The similarities between the pro-gun people and the pro-drug people have always amused and infuriated me, especially as neither side seems to recognize them in the midst of their mutual antagonism. Gun people hate druggies, and vice versa, and they never seem to see that they're fighting for the same thing.
The main argument of the anti-gun and anti-drug people is that the average American simply can't handle his guns (or his drugs) without supervision, restriction and constant positive control.
The gun people have no problem demonizing the drug people, but argue that the average American has certainly proved over the years that he is indeed mature enough, responsible enough and careful enough to avoid becoming any sort of danger to the community at large. "80 million gun owners didn't kill anybody yesterday!" For the most part, they seem to have a rather cogent point.
The drug people have no trouble demonizing gun owners, but argue that the average American is indeed mature enough, careful enough and responsible enough to avoid becoming a danger or a risk to the people around them. Given the tremendous number of undiscovered people in the country who are consuming illegal drugs on a weekly basis without going psychotic, running their cars into living rooms or swimming pools or removing their spleens with fingernail scissors, they would seem to have an equally cogent point.
Either the average American really is a responsible, mature, self-disciplined character who can be trusted to run his own affairs without endangering the neighborhood, and can therefore be trusted with his guns or his drugs...or he's not. If not, then we need to give up the guns and the drugs and submit to the control of those who know better than we do how our lives should be run. It's for our own good...
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Opposites examined.
Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein was a very astute observer of the human condition. I've been aware of this quote for something like 35 years, and I've seen countless examples to prove it virtually unchallengeable. It reflects itself in so many, many different areas...
Gun Control
The gun grabbers (just to show up front where I stand on the issue) are determined that, not only do they want nothing to do with guns (for a variety of sometimes very good reasons), but they want no one else to have anything to do with guns either. Many of them feel that all firearms should be made to disappear tomorrow. In short, they're determined that everybody is going to do things their way. Frequently having self-discipline problems, they want to be controlled and they want everyone else controlled the same way. That gives them a "level playing field".
On the pro-gun side, it's very difficult to find anyone who insists that everyone be armed. The overwhelming majority are quite happy with the idea of allowing anyone who wishes to arm themselves to do so, and have little or no argument with those who wish to have nothing to do with firearms. As far as they're concerned, it's a personal choice that needs to be left to the person(s) involved. They're quite happily in control of themselves, and expect everyone else to do the same. (It's simply the adult thing to do, you see.)
Alcohol
I've noticed a new crop of billboards around my town. Each one shows the picture of a cute kid around 7 to 10 years old with a major caption saying, "Start talking to your kids before they start drinking". In small letters next to the child's picture, it says something like, "Sarah. First drink, age 14."
I'm confused. The implication seems to be that little Sarah grew up to be a poor, lost sheep. Demon Rum done got her! On the other hand, it's a known in certain circles that the Italians start their kids off on watered wine around age 10 or 11, and general drunkenness throughout the population doesn't seem to have occurred. The French no doubt have similar customs. Both countries enjoy a far lower rate of cardiovascular disease than we do. Personally, I had my "first drink" at the age of eight and currently drink alcohol on a daily basis, budget permitting. I enjoy my wine and the Reverend Jack Daniels and I are good friends. OTOH, it's been so long since the last time I was drunk (by any meaningful use of the term) that my wife can't accurately count the years.
There are those who spend their entire weekends full of beer, hazed out and blearily content with their Sunday afternoon hangover. There are others who consider that allowing alcohol to pass their lips is a sin and the very measure of bad character.
A study out last year stated that the alcohol problem in America was far more widespread and serious than most of us realized and was frequently very hard to spot because it involved people who had as few as two or three drinks a week. Personally, I figure that if there's an alcohol problem with someone who's only having two or three drinks a week, they're not the ones with the problem.
The vast majority of us fall somewhere in the middle. Again, the issue seems to come back to self-discipline. Morally and socially, most of us don't like drunks, and don't like being drunk. Drunkenness is a measure of "bad character". It shows a disturbing lack of self control.
Once again, the "anti-" side is determined that everybody will do things their way...or else! We tried it their way for awhile. "Prohibition" lasted for 13 years and gave us organized crime, non-existent in our country until that time. It also gave us massive corruption at all levels of government, major intrusions into private affairs where the government arguably has no business whatsoever, and a general level of drinking and drunkenness that were unequalled before or since. Once the law was repealed in 1933, things went more-or-less back to normal, much to the disgust of the prohibition crowd.
And once again, the "pro-" side sees it as matter of personal choice, and expects the individual to exercise proper restraint. For the most part, we succeed.
Tobacco
Tobacco currently holds a position similar to that of marijuana back in the 1950's. It's the "demon weed", causing all sorts of havoc throughout the community, and it's time its evil influence was ended once and for all.
Smokers make up about a quarter of the population...and are now considered second class citizens at best by a large portion of the other three quarters of the community.
"Second-hand smoke" is considered a dangerous carcinogen and general health threat, to the point that some people think that deliberately exposing them to such filth is equivalent to an assault. All this springs from a 1993 EPA report that was such a blatant example of sagecraft that a federal judge, examining the report as part of a lawsuit, stated that even without formal scientific training it was painfully obvious to him that the authors had first decided what the report was going to say and then gone out to do the study confirming it.
Virtually no one has heard of the studies showing that smoking seems to delay the onset and/or severity of Alzheimers disease and Parkinsons's disease, helps to prevent breast cancer, helps to prevent and relieve coronary occlusions (the main cause of heart attacks), and even helps prevent gum disease. (Try Googling "benefits of smoking", it'll blow your mind!)
Massachusetts is considering banning smoking in all public places statewide. Another state is banning smoking even in private homes if it bothers the neighbors!! In England, a man has been denied therapeutic surgery for a broken foot bone that will not knit; the doctors claim smoking will interfere with his recovery so why bother...unless he proves he's quit smoking before hand.
Many argue that smokers deserve whatever limits government or society choose to place on them because of the medical costs they impose on the community at large. Come again? The primary impression is that smokers die younger than the rest of us. If so, how are they consuming medical resources? They're dead!
Granted, smoking is a filthy habit. The ashes get everywhere, coals burn holes in clothing and furniture, the smoke is frequently noxious and may trigger asthma attacks, and some smokers are deliberately rude about the effects of their smoking on others.
Nonetheless, is this really a subject for major legal action? Once again, the "anti's" are determined that everyone will do things their way, or else! The other side is for personal choice/discipline/control/responsibility. Which would you rather have for a neighbor?
Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein was a very astute observer of the human condition. I've been aware of this quote for something like 35 years, and I've seen countless examples to prove it virtually unchallengeable. It reflects itself in so many, many different areas...
Gun Control
The gun grabbers (just to show up front where I stand on the issue) are determined that, not only do they want nothing to do with guns (for a variety of sometimes very good reasons), but they want no one else to have anything to do with guns either. Many of them feel that all firearms should be made to disappear tomorrow. In short, they're determined that everybody is going to do things their way. Frequently having self-discipline problems, they want to be controlled and they want everyone else controlled the same way. That gives them a "level playing field".
On the pro-gun side, it's very difficult to find anyone who insists that everyone be armed. The overwhelming majority are quite happy with the idea of allowing anyone who wishes to arm themselves to do so, and have little or no argument with those who wish to have nothing to do with firearms. As far as they're concerned, it's a personal choice that needs to be left to the person(s) involved. They're quite happily in control of themselves, and expect everyone else to do the same. (It's simply the adult thing to do, you see.)
Alcohol
I've noticed a new crop of billboards around my town. Each one shows the picture of a cute kid around 7 to 10 years old with a major caption saying, "Start talking to your kids before they start drinking". In small letters next to the child's picture, it says something like, "Sarah. First drink, age 14."
I'm confused. The implication seems to be that little Sarah grew up to be a poor, lost sheep. Demon Rum done got her! On the other hand, it's a known in certain circles that the Italians start their kids off on watered wine around age 10 or 11, and general drunkenness throughout the population doesn't seem to have occurred. The French no doubt have similar customs. Both countries enjoy a far lower rate of cardiovascular disease than we do. Personally, I had my "first drink" at the age of eight and currently drink alcohol on a daily basis, budget permitting. I enjoy my wine and the Reverend Jack Daniels and I are good friends. OTOH, it's been so long since the last time I was drunk (by any meaningful use of the term) that my wife can't accurately count the years.
There are those who spend their entire weekends full of beer, hazed out and blearily content with their Sunday afternoon hangover. There are others who consider that allowing alcohol to pass their lips is a sin and the very measure of bad character.
A study out last year stated that the alcohol problem in America was far more widespread and serious than most of us realized and was frequently very hard to spot because it involved people who had as few as two or three drinks a week. Personally, I figure that if there's an alcohol problem with someone who's only having two or three drinks a week, they're not the ones with the problem.
The vast majority of us fall somewhere in the middle. Again, the issue seems to come back to self-discipline. Morally and socially, most of us don't like drunks, and don't like being drunk. Drunkenness is a measure of "bad character". It shows a disturbing lack of self control.
Once again, the "anti-" side is determined that everybody will do things their way...or else! We tried it their way for awhile. "Prohibition" lasted for 13 years and gave us organized crime, non-existent in our country until that time. It also gave us massive corruption at all levels of government, major intrusions into private affairs where the government arguably has no business whatsoever, and a general level of drinking and drunkenness that were unequalled before or since. Once the law was repealed in 1933, things went more-or-less back to normal, much to the disgust of the prohibition crowd.
And once again, the "pro-" side sees it as matter of personal choice, and expects the individual to exercise proper restraint. For the most part, we succeed.
Tobacco
Tobacco currently holds a position similar to that of marijuana back in the 1950's. It's the "demon weed", causing all sorts of havoc throughout the community, and it's time its evil influence was ended once and for all.
Smokers make up about a quarter of the population...and are now considered second class citizens at best by a large portion of the other three quarters of the community.
"Second-hand smoke" is considered a dangerous carcinogen and general health threat, to the point that some people think that deliberately exposing them to such filth is equivalent to an assault. All this springs from a 1993 EPA report that was such a blatant example of sagecraft that a federal judge, examining the report as part of a lawsuit, stated that even without formal scientific training it was painfully obvious to him that the authors had first decided what the report was going to say and then gone out to do the study confirming it.
Virtually no one has heard of the studies showing that smoking seems to delay the onset and/or severity of Alzheimers disease and Parkinsons's disease, helps to prevent breast cancer, helps to prevent and relieve coronary occlusions (the main cause of heart attacks), and even helps prevent gum disease. (Try Googling "benefits of smoking", it'll blow your mind!)
Massachusetts is considering banning smoking in all public places statewide. Another state is banning smoking even in private homes if it bothers the neighbors!! In England, a man has been denied therapeutic surgery for a broken foot bone that will not knit; the doctors claim smoking will interfere with his recovery so why bother...unless he proves he's quit smoking before hand.
Many argue that smokers deserve whatever limits government or society choose to place on them because of the medical costs they impose on the community at large. Come again? The primary impression is that smokers die younger than the rest of us. If so, how are they consuming medical resources? They're dead!
Granted, smoking is a filthy habit. The ashes get everywhere, coals burn holes in clothing and furniture, the smoke is frequently noxious and may trigger asthma attacks, and some smokers are deliberately rude about the effects of their smoking on others.
Nonetheless, is this really a subject for major legal action? Once again, the "anti's" are determined that everyone will do things their way, or else! The other side is for personal choice/discipline/control/responsibility. Which would you rather have for a neighbor?
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Divisions, divisions...
For the last several years I've noticed that, as a society, we seem to be growing more and more polarized in several different areas. Gun control, abortion, education, silly-seeming lawsuits, tobacco, alcohol, health care, size of government, immigration, religion, even driving habits. They all seem to be bugging us, sometimes to the point of violence, and rather than moving towards any sort of consensus we're moving further and further apart, frequently to the point of demonizing those who don't agree with our own positions. Worse, I don't see much chance for any reversal of this trend anytime in the near future.
I believe it has to do with power, the power to compel others to behave in certain ways or face dire, possibly life altering consequences...and the reactions of those so compelled.
For example: Seatbelt use in cars and motorcycle helmets. We all "know" that using your seatbelt is just "the intelligent thing to do". Gods know we've been hearing about it for a couple of generations now, and the newsies are always quick to point out how some poor jerk who got nailed on the road wasn't wearing his seatbelt. The implication is always that the idiot would have been just fine if he'd only had
sense enough to buckle up. Ditto for bike riders and helmets.
Does nobody know about the studies showing that seatbelts actually enhance damage and risk of death in certain types of impacts? (Granted, there are few such studies...because nobody has any interest in flouting the powers-that-be by funding them.) Has nobody ever examined the arguments of many very experienced riders about the dangers of helmet use in many common riding scenarios? Does anybody care? After all, some "expert" somewhere has determined that seatbelts and helmets are "smart", and those who refuse to use them are "not smart", and that's the end of it. No room for argument, and no tolerance for other points of view, and we'll just make sure everybody acts "smart" by encoding the expert's view as law. "Do it our way or we'll give you a ticket". We went that route with the universal use of airbags, making it an official crime to mess with the factory installation in any way...until, decades later, it was noted that airbags were fairly reliable in killing certain types of people whenever they went off, regardless of their probable utility in general. Now, finally, you get some kind of choice for passenger airbags in the newer cars. If you're 78 years old, suffering from serious osteoporosis and still behind the wheel of a late model Cadillac however, you don't want to be hitting anything at all. The driver's airbag popping out of the steering wheel shaft is going to trigger your obituary regardless of who's fault the accident is.
The point here is that, in far too many cases, an avoidable risk is forced on an individual by the powers-that-be in complete disregard of any objection that individual may have. Conversely, risks that may be just fine with the person willing to assume them are forbidden because the powers aren't willing to allow them. "If it's not compulsory, it's forbidden."
What a crock!!
What is the result of this sort of nonsense for the general public? Those whose views are made law, and those who agree with them, feel righteously vindicated and attempt to increase their influence by making "their" laws more strict and passing more of them. Those who disagree feel victimised and, in many cases, do their best to avoid discovery while ignoring the laws they disagree with. Respect for "the Law" in general is diminished, and contempt for those who pass and/or enforce these laws runs rampant.
It's imortant to note that we've been here before...and it wasn't pretty. Once before, our society was seriously rent by laws of this nature, carried to the point where those who disagreed felt that their backs were against the wall and they had no choice but to resist outside of the legal system because they had no hope of obtaining any relief within it. The resulting brouhaha lasted for years and cost more lives than any other catastrophe in our history to date. It was called "The Civil War".
I am appalled and frightened by our current disagreements and the vehemence and venom with which both sides feel compelled to respond to each other. I see far too many similarities and congruencies with the historical record circa 1855. I truly fear that my children and grandchildren are going to have to go thru another such catastrophe...and this one will be worse, by far, than what happened in our past.
It was Erwin Rommel I believe who said, "The American soldier is the most frightening man on the battlefield...because he learns so quickly!!" Recently, in Viet Nam, we proved that all over again. We took boys from the cornfields of Kansas, the barrios of Los Angeles, the bayous of Lousianna and the mountains of Kentucky and sent them to a jungle the like of which simply doesn't exist on this continent. A large majority of them handily survived their first six months there...at which time they were quite able to out-jungle their opponents who'd been born there.
The top soldiers, the ones responsible for that actual strategies and tactics we fight wars with, have also displayed a remarkable ability to learn. In Iraq, we took on what was called the best and most capable army in the area...and took only three weeks(?) to break it utterly with a truly startling lack of "collateral damage" and mortality to non-fighting civilians. In WWII we used a bigger hammer than the Axis powers were able to wield. In Iraq we used a scalpel with even greater effect.
If our divisions and disagreements continue to polarize us with greater and greater affect, what is going to happen when we pit this super soldier against himself in his own home?
Make no mistake, that is what we're headed for. Too many people are feeling too victimised, forced, ignored, put upon and backed against a wall for the situation to gain any sort of stability. Those with the power to compel are more and more determined that everyone will do things their way, and those who are being compelled in directions they don't want to go are becoming more and more determined not to go in those directions. In the absence of some source of relief on both sides, this will inevitably lead to the worst sort of confrontation with no impulse to relent on either side. We've seen where that leads, and it ain't pretty.
I believe it has to do with power, the power to compel others to behave in certain ways or face dire, possibly life altering consequences...and the reactions of those so compelled.
For example: Seatbelt use in cars and motorcycle helmets. We all "know" that using your seatbelt is just "the intelligent thing to do". Gods know we've been hearing about it for a couple of generations now, and the newsies are always quick to point out how some poor jerk who got nailed on the road wasn't wearing his seatbelt. The implication is always that the idiot would have been just fine if he'd only had
sense enough to buckle up. Ditto for bike riders and helmets.
Does nobody know about the studies showing that seatbelts actually enhance damage and risk of death in certain types of impacts? (Granted, there are few such studies...because nobody has any interest in flouting the powers-that-be by funding them.) Has nobody ever examined the arguments of many very experienced riders about the dangers of helmet use in many common riding scenarios? Does anybody care? After all, some "expert" somewhere has determined that seatbelts and helmets are "smart", and those who refuse to use them are "not smart", and that's the end of it. No room for argument, and no tolerance for other points of view, and we'll just make sure everybody acts "smart" by encoding the expert's view as law. "Do it our way or we'll give you a ticket". We went that route with the universal use of airbags, making it an official crime to mess with the factory installation in any way...until, decades later, it was noted that airbags were fairly reliable in killing certain types of people whenever they went off, regardless of their probable utility in general. Now, finally, you get some kind of choice for passenger airbags in the newer cars. If you're 78 years old, suffering from serious osteoporosis and still behind the wheel of a late model Cadillac however, you don't want to be hitting anything at all. The driver's airbag popping out of the steering wheel shaft is going to trigger your obituary regardless of who's fault the accident is.
The point here is that, in far too many cases, an avoidable risk is forced on an individual by the powers-that-be in complete disregard of any objection that individual may have. Conversely, risks that may be just fine with the person willing to assume them are forbidden because the powers aren't willing to allow them. "If it's not compulsory, it's forbidden."
What a crock!!
What is the result of this sort of nonsense for the general public? Those whose views are made law, and those who agree with them, feel righteously vindicated and attempt to increase their influence by making "their" laws more strict and passing more of them. Those who disagree feel victimised and, in many cases, do their best to avoid discovery while ignoring the laws they disagree with. Respect for "the Law" in general is diminished, and contempt for those who pass and/or enforce these laws runs rampant.
It's imortant to note that we've been here before...and it wasn't pretty. Once before, our society was seriously rent by laws of this nature, carried to the point where those who disagreed felt that their backs were against the wall and they had no choice but to resist outside of the legal system because they had no hope of obtaining any relief within it. The resulting brouhaha lasted for years and cost more lives than any other catastrophe in our history to date. It was called "The Civil War".
I am appalled and frightened by our current disagreements and the vehemence and venom with which both sides feel compelled to respond to each other. I see far too many similarities and congruencies with the historical record circa 1855. I truly fear that my children and grandchildren are going to have to go thru another such catastrophe...and this one will be worse, by far, than what happened in our past.
It was Erwin Rommel I believe who said, "The American soldier is the most frightening man on the battlefield...because he learns so quickly!!" Recently, in Viet Nam, we proved that all over again. We took boys from the cornfields of Kansas, the barrios of Los Angeles, the bayous of Lousianna and the mountains of Kentucky and sent them to a jungle the like of which simply doesn't exist on this continent. A large majority of them handily survived their first six months there...at which time they were quite able to out-jungle their opponents who'd been born there.
The top soldiers, the ones responsible for that actual strategies and tactics we fight wars with, have also displayed a remarkable ability to learn. In Iraq, we took on what was called the best and most capable army in the area...and took only three weeks(?) to break it utterly with a truly startling lack of "collateral damage" and mortality to non-fighting civilians. In WWII we used a bigger hammer than the Axis powers were able to wield. In Iraq we used a scalpel with even greater effect.
If our divisions and disagreements continue to polarize us with greater and greater affect, what is going to happen when we pit this super soldier against himself in his own home?
Make no mistake, that is what we're headed for. Too many people are feeling too victimised, forced, ignored, put upon and backed against a wall for the situation to gain any sort of stability. Those with the power to compel are more and more determined that everyone will do things their way, and those who are being compelled in directions they don't want to go are becoming more and more determined not to go in those directions. In the absence of some source of relief on both sides, this will inevitably lead to the worst sort of confrontation with no impulse to relent on either side. We've seen where that leads, and it ain't pretty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)