

The Debate We'll Never Have

I wrote about the language of murder in this space a few days ago. Since the mass murder that took place in Virginia Beach last week, we have deployed the usual thoughts and prayers, built the usual makeshift memorials, and wrung our collective hands in anguish. And, of course, done nothing that will substantively address the problem of mass murder by firearms in this country.

I exchanged comments on the Facebook page of Senator Mark Warner with people who deployed the usual arguments that arise after each mass murder. Here is a distillation of my comments, for what they're worth* ...

We will never cure the plague of mass murder by firearms in this county. "The right to keep and bear arms" was written into the Constitution and baked into the national DNA to address the original need of a small, largely rural nation with many enemies and a suspicion of strong central government to maintain a "well-regulated militia" for both external defense and for protection of the citizens against a future government** that might choose to deny the rights for which the Revolution was fought. Over the years, the courts have morphed the interpretation of this right from a right to keep guns for membership in a formal militia or as a safeguard against government tyranny*** to the unquestioned right to maintain what are essentially weapons of war for defense of house and home. In the overheated arguments on this topic, the right to unlimited ownership of deadly weapons (as guaranteed by the Constitution and interpreted by the courts) is equated to the right to worship (or not), speak freely, allow scrutiny of the government by a free press, and vote for our own representatives.

Those who strongly support the Second Amendment often accuse their opponents of being people who "don't believe in rights, liberties, or decentralized power" - a contention that is, in my opinion, foolish. All Americans believe (loudly and strongly) in their rights; the problem is that one of those rights poses an actual, immediate physical danger, but we have never found the wisdom to figure out how to balance my neighbor's right to own a personal arsenal with my right to be able to go to work, shop, enter a club, go to church, or send my children to school without worrying about the danger posed by that arsenal in the hands of someone incapable of handling it. The bottom line is that we as a people have a strong sense of rights divorced from a sense of responsibility for the exercise thereof.

Let us be honest with each other. People have been killing each other since Cain slew Abel, but Cain didn't have the ability to kill Abel and dozens of other people around him in a matter of seconds. Murder will always be with us ... but is it wrong to try to limit the ability of murderers to slay large numbers of people in short periods of time?

Apparently so.

Another argument made after each mass murder is that nothing could have prevented it. This is, again in my opinion, utterly ridiculous. It implies that mass murder is an act of God that is beyond anyone's ability to prevent ... like a tornado, hurricane, or tsunami. The implication is, nothing could have prevented this, therefore there is nothing we can or should do. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but we recognize needs for limits on its exercise - the classic example being that it's illegal to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater or incite a crowd to riot. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but many people believe their freedom of religion is abridged when they have to acknowledge the rights of people who observe religions other than their own. Freedom of assembly is also guaranteed by the First Amendment, but it's already limited in the original text ... because the guaranteed right is to assemble peaceably ... not to create howling mobs bent on destruction.

My point is that we shouldn't consider any right to be absolute. While we cherish individual liberty, we must recognize that we are individuals who are part of a larger community with diverse interests and worries. We can, if we are willing to do so in good faith, find compromises that will save lives.

Unfortunately, good faith and common sense have long since departed our national discourse.

Have a good day. Keep your head down.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* Not much.

** Here's how one ardent Second Amendment supporter interpreted the right to bear arms in his response to my comment on Senator Warner's page: "... it’s not the guns that we love it’s what the guns prevent which is what we love, our guns prevent our government from becoming Venezuela, North Korea, Germany prior to WW2, former Soviet Russia, every single Muslim country. We love our guns because our guns ensure our government won’t cross a certain line against its people. That is the only reason our founding fathers created the second amendment. Without guns there is nothing to stop our government from becoming a communist, tyrannical, oppressor if it’s [sic] people." Note: the example of "Germany prior to WW2" is often cited by gun rights advocates, but the truth is - as you might suspect - a bit more nuanced. A good summary of the development of gun control laws in Germany, with extensive footnotes, can be found in this article in the Library of Congress Law Library. You can find copies of many of the original German laws online ... if you read German and can deal with the old Fraktur lettering style, they're very informative.

*** And who defines what constitutes "tyranny?" There are a lot of people out there wearing camouflage and running in the woods who think "tyranny" means having to pay grazing fees for the use of federal land, or paying taxes, or having to show any sort of ID, or ... the list is endless.

Questions About Arming Teachers

As we continue to grapple with the need to reduce gun violence and, in particular, to protect our young people in their schools, the same tired old recommendations keep arising. One of them, being pushed by Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association, is an extension of the "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun" mantra - arm teachers so they can protect their students. This is already being done by some schools, mostly in isolated rural areas where a police response to an incident may be long in arriving (see a representative discussion here)

I think arming our children's teachers and expecting them to be warriors when needed is an abysmally stupid idea for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don't respect our teachers or pay them a decent wage now ... and yet some would ask them to put their lives on the line as armed guards as well.

There have been a lot of articles and analyses looking at the desirability and the economics of arming our school teachers. Here are some of the questions that have been asked about the recommendation to turn our teachers into bodyguards, compiled from a large number of articles and analyses I've read over the last week. Some overlap or partially duplicate each other, but I think all of them are reasonable and worth detailed discussion and consideration before we do anything really stupid ...

1. Who will decide which teachers will get guns? Will school administrators select the teachers to be armed, or will the armed teachers be selected from those who volunteer? What criteria will be used to select the teachers to be armed? Will teachers who refuse to be armed be penalized for their decision?

2. Who will provide the guns? Will school districts provide guns for their teachers, or will the teachers be required to provide their own guns?

3. If school districts provide guns for their teachers, how will the expense be met at a time when many school districts are already unable to provide textbooks and teaching supplies?

4. If teachers are required to provide their own guns, who will set the requirements for the kinds of guns they must purchase? Will they be reimbursed for guns and ammunition they are required to purchase if they don't own any guns, or the right gun?

5. What type of training will armed teachers be required to attend, how often must they attend, and what standards will they be required to meet? Who will provide the training and who will set the standards to be met? Will the teachers be required to pay to attend this training? Will they be reimbursed?

6. Where will the guns be stored at the school when they are not being carried? Will each room be required to have an appropriate gun safe?

7. Who determines the rules of engagement for use of firearms by armed teachers (that is, the rules governing when a teacher is authorized to draw or brandish a weapon)? Will these be set at the national, state, or local level?

8. Who will audit armed teachers' adherence to regulations governing weapons in school? What penalties will apply to teachers who mishandle a weapon?

9. Will teachers be required to disclose any history of mental illness, criminal records, or other disqualifying information before being issued a gun? Will teachers with a history of mental illness be allowed to carry weapons in school?

10. How will administrators conduct non-weapon-related discipline against a teacher? Will there be armed assistance available to deter workplace shootings?

11. If an armed teacher is attempting to locate and deal with an "active shooter," who will be responsible for protecting that teacher's classroom?

12. What happens if a teacher, in good faith, misidentifies a student or another armed teacher or security person as a threat?

13. Will teachers who do not wish to carry lethal weapons be authorized to carry nonlethal alternatives (pepper spray, mace, Tasers, etc)?

14. If an armed teacher is shot, can another teacher without the appropriate training use his or her weapon?

15. How will armed teachers identify themselves to arriving first responders?

16. Will armed teachers be required to attempt an arrest before using lethal force? Will they be required to fire warning shots? Will they be trained to "shoot to wound" before shooting to kill?

17. Will weapons proficiency training count for teachers' continuing education and professional development/certification? Who will pay for this training (see question #5)?

18. How will insurers write policies and adjust liability insurance premiums for schools and for individual teachers to account for the known presence of weapons in the workplace?

19. Will teachers receive additional pay for being armed?

20. Will armed teachers leading field trips be authorized to carry their weapons with them? What will they do with their weapons if they are not permitted in the field trip destination - will their personally owned vehicles or school-owned transport be outfitted with secure storage boxes?

21. How many teachers in a school campus should be armed? Who decides, and what criteria do they use?

22. Do parents have a right to refuse to send their kids to schools with armed teachers?

23. Will students or their parents have to legally acknowledge the presence of guns in their schools, and agree to accept the attendant risk? If a parent signs this acknowledgement on behalf of a minor student who comes of age during the school year, can the student refuse to abide by its provisions? What are his/her options?

24. Will armed teachers attend pep rallies, dances, or other gatherings? Will they participate in lockdown drills as if they were armed or unarmed?

25. Will funding for armed teacher programs, if it is provided, be distributed according to local budgets, statewide formulas, or national formulas?

26. What is the right ratio of armed to unarmed teachers? Will schools in high-risk neighborhoods be authorized more armed teachers than schools in neighborhoods perceived as being at lower risk? What factors will be considered in making this decision, and who will make it?

27. What should be the procedure for debriefing and assessing armed teachers' performance during a crisis?

28. Can an armed teacher who fails to perform his/her function in an emergency be fired or otherwise disciplined? What should be the consequences for an armed teacher who does not act according to the rules of engagement (see question 7) during an emergency?

29. Who is liable if a gun is stolen from an armed teacher and later used in a crime: the teacher or the school?

Go ahead ... let me know what you think.

Have a good day. Stay safe ... and reasonable.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

A Thorn by Any Other Name

I hate to keep writing about the gun debate, but I feel an urgent need to weigh in on one particular aspect of it that is driving me up the proverbial wall.

I am, by education, study, and lifelong continuing interest, a linguist. I care about words. Words matter. And they matter a lot in the endless gun debate. I'm not an expert in weapons, but I am an expert of sorts in words, and so I ask ...

For the love of God, all of you, no matter which side of the debate you fall on, stop talking about "assault weapons" or "assault rifles!"

I'm sick of the pro-gun partisans who talk down to me with detailed lectures about the similarities and/or differences between "hunting rifles" and an "assault rifles." I'm sick of people who quibble over the use of the term "assault weapon/rifle" rather than addressing the fundamental issue - which is the suitablity of some types of weapons for killing large numbers of people in a short period of time.

Shut up, all of you! People are dying, and they're dying in large numbers partly because you are busy torturing the language to deflect attention from issues you don't want to face. How about this: instead of the term "assault weapon/rifle," which sidetracks the debate into a uselessly Talmudic linguistic argument, say what you're really talking about: "high-powered semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines" or "high-powered semiautomatic rifles with military features or accessories*."

It doesn't solve the problem, but at least it removes one way the discussion can be lost in a morass of dissembling and false equivalencies.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* I'm thinking here about things like pistol grips, laser aiming devices, large-capacity magazines, folding or collapsible stocks, bayonet mounts, and barrel shrouds. See a useful discussion of the problem of definition in this article ... which dates to 2013.

Rethinking the Second Amendment

Mass murder by gunfire is not unknown in other countries, but it is immeasurably more prevalent here in the United States. There are many reasons why these massacres occur here with such numbing regularity, including "mental illness" (the go-to excuse), lack of parental guidance and oversight of their children's activity, the decline of empathy, and the desensitization to violence of generations of people who have grown up with explicitly violent television shows, movies, and video games. These factors all contribute to the why. It's the how that is so difficult to address. No matter how you explain it away, it's an undeniable fact that the use of a powerful weapon equipped with quickly-replaceable, large capacity magazines makes it possible for a single person to kill large numbers of people in a very short period of time ... which is, in fact, what the original ancestors (the German Sturmgewehr, the US Army's M-16, and the Russian AK-47) of today's civilian-marketed military-style semiautomatic rifles were designed to do.

I feel passionately about this issue, and I've written about it, both here and on Facebook, many times (25 on this blog alone), with no particular result other than to feel better about venting my spleen. I've grown tired of being lectured by my conservative and right libertarian friends on what they see as my faulty understanding of law and the Constitution, since the Second Amendment to the Constitution unambiguously enshrines the right of everyone to keep and bear arms, end of discussion, go sit down until you have something worthwhile to say.

Well, I like to think that I do have something worthwhile to add to the debate. Therefore, Dear Readers, in full recognition of the likely futility of the effort, I am presenting my proposal for amending the Second Amendment. Before you stop reading because you've already decided I'm a clueless bleeding heart liberal who can't possibly have anything worthwhile to say, why not read my suggestion and the discussion that follows it, and then leave a thoughtful and well-reasoned comment ... remembering that the Constitution, in addition to guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms, also contains a mechanism by which it can be amended*.

This is the text of the Second Amendment as it appears in the Constitution:

"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."

Here's my proposed revision:

"The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"Section 1. A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of citizens and lawful residents of the United States to possess and maintain arms while serving as members of a legally-constituted state militia, subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by state and local authorities, shall not be infringed.

"Section 2. The right of citizens and lawful residents of the United States to possess and maintain firearms for use in hunting, sports, or personal protection, subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by state and local authorities, shall not be infringed.

"Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

Here's my thinking:

It's pretty clear to me, reading the relevant sections of the Federalist Papers, that the Founders envisioned establishing state-level militias to do two things: minimize the size and power of a standing federal army**, and provide states an armed citizen force*** to protect them against the power of a tyrannical**** national government (see Federalist 46). Having been subjected to oppression by a king's army, the Founders were understandably suspicious of national governments with a monopoly on coercive force. Their solution was to empower the individual states to establish "well-regulated militias" as a counterweight to federal power. Of course, there might be some problems involved in the establishment of "well-regulated militias;" these were summarized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29. And I think it's important to clearly specify that the "militias" envisioned by the amendment must be "legally-constituted" state-level formations in order to keep every angry person with an axe to grind from dressing up in camouflage, stockpiling guns, and creating his own private army in some remote wilderness.

But it is the private ownership of firearms, not the formation of militias, that is the major focus of the gun debate in this country. There are numerous points of view on the necessity and desirability of such ownership, and I won't rehash them here, other than to make what seem to me to be some pertinent points:

- There is a great difference between the opinions and concerns of people living in rural areas, where hunting is a traditional and cherished pastime and guns are respected for their deadly power, and those living in urban areas, where street crime by armed criminals is a concern.

- The term "arms" used in the wording of the Second Amendment is imprecise and, thus, subject to wide interpretation^†. "Arms" in the 18th century were single shot muskets and the like. We will never know how the Founders would have viewed the private ownership of semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines, bump stocks, and silencers/suppressors, but I suspect they might have been a bit more careful with their wording.

I suggest that the differences of opinion between urban and rural populations could be addressed at least in part by making the ownership of firearms a guaranteed right under the Constitution at the national level, but subject to regulation at the state and local level in response to legitimate local concerns. After all, if the Jackbooted Government Thugs™of the ATF and the FBI are a concern, perhaps the delegation of their authority over firearms to the state or local level^†† - closer to the concerns and wishes of the local populations - could make reasonable restrictions more palatable.

I have changed the current wording "keep and bear arms" to "possess and maintain arms." This is an attempt to rein in the national-level, one-size-fits-all argument about whether or not "keep and bear arms" allows citizens to openly carry firearms in public. My personal opinion is that both "open carry" and unlimited "concealed carry" are staggeringly bad ideas in 21st century America, but if it's to be allowed, it should be a decision made at the local, rather than the national, level, and then only after robust public debate^†††.

I have also changed "the people" to "citizens and lawful residents of the United States." This firmly establishes the right to own firearms as a privilege of citizenship or legal residency, and provides a Constitutional basis for denying access to firearms to illegal immigrants. This does not, of course, prevent illegal immigrants from illegally obtaining and using firearms, but it strengthens the case for imprisoning or deporting illegal immigrants who commit other crimes using firearms.

By most estimates, there are now more guns in private hands in the United States than there are people to wield them. No power on earth is ever going to forcibly pry all those guns (and all the high-capacity magazines, bump stocks, and silencers/suppressors already in circulation) out of their owners' cold, dead hands, so let's agree to stop obsessing about what will never happen and concentrate on not making the problem worse than it already is.

Let's face it: we will never change the Second Amendment as long as there is no appetite in Congress to stand up to the small but very powerful, vocal, and wealthy gun lobby, but it's one of my safer fantasies. And who knows? - in combination with a national willingness to adequately address the treatment of mental health problems, a sudden blossoming of the willingness of parents to actually raise their children to be responsible adults, and more restraint on the gratuitous (if exciting) violence on TV, movies, and video games, it might help us be as safe as most of the rest of the developed world.

The train of rational discussion and simple human compassion relating to this issue sailed long ago ... in the words of a person who commented on one of my Facebook posts, "It's absolutely unfortunate that kids are killed with guns." As long as such an attitude can be held, we're unlikely to make much headway in the debate.

So now you've heard my recommendation ... have at it.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* That would be Article V. And don't forget that we've already revoked one Amendment - the 18th (Prohibition), repealed by the 21st.

** That didn't work out as well as they might have thought, did it?

*** I would suggest that the "militia" equates to the National Guard formations of the individual states. And by the way, a "militia" in the time of the Revolutionary War consisted of ordinary citizens who answered the summons to action and brought their own weapons with them from home. Nowadays, National Guard units have their own arsenals - members of National Guard units do not bring their personal weapons when called up for service. This suggests that membership in a "militia" is probably no longer a useful rationale for owning a weapon. Just a thought.

**** "Tyrannical' is in the mind of the beholder. The fact that you philosophically or politically disagree with a particular law does not make it "tyrannical." 

† The interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment is a cottage industry in itself. Writing in the majority opinion in the case District of Columbia v Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that "In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that '[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention in clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.'" Sadly, the full and detailed meaning and intent of the Second Amendment is not clear (despite those who demand to know "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"), and has been subject to interpretation since the founding of the republic.

†† The "supremacy clause" of the Constitution (Article VI) places the authority of the federal government above the laws of the individual states; this is why any attempt to modify it must clearly specify what limits the states are allowed to set on their own. We see the problem of federal-vs-state powers in attempts at the state level to legalize the cultivation and use of marijuana ... while the states may desire to legalize happygrass, it is still a prohibited substance under federal law.

††† I think it's also worth pointing out that "robust public debate" at the local level means just that - at the local level. We have seen in our politics the distorting effects of national special-interest organizations (of both parties and varied political agendas) pouring money into debates at the state and local level in order to overwhelm opposition.

Lessons from Christmas Songs

Christmas songs provide us with elements of warmth and joy that are sadly needed in times like these. They teach lessons of selflessness and brotherhood along with those of the what-can-Santa-bring-me sort. And, oddly enough, they can teach us some grammar lessons.

I recently ran across this interesting 2015 article from Mental Floss: 6 Grammar Lessons Hidden in Christmas Songs. Don't worry - you don't have to be a linguist to enjoy it, and you may learn something about the songs you sing along with the holiday mall music. One of the lessons I found particularly interesting concerns the traditional song, God Rest You Merry, Gentlemen, which suffers from the indignity of a somewhat-unexpected comma. The article tells us that the song does not tell us that the merry gentlemen should rest, but that the gentlemen should rest merry, which was a way of expressing good wishes in the English language of Shakespeare's time.

You need to watch those commas ... after all, they've caused no end of problems in other areas, such as in the Holy Second Amendment (let me hear you say hallelujah!), 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."

Those pesky commas between "Militia" and "being" and between "Arms" and "shall" have been argued and litigated ad nauseum by all sides of the gun rights argument, without any noticeable result other than a continually-rising body count.

But let us not discuss that now, because at this time of year I prefer to think about silent nights, little drummer boys, all the faithful coming, and whether you hear what I hear. There's plenty of time to think about the joy of deadly weapons the other 11 months of the year.

Have a good day, and rest merry. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Hell We Chose

Almost exactly two years ago in this space, Dear Readers, I lied to you in a post titled, The Last Time I'm Going to Write on This Topic. In that post, I laid out what I felt was an even-handed and honest summary of the pros and cons of our worship of the Second Amendment, and said I was through with writing on the topic because I was tired of being treated like the village idiot by my most conservative readers and friends. Nevertheless, since October 5, 2015, I've written on the topic many times.

Since October 5, 2015, we've had 14 people murdered at a Christmas party in San Bernardino (December 15, 2015), 49 people murdered at a gay nightclub in Orlando (June 12, 2016), and now nearly 60 people murdered at a music festival in Las Vegas (October 1, 2017). After each of those incidents (and all the other ones with less horrendous body counts), this is what happened: there were candlelight vigils; politicians spouted platitudes; heaps of flowers and teddy bears appeared at the sites of the murders; the gun industry denied any responsibility and shed crocodile tears; and outrage was expressed in the news media.

That's all.

Vigils. Platitudes. Flowers. Teddy Bears. Denials and Crocodile Tears. Outrage.

No solutions. Not even an acknowledgement that there's a problem. In fact, Republican members of Congress have repeatedly blocked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from spending any public money on studying any relationship between the proliferation of guns and public health.

Nothing to see here, folks ... just move along. There'll be another coming along soon.

Yesterday I saw this comment on Twitter: "Children died at Sandy Hook & a competent president couldn't push through gun control. We live here now. This is the hell we chose."

This is the hell we chose.

Twenty children were murdered in cold blood at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December, 2012. If we couldn't grow the balls (or the ladies, the ovaries) to face up to that unimaginable horror, we well and truly deserve the hell we have chosen.

I hope you enjoy it more than I do.

Have a good day. Be safe. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Linguistics of the Problem

Here's an interesting exercise in language for you, if you're interested: go back and read every newspaper and online report concerning the shooting in Las Vegas. As you read, count the number of times you come across the word murder.

Unless I've missed something, you will not find it.

Not once.

You will read that 58 people were killed, rather than murdered. You will be told that it was a shooting or a mass shooting rather than a murder or mass murder. The perpetrator is never described as the murderer, but as the shooter.

I'm a linguist. I love words. Words matter. When we cannot bring ourselves to use the right word ... to use antiseptic terms rather than admit that we're talking about murder - the intentional taking of a human life - we are sugar-coating the horror and closing our eyes to the deadly problem that threatens all of us, every day.

More thoughts on this sad topic tomorrow.

Bilbo

The Open Carry of Macuahuitls

As you know, in order to get elected to office in present-day America it is necessary to worship at the festooned altar of the Second Amendment. A person aspiring to high office is almost required to be photographed in camouflaged hunting clothes, toting a large-caliber weapon through the woods in search of some unwary beast or member of the opposing party. It's also pretty much mandatory to make one's obeisance at a suitably large formation of the National Rifle Association in order to establish one's credentials as a true, gun-loving American from whose cold, dead hands his guns must be pulled.

But if everybody does the same thing, takes the same picture, sings the same hosannas to the same heavily-armed choir, how does one set oneself apart from the crowd?

By packing new types of heat, of course.

Anybody can swagger into the local Starbucks with an AR-15 nonchalantly slung muzzle-down across his back ...

or take his Glock to church in a designer holster that matches his Sunday-Go-to-Meeting clothes ...

But to really set yourself apart from the open carry crowd, you need something more exotic. You need a macuahuitl.

The macuahuitl was a fearsome sword carried by the Aztec warriors of Central America. It's not a traditional forged metal blade, but a carved wooden weapon about a meter long (there were longer versions for two-handed use) with blades of razor-sharp volcanic obsidian* fastened around the edges. It was a fearsome weapon that, in the hands of a trained warrior, could take off a horse's head with a single blow.

Just think of how jealous people packing ordinary heat will be when you stride manfully through the doors of your local elementary school, bar, restaurant, or coffee shop with a genuine Aztec macuahuitl! It's clearly constitutional, since the Second Amendment simply guarantees the right to keep and bear arms ... it doesn't specify firearms, so you're cool.

Why just shoot somebody who irritates you when you can slice his head off with a single blow of a razor-sharp macuahuitl?

Be a real man ... pack a macuahuitl instead of a common firearm and stand out from the crowd.

Have a good day, one that's a ... cut above. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* If you're a "Game of Thrones" fan, you know that obsidian - also known as "dragonglass" - is one of the few things that will kill White Walkers and their dead soldiers.

Bring Back the Duel!

Yesterday while I was researching my daily "today in history" Facebook post, I discovered that it was the 213th anniversary of the day on which Vice President Aaron Burr* shot and killed former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in a duel. This got me to wondering if there isn't a way to end the gridlock in Washington by bringing back dueling as a way of settling differences once and for all.

I imagine that it would be particularly appealing to Republicans, because it would be a win-win situation for them: the chance to get rid of pesky Democrats once and for all, and an opportunity to show their support of the gun lobby. It would also appeal to Democrats by stressing the need for responsive and affordable health care for the losers.

I think I'll write to my elected reprehensives and suggest it. What could it hurt?

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Disclaimer: I am distantly related to Mr Burr on my mother's side of the family, but did not collude with him to obtain information which would help him win the duel.

Fireworks, Legal and Illegal

Well, we've survived another Fourth of July, albeit with diminished hearing from all the ass clowns who insist on sharing their vast arsenal of firecrackers, cherry bombs, M80s, sparklers, Roman candles, and noisy, blazing fireworks of all kinds for a week before and a few days after the holiday. You'd never guess that many types of these fireworks are illegal in many states and municipalities.

Yes, you heard that correctly.

Many states and municipalities across the country restrict the sale and use of fireworks, because somebody might get hurt ... but you can buy all sorts of firearms without restriction*.

That noise you hear with what's left of your hearing is the sound of logic shattering.

Have a good day. Come back tomorrow for more Great Moments in Editing and Signage ... more seditious thoughts then.

Bilbo

* Don't get your knickers in a twist ... I know that the Constitution guarantees the right to "keep and bear arms," and says nothing about "fireworks." Nevertheless, the fact remains that we restrict sale and use of fireworks in the interest of safety, while tens of thousands of people are killed and injured by firearms ... which is pretty stupid.

Putting Suppressors on the Wrong Noisemakers

As Congressional Republicans scramble to remake the country in their image, they are laser-focused on tackling some of the most critical issues facing the nation - like removing restrictions on the purchase of "silencers" (more accurately described as "suppressors") for firearms. Somehow, the uninfringed right to own suppressors was omitted from the Second Amendment during its writing, and the GOP is anxious to redress this awful historical blunder.

What the well-equipped shooter will be carrying in the future, should the act pass.

Fox News (among others) has reported that South Carolina Representative Jeff Duncan and Texas Representative John Carter, both Republicans, have introduced the "Hearing Protection Act." According to Duncan and Carter, this piece of vitally important legislation would help save the hearing of "millions" of Americans who dislike wearing hearing protection while shooting. The effort should fly through Congress, since the new Republican majority has extensive experience with the enabling of suppression. Of course, suppressing voting rights is a little different, but it's practical experience nonetheless.

Snark aside, I'm very glad that the GOP is so interested in public health. Perhaps this means they are also ready to make serious attempts to remedy the shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act, bring down the price of prescription drugs, attack the Zika virus, deal with the problem of lead contamination in public water supplies, and come up with a viable plan for storing millions of tons of deadly nuclear waste.

And in any case, "Hearing Protection Act" does have a much better ring to it than, say, the "Enable Criminals to Fire Weapons without Attracting Police Attention Act."

Maybe it's just me, but I think we're putting the suppressors on the wrong noisemakers.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

What Constitutes A Polite Society?

You've almost certainly heard this famous quote from the story "Beyond This Horizon" by science fiction author Ray Bradbury ...

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."

There's been some discussion over exactly what Bradbury meant to say with this line in the context of the story, but there's no doubt at all that it is taken at face value by present-day gun rights advocates, particularly those who support the right to carry firearms, openly or concealed, at all times and in all places. In a 2000 essay titled "Armed Citizens are Responsible Citizens," William Levinson wrote,

     "The common perception is that armed societies were polite because an act of rudeness might evolve into a duel, as portrayed in Dumas' The Three Musketeers. The real reason, though, is the mindset and psychology that come with responsible weapon ownership [emphasis in the original]. The knight's sword was a symbol of his duty to protect weaker members of society and behave chivalrously, e.g. with respect and courtesy to women, elderly people, and so on. The sword was the soul of the Japanese samurai, a constant reminder of the samurai's duty and code of behavior. The sword was a symbol of taking responsibility, not only for one's self, but usually for others. 
     "The modern American who buys a firearm for self-protection is saying, "I recognize that life involves danger, and by owning a weapon I accept my responsibility to protect myself and those who are entitled to my protection-- my wife/husband, children, parents, and perhaps friends and neighbors."

The events of the last few weeks lead me to question Mr Levinson's concept of "the mindset and psychology that come with responsible gun ownership" because responsibility is something that nowadays plays second fiddle to freedom. I would argue that it is not responsible to openly carry a weapon into a volatile situation where violence might break out at any time ... the responsible thing to do would be to avoid such a situation if at all possible, or at least to not take actions that might make it worse. Comparing an open-carry advocate to a chivalrous knight or a samurai seems a bit of a stretch.

Obviously, advocates of gun ownership and ostentatious open carry would disagree.

But the issue is, to me, not one of whether or not packing heat everywhere is a good idea ... although I don't think it is. The issue is what makes a society polite.

I grew up in a time in which people in general were much more polite and respectful toward one another than they are today. My parents and the parents of most of my friends placed a great deal of emphasis on personal probity and good manners, and raised us to do the same. Nowadays, it seems that civility and good manners are considered marks of weakness. You don't build "street cred" by being polite ... you build it by getting in everyone's face. One need only look at the behavior of Donald Trump to see how low our standards of personal decorum have dropped.

In his 1998 book Civility: Manners, Morals, and the Etiquette of Democracy, Stephen L. Carter wrote that

"Civility requires that we express ourselves in ways that demonstrate our respect for others."

 Good luck finding that civility in the current overheated presidential campaign, where respectful and polite discourse vanished long ago. We are preparing to choose a president based on our relative evaluation of the brutal ad hominem attacks that have taken the place of detailed discussion of important issues of policy.

In a polite society, people strongly disagree with each other, but treat each other with dignity and respect. We can dislike the ideas but be civil toward the person expressing them. No more.

I have been accused of hypocrisy on this topic because, while advocating civility and politeness, I present my Ass Clown awards in this blog. While my intent is not mean-spirited, the presentation of such an award isn't especially civil, and perhaps I should work toward morphing those awards into something more satirically pointed and less vulgar. I guess I'll work on that.

But to get back to my original point, from which I think I've wandered ... let me just wrap this up by suggesting that if we need to pack heat to enforce politeness, we're screwed. We just need to treat each other better. We need people to show that they're of a better ... caliber.

Have a good day. See you tomorrow for our second July iteration of Great Moments in Editing and Signage. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

The Things That Matter

One of my favorite songs is a John Denver ditty from back in the 70's called "Late Night Radio," which includes this line -

"I turn the dial a little bit past one-oh-one point two,
In time to catch the news and see who's shootin' who"

Those lines are more relevant now than ever before. What's wrong with our country that these things keep happening?

I think the best explanation of why things are the way they are was written in a 1972 memoir by Dennis Smith. Report from Engine Company 82 describes Smith's experiences - by turns dramatic, funny, and horrifying - as a career firefighter in New York City. Commenting on demonstrators who were pelting his crew with rocks as they tried to fight a fire in a New York slum, he wrote:

"I used to believe that people who threw rocks at firemen were motivated by conditions - the lower depths of American society. I used to believe that the fundamental problems were housing and education ... but I don't believe that anymore ... The disease is much more seriously latent, more pernicious than uncaring landlords, or bureaucratic, apathetic school officials. The malignancy lies in the guts of humankind at all levels. We have unlearned the value of a human life."

There are a lot of "explanations" for why we're stuck in this insane cesspool of violence. It's easy to spread the blame, and commentators from across the political spectrum are busy doing it. Depending on your political persuasion, the fault lies with the ready availability and glorification of powerful weapons, ultraviolent movies and television shows, parents who don't teach their children right from wrong, people who value individual freedom over responsibility to the community, religious and social bigotry, or any of a thousand other excuses. But the real reason is the one Dennis Smith identified more than 40 years ago - we have unlearned the value of a human life.

A human life. Not black or white or asian or hispanic. Human.

And I don't know what else to say.

Have a good day. And be careful. I need you all safe and sound.

More thoughts tomorrow, when we salute the Left Cheek Ass Clown for July.

Bilbo

The Right-Cheek Ass Clown for April, 2016

It's a new month ... well, it's eight days old, but that still counts as "new" ... and that means it's time to designate a new Right Cheek Ass Clown!

This being an election year, it's been easy to focus this award on the posturing buffoons of our political classes, but I've been feeling a little guilty about ignoring all the other deserving ass clowns out there who also deserve recognition. And so it is that I have decided to bestow the award for

Right-Cheek Ass Clown for April, 2016

on

Jamie Gilt

You may recall that last month, Ms Gilt - a Florida woman known for her very strong pro-gun attitudes - was admitted to a hospital after her four year-old son shot her in the back with a .45 caliber handgun he found in the back seat of her car.  

Ms Gilt was and remains a very outspoken supporter of gun ownership and Second Amendment rights, and has a Facebook page titled "Jamie Gilt for Gun Sense" ...

On her personal Facebook page, Ms Gilt once bragged that "Even my 4 year old gets jacked up to target shoot with the .22." This was, of course, before she left a loaded handgun in the back seat of the car where said four year-old could play with it. Nevertheless, despite having been shot by her child, Ms Gilt reportedly has not changed her pro-gun attitude ... her mother, in an interview with a local newspaper, said that her daughter would not change her opinion about owning guns and planned to keep the gun with which her son shot her, saying that “This was an accident and nothing more.”

The local Sheriff's Office asked prosecutors to charge Gilt with allowing a minor access to a firearm, a second-degree misdemeanor which carries a penalty of up to 180 days in jail.

For her criminal negligence in creating a situation in which a child was able to get his hands on a loaded weapon and use it to shoot her, and then defending it as "an accident and nothing more," Jamie Gilt is designated as our Right Cheek Ass Clown for April, 2016 - an award that is ... uh ... right on target.

Have a good day, and come back tomorrow for Cartoon Saturday. More thoughts then.

Bilbo