A newly minted naturalized citizen notes on why he should have stayed Canadian:
[NewYorker] Away from the world for August, in a house without Internet or television and only spotty, the-satellite-must-be-passing-over phone reception, I was, until Wednesday, thinking more or less benign thoughts about gun owners, if not guns. As I chronicled last year, I have only just learned how to drive, and, license in hand, or in glove compartment, I’ve been driving for the first time on the little winding roads of the beach town where we’ve spent vacations for the past thirty years. Despite having been anti-car and ostentatiously pro-bike for all those years,
...in other words, you have long been an obnoxious git who lived in a community where driving was not an absolute necessity. But do go on...
I have to admit that I love being in the driver’s seat. The overwhelming rush of freedom and possibility, the sense of autonomy—no need to request a lift, no UBER app to press—is overwhelming. You get in, and you go.
Yes, that's the other reason why even Germans prefer to drive rather than take their omnipresent public transportation. I was shocked to discover empty trains when visiting in 2010, a significant change from when we lived there fifteen years earlier, not to mention the traffic jams on the Autobahn.
This in turn made me realize, a little more empathetically, what I had only intuited before—that guns, for many Americans, are a sort of secondary, symbolic car: another powerful symbol of autonomy and independence.
Actually, guns came first, automobiles having been invented only in the last century. History does matter, when trying to make a rhetorical point. As for symbolism, cars represent autonomy and independence, yes. But guns represent protection from predators, whether animal, human, or governmental, and freedom from hunger. You know, hunting, which you anti-gun types supposedly approve of, sorta.
The attachment to them that so many Americans show—unique among the civilized peoples of the world, and at a cost so grave that the rest of that world often turns away, appalled—
... as if we cared about the opinion of the rest of the world in such matters, any more than we care that the rest of the world objects to our freedom of speech...
is nonetheless understandable to anyone who comes late to driving: to have potentially lethal power within your grasp is an immensely empowering drug. Cars are obviously in a different category, because their benign use is so much greater than their lethal one. But they are tools of the same country, of which I am now a citizen.
Someday, my dear, you may realize you were as obnoxiously wrong about guns as you now realize you were about cars. At which point, no doubt, we will be treated to an equally long-winded piece about the next object of your ire. It might be interesting to see if that piece contains a single original thought. This one certainly does not.
In the midst of this reflection, word filtered through of one more mini-massacre, this one in Virginia. Two reporters had died, hideously, on camera, and their deaths were followed by a disturbing social-media aftershock. Though we will doubtlessly learn more of the psychological details of this horror, it already seems clear that this is one more case where the gun provided a quick means to settle scores—a way for the emotionally damaged to relieve the feeling of being shamed, achieving instant karma through killing. Much more important is the fact that were the reporter conducting her business with a Glock or an AR strapped to her hip, she still would have been killed since she was not paying attention. The guy could have attacked using a machete and she still would have been killed because of her trust in her fellow man.
James Gilligan, the American psychiatrist specializing in violence, credibly argues that most personal violence is a response to such feelings of shame and humiliation, and the violent act is a horrendous way of equalling the score. Only a shrink would say that rather than the most obvious: That the killer was a prick.
This case seems to belong to that variety of massacre, with the added fact that the killer seems to have imagined that his violence would be an equalizer to the Charleston killings. Seemed to imagine? He evened it up, whether anyone likes to admit it or not.
A similar illusion of getting even appears to have been at work in the shooting of two New York City cops last winter (a killing that has already receded in memory, though not, surely, for the families of the victims).
One of the last redoubts of the gun lovers—those who, despite the evidence, allow the pleasure of expressing autonomy to overwhelm all other, more reasonable evaluations—was that, even though evidence showed an overwhelming correlation between the availability of guns and the number of gun killings, there was still no evidence that American non-domestic gun massacres were directly tied to wide gun distribution. TW woulda strung me up for writing a sentence like that. That said, there are zero doubts that the increased presence of guns means that gun violence will increase. Government statistics of killings by guns are entirely beside the point. The point is freedom to keep and bear arms, and to bear all the consequences and responsibilities of your use of guns.
Darn right on both counts. But clear thinking is necessary for good writing, neither of which is in evidence in this New Yorker piece.
In fact, as a piece in Fusion
Who?
(which generously cites this writer) details, that redoubt has now fallen to empirical investigation. A new study by Adam Lankford, of the University of Alabama, which will be presented next week at the annual conference of the American Sociological Association, shows a strong correlation between the availability of guns and the prevalence of gun massacres. With the same certainty that David Hemenway’s work established the link between the number of guns in a society and the number of gun killings, we now know that there is a correlation between the availability of guns and the major public assaults that have been a part of American life since Columbine. The 'correlation' between the availability of people and massacres not examined? What about deaths due to automobile accidents each year, or suicide ?
And so, for all that we should still strive for an empathetic grasp of other people’s cultural symbols, the simple, unemotional, inarguable truth remains: when Richard Martinez—the father of Christopher Michael-Martinez, a twenty-year-old who was killed at the University of California Santa Barbara last year—called the N.R.A., and its fellow-travelers, complicit in the murder of his child, he stated the facts.
"Facts", actually. Known to those who use non-Orwellian language as opinions.
Those who, in the face of all the evidence, still insist that guns are not the cause of the American epidemic of gun violence have decided that the deaths of Wednesday’s victims, Alison Parker and Adam Ward—like those of the children at Newtown—are the cost, to be blithely endured, of the symbolic pleasures that guns provide. Since the cure is known for certain, those who refuse it can only have decided that they enjoy the disease. Gopnik conflates gun rights to pleasures, which they are not. Those are Gawd given, and not at the sufferance of leftists like him or the governmental Mandarins who would love to make CWII go hot and nationwide. Only a leftist would believe that linking the right to keep and bear arms and murder committed by people who care nothing about those rights.
For the deeper truth is that cars are not, or not only, symbols of autonomy. They are, in every sense, vehicles of it. Guns, however, have an almost entirely symbolic function. No lives are saved, and no intruders are repelled;
A lie. We regularly run stories of both those activities here at Rantburg.
the dense and hysterical mythology of gun love has been refuted again and again. (The incident last week on the French train is good evidence of this point: unarmed defenders disarmed a terrorist with a military-style weapon. Gopnik thinks, in the face of all evidence of massacres that were committed in a nation that disallows the right to keep and bear arms, that the luck that the passengers had during that train ride would hold out for the rest of eternity in the rest of the nation. It most emphatically will not. With Jihadi's main source and program of chemical, biological and radiological weapons becoming unavailable, the small arms attack is their next best chance for a mass casualty event.
A huge proportion of luck and an inestimable supply of courage aided them. But the possession of guns played no role at all.) The few useful social functions that guns do have—in hunting or in killing varmints, as a rural man such as my father has to do—can be preserved even with tight regulations, as in Canada. Cars have to be, and are, controlled: we license their users and insist (or should) that they regularly prove their skills; we look out for and punish drunken or reckless users. If we only achieved, in the next few years, a regulation of guns equal to that of cars,
Legal gun use is more tightly regulated than driving on public roadways. (There is no requirement for a license to own a car, nor to drive it in private property.)
we would be moving toward the real purpose of autonomy, which is to secure the freedom from fear as much as the freedom to act. Symbols matter. Lives matter more. Please free yourself from this carnage and return to the civilized far North.
#2
There's a corollary of more cars and multi-car accidents. BTW autos kill more people than guns. I blame the auto obsessed American public who insist on living in the burbs and rural areas who refuse to pack themselves into the urban utopian paradises that preclude the necessity of owning this dangerous instrument. (Do I need to put a /sarc on that?)
#5
Of interest is Wikipedia's list of countries by intentional homicide rate here. It should be noted that the US, at 4.7, is below the world average of 6.2 and the Americas average of 16.3.
#6
...and if you further divide by self identified communities, you'll find the predominate community to have an even lower level. However, that is racist, given that truth is now racist.
#7
Many First World countries have sub-populations considerably more violent and criminal than the rest. Procopius2k. In Britain the same problems are seen in the economic underclass, regardless of genetic origin.
Separately, The Daily Mail has more on the Roanoke killer. It seems he had more going on than just imagining racism all around:
#8
This person would have failed both my English and Logic/Critical Thinking classes.
Seriously, this is a paid professional wordsmither raht here:
The incident last week on the French train is good evidence of this point: unarmed defenders disarmed a terrorist with a military-style weapon
If I knew nothing about it, I would not know from this sentence who had the military-style weapon. So s/he sucks at his job.
we look out for and punish drunken or reckless users. If we only achieved, in the next few years, a regulation of guns equal to that of cars,
Drunk drivers are punished after using a tool irresponsibly. S/he is suggesting we do the same with firearms....we already do, unless s/he is suggesting we ban cars in order to prevent drunk driving. S/he sucks at thinking.
So Bickerus learned to drive, and discovered there is a world outside of the pithy shelter life. This person has some serious issues, as failures often do.
Slightly different perspective than yesterday's
The Kurdish militants and the jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (Islamic State, or IS), which have been battling each other in northern Syria for the past several months, now have a common enemy: Turkey... Turkey said on August 24 that it would, together with the U.S., soon launch comprehensive air strikes against IS targets. "The technical talks have been concluded, yesterday, and soon we will start this operation, comprehensive operations, against Daesh [IS]," Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said. One might say, "too little, too late."
Instead of covertly supporting IS, Turkey should long ago have done everything in its military capacity to crush IS before it grew too strong and captured large swaths of lands in Syria and Iraq, both of which neighbor Turkey.
Turkey's half-hearted and belated decision to join the coalition forces targeting IS may bring in some military value added to the campaign. But it also exposes Turkey to IS attacks from inside the country.
A survey last year found that slightly over 11% of Turks did not view the Islamic State as a terrorist organization. That means there are over eight million Turks who somehow sympathize with the group. Eight million versus just 126: The Turkish Justice Ministry revealed that there were only 126 people in Turkish prisons on charges of being a member of IS. Hence the unnerving threat of IS attacks on Turkish cities, most probably by the group's "sleeper cells" inside Turkey. It came as no surprise that IS recently threatened to "conquer Istanbul."
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/01/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11123 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
[DCWhispers]. With the time ticking on the final years of his presidency, Barack Obama is said to be moving aggressively toward sweeping Executive Authority measures enacted out of a sincere belief by the president that he was chosen to save the planet from the ravages of human progress.
This week he flies to Alaska to renew his quest to declare climate change the greatest threat to humankind and position himself as the only American president to date to address the issue with the seriousness Barack Obama believes it deserves.
"He is more convinced than ever that he is the one to make it happen regarding new climate change laws. He doesn't want to hear anything about it being politically tough or other versions of science that disagree with what he's doing. It's all-in for the president and he intends to diminish our carbon-based economy as much as possible before he leaves office. He's daring anyone to challenge him on this. This is another legacy moment, like the Iran deal, Cuba, etc. He is determined to see himself go down as one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history and nothing or no-one is going to prevent that from happening. It's also a big part of his post-White House plans. He wants to position himself as the international leader on the subject, something that will go beyond the laws of the United States. He favors the concept of a global authority -- big time."
This week President Obama travels to Alaska to announce his intent to further expand efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce America's carbon emissions. The president will stage a number of "victim forums" showcasing Alaskans negatively impacted by climate change. These events will be the backdrop for the president's demand for an international climate change treaty. The Alaskan trip bookends the president's most recent remarks commemorating the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina in which he again referenced climate change. (Despite the actual science indicating climate change, be it real or imagined, had nothing to do with the hurricane or the local and state government incompetence that was actually to blame for much of the resulting loss of life.)
Readers would do well to recall it was Barack Obama who, during his 20o8 election night speech said HIS victory would be remembered for the following:
"...this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
It appears the president is intent on seeing that astonishing claim become reality -- at least in his own mind.
#1
I kind of liked my weather this summer. NE Texas is still nice and green after a (too) wet spring. Only a few days over 100 degrees.
SE Louisiana hasn't been bad either, though hurricane potential remains a risk.
All in all, I think the change I'VE had this year is just fine.
#5
Barack Obama is said to be moving aggressively toward sweeping Executive Authority measures enacted out of a sincere belief by the president that he was chosen to save the planet from the ravages of human progress.
ravages of human progress progresssives FIFY Chosen One.
#7
For those who live in Alaska, global warming (or whatever you want to call it) is a fact of life. You can see the glaciers and permafrost melting right before your eyes. But the real story about a glacier is not that it is melting, but where it has been.
The Portage Glacier is located about 50 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. If you climb up to the top of the glacier it becomes obvious that it's southern face once extended at least 200 miles farther south out into what today is the Cook Inlet.
In 1778 Captain James Cook sailed the entire length of the Cook Inlet while searching for the Northwest Passage.
Since the Cook Expedition explored the entire inlet by boat, not snow machine, it is also obvious that the ice covering the Inlet (the Portage Glacier) had began melting long before the year Captain Cook arrived in 1778.
It probably began melting at the end of the little ice age.
If you want to stop the glaciers from melting one question that needs to be answered is: What was the global temperature before the glacier began to melt ?
Was it 5, 10, 20, or even 50 degrees colder than it is today ?
Whatever the answer it would be catastrophic, not only for Alaska, but for all northern regions of the world to lower global temperatures by that degree.
The whole honest truth is that the glaciers have been melting for much longer than there have been human beings living in North America.
The most "inconvenient truth" of all is that any reduction of global temperatures, low enough to stop the glaciers from melting, would drive most living species of the northern regions of the world into extinction.
Global temperatures warm enough to melt the glaciers have been to the great benefit of mankind ever since human beings first appeared on Earth. The loss of those benefits only to save a few packs of ice, or a few hectares of coastline, is pure foolishness.
And those who advocate for lower global temperatures are the most foolish of all.
#8
Also, the ocean eats more than 80% of Carbon Dioxide as it is. They are using their political positions to run a scam like they always do - trying to prove a negative.
Hillary Clinton is not going to be the next President of the United States. It's not because she demanded skim milk for her tea, though any discerning tea-drinker would always insist on at least semi-skim.
It's not because she couldn't work out how to watch 'Parks and Recreation' or 'The Good Wife' on catch-up TV, though coupled with her general apparent ignorance of all new technology this does little to negate the nagging sense that she's simply too old for the top job in America.
It's not because her aides sometimes go 100 hours without sleep, though this might explain why this campaign has been so disastrous.
And it's definitely not because of her views on Gefilte fish, which remain a blissful mystery. No, the reason why Hillary won't make it back to the White House is because Americans simply don't trust her.
#3
That's Sid Blumenthal in the newly released Clinton emails, reporting hearsay and rumour to his main gal, Hil. Recall the issues about the truth value of his 'private intelligence reports' on Libya, etc to judge the likely truth value of this assessment.
#4
Well, it is Sid's private assessment, though it also matches observations. The full quote is: "louche, alcoholic, lazy, and without any commitment to any principle”
[The Federalist] Natalie Portman apparently thinks Jews spend too much time talking about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism. In an interview about her new movie with the British Independent, the Oscar-winner made provocative and newsworthy observations. However, they were also problematic for a variety of reasons.
Portman's most insightful comment is also her most incendiary: "'I think a really big question the Jewish community needs to ask itself, is how much at the forefront we put Holocaust education. Which is, of course, an important question to remember and to respect, but not over other things...'" Portman is right that for the sake of Jewish continuity, American Jewry should spend less time talking to our children about the Holocaust as some implicit explanation for why it's important to be Jewish.
The Holocaust was absolutely evil, and there is always the risk a genocide could be attempted again (this time, more likely by the Iranian regime). However, there is also so much more to being Jewish than the suffering inflicted by hateful outsiders. Young Jews should experience the beauty and vibrancy of our religious, cultural, and intellectual heritage; they should embrace Judaism for positive reasons, rather than out of some sense of historical guilt. Portman is right that the Holocaust needs to be taught as part of a full-spectrum Jewish education.
#1
Considering half of Hollywood Jews can look at Iran and go meh, instead of be horrified shows that the Holocaust lessons are not taken so seriously these days.
#2
Personally, I think Jewish problem is that we spend too much time talking and not enough time winding our enemies guts on a stick---does that makes me a bad person?
#4
The worst thing is that the Holocaust was not a singular event, just the largest in a string of pogroms, massacres and oppression that has formed an unbroken chain stretching thousands of years, right up to the present day.
Attention needs to be paid to the systemic not to the one case.
#5
A lot of people can tag 1492 with the Spanish funded trip of Chris Columbus (just ask American Indians), but don't connect the 1 - final expulsion of the invading Islamists/Moors (Reconquesta) and 2 - expulsion of the Jews (who helped finance the Reconquesta. Boy, now there's one way to wipe out a war debt.)
#6
Personally, I think Jewish problem is that we spend too much time talking and not enough time winding our enemies guts on a stick
The best I have heard in a long time. Generations of Jews were systematically gassed and executed into near non existence as a group. Portman is wrong, Never forget, never forgive, never!
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/01/2015 18:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The outcome of Nat's line of thought: "Never Again!" "Never what again, grampa?"
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
09/01/2015 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[DCWhispers]. With the time ticking on the final years of his presidency, Barack Obama is said to be moving aggressively toward sweeping Executive Authority measures enacted out of a sincere belief by the president that he was chosen to save the planet from the ravages of human progress.
