As you'll see from my most recent post - dated three months ago - the US election threw me for a bit of a loop. All that I could see there was an exercise in hypocrisy, murderous hyporcrisy at that.
I haven't posted since then because I've been doing an awful lot of thinking. I always knew that people have their own inscrutable priorities, and make choices that can be simply baffling.
How can people - from individuals all the way up to nation states - preach steadfastly about particular ideals, and then act against those ideals without a shred of soul searching?
During the Vietnam war, Martin Luthor King asked why the US could send 200 000 troops to Vietnam to "defend democracy," but couldn't get 100 voter registrars into Mississippi. That's how it goes; humanity just can't seem to line up ideals with action.
So I hope to do two things. One, explain why this seperation exists. Secondly, to try and discover a way to change this. Hopefully I'll be able to write some interesting things here, and maybe even something useful.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Watershed: 2004 U.S. Election
Well all is said and done, and I'm flabbergasted. I guess I just wasn't cynical enough, because the small mindedness, selfishness, and just plain stupidity on display in this election has totally caught me by surprise.
I'm not surprised or disgusted that Bush won. Disappointed and worried, yes, but my current ire towards the American public is based on something else.
Look at CNN's exit polls. Scroll down to "Most Important Issue".
What topped the list for Bush voters?
"moral issues"
Moral issues, apparently, exclude the anywhere from 14 000 to 100 000 dead Iraqi civilians.
That's right, folks. The most important issue in this election was whether or not fags get to marry. Totally pathetic, and excuse me while I write off social conservatives in the US as raving idiots.
I'm not surprised or disgusted that Bush won. Disappointed and worried, yes, but my current ire towards the American public is based on something else.
Look at CNN's exit polls. Scroll down to "Most Important Issue".
What topped the list for Bush voters?
"moral issues"
Moral issues, apparently, exclude the anywhere from 14 000 to 100 000 dead Iraqi civilians.
That's right, folks. The most important issue in this election was whether or not fags get to marry. Totally pathetic, and excuse me while I write off social conservatives in the US as raving idiots.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Hazing, Dionysian Style
Hope nobody just ate.
I'm in an existentialism class, and we're studying Nietzsche. The Birth of Tragedy, to be exact.
Loft, the professor, was lecturing about the two driving forces of art - the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Apollonian is basically illusionary; it creates the impression of individuality. It is associated with reason.
Dionysian is the opposite, of course. It breaks down individuality, reducing everything to primordial irrationality. Dionysian art is basically music. Think of the dance floor, when it's really intense - everyone is grooving as one, you aren't thinking about anything. Nothing rational about it - it fully accepts the abject, the disgusting.
Loft was telling us about a Dionysian festival he once attended. He did his postgrad at a university in Brussels. This university doesn't have Frosh Week - it has a Frosh Month. It takes them about 2 months to stock the beer - he said he saw stacks of kegs bigger than houses.
You can imagine what the fourth week was like. Live bands playing everywhere, the entire student body drunk out of their minds.
And thus, the initiation rituals begin.
A group of students line. The first person slams back beers until they vomit. They vomit into a cup; then pass the cup to the person behind them, who drinks it. That person then vomits, and passes the cup to the person behind them, and so on. The last person in line then returns the cup to the first person, who drinks. The circle is complete; a Dionysian ritual that makes them all One.
I didn't have the heart to ask Loft if he was involved in that.
I'm in an existentialism class, and we're studying Nietzsche. The Birth of Tragedy, to be exact.
Loft, the professor, was lecturing about the two driving forces of art - the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Apollonian is basically illusionary; it creates the impression of individuality. It is associated with reason.
Dionysian is the opposite, of course. It breaks down individuality, reducing everything to primordial irrationality. Dionysian art is basically music. Think of the dance floor, when it's really intense - everyone is grooving as one, you aren't thinking about anything. Nothing rational about it - it fully accepts the abject, the disgusting.
Loft was telling us about a Dionysian festival he once attended. He did his postgrad at a university in Brussels. This university doesn't have Frosh Week - it has a Frosh Month. It takes them about 2 months to stock the beer - he said he saw stacks of kegs bigger than houses.
You can imagine what the fourth week was like. Live bands playing everywhere, the entire student body drunk out of their minds.
And thus, the initiation rituals begin.
A group of students line. The first person slams back beers until they vomit. They vomit into a cup; then pass the cup to the person behind them, who drinks it. That person then vomits, and passes the cup to the person behind them, and so on. The last person in line then returns the cup to the first person, who drinks. The circle is complete; a Dionysian ritual that makes them all One.
I didn't have the heart to ask Loft if he was involved in that.
Friday, September 17, 2004
Gun Control 2
Note added August 2, 2005: The previous post had well over 50 responses attacking my position. I didn't get rid of them intentionally; switching blog templates deletes all your comments and I did not know this.
Eddddie, did you run and grab all your gun nut friends to come say hi?
Why do I feel the need to look over my shoulder?
Some of you really need to get back to sleeping with your cousins, and stop leaving posts repeating things said by other people, a million times over.
I come from a Northern Ontario hunting family. I spent my early years target shooting, shooting fowl, and hunting deer. It's not as if I've never handled a gun.
The biggest concern expressed here?
Basically, you like target shooting.
This is your concern.
Target shooting.
Sorry, but that's pathetically trivial, and should be the last priority when discussing guns.
Increase penalties for illegal gun use? Nice sounding, but deterrment really isn't that useful. Deterrment really only works if the punishment is swift, immediate and certain. Our justice system, which values due process, cannot offer these factors.
As for self defense, exactly how many rounds have any of you ever fired in self defense?
(Rabid bunnies don't count)
There's something none of you seem to be grasping about guns. Guns are very impersonal weapons. I can't believe you can't see a difference between a baseball bat and a gun; the psychology is very different. A gun is fired at a distance; the person feels removed and less responsible for the damaged inflicted. You don't have to be tough to fire a gun in anger. Melee weapons are an entirely different matter.
I can't believe all these comparisons to cars, of all things. One was developed and designed to kill, another obviously not. One is living up to it's original purpose when it kills, another kills almost entirely through accident.
Yes, guns are inanimate objects. But I think it's pretty clear that as a culture, we've proven that we can't handle the things responsible. Heck, I'd say as a species.
The Chinese had the right idea, you know. Fireworks. Much better use for gun powder.
Eddddie, did you run and grab all your gun nut friends to come say hi?
Why do I feel the need to look over my shoulder?
Some of you really need to get back to sleeping with your cousins, and stop leaving posts repeating things said by other people, a million times over.
I come from a Northern Ontario hunting family. I spent my early years target shooting, shooting fowl, and hunting deer. It's not as if I've never handled a gun.
The biggest concern expressed here?
Basically, you like target shooting.
This is your concern.
Target shooting.
Sorry, but that's pathetically trivial, and should be the last priority when discussing guns.
Increase penalties for illegal gun use? Nice sounding, but deterrment really isn't that useful. Deterrment really only works if the punishment is swift, immediate and certain. Our justice system, which values due process, cannot offer these factors.
As for self defense, exactly how many rounds have any of you ever fired in self defense?
(Rabid bunnies don't count)
There's something none of you seem to be grasping about guns. Guns are very impersonal weapons. I can't believe you can't see a difference between a baseball bat and a gun; the psychology is very different. A gun is fired at a distance; the person feels removed and less responsible for the damaged inflicted. You don't have to be tough to fire a gun in anger. Melee weapons are an entirely different matter.
I can't believe all these comparisons to cars, of all things. One was developed and designed to kill, another obviously not. One is living up to it's original purpose when it kills, another kills almost entirely through accident.
Yes, guns are inanimate objects. But I think it's pretty clear that as a culture, we've proven that we can't handle the things responsible. Heck, I'd say as a species.
The Chinese had the right idea, you know. Fireworks. Much better use for gun powder.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Gun Control 1
Gun Control
Chris Rock once did a comedy sketch in which he suggests we drive the price of ammunition up, making guns an impractical weapon of choice for criminals.
I'm not sure how serious he was, but it strikes me as a great idea. Here's how we do it.
Make the manufacture of handguns, automatics and certain semiautomatics and their corresponding ammunition illegal.
Just the manufacture. Sale and ownership would remain legal.
Gun companies could continue to manufacture hunting rifles. They would have to downsize and there would be some resultant unemployment, but likely no more than a stand western country's economy could absorb.
The manufacture of handguns for police officers would be restricted to government contracts.
You want to own a handgun or two for home and personal defense? Fine, go ahead. You're not going to need more than a few rounds in an entire lifetime for that purpose. And practice sparingly.
You want to own an automatic rifle? You'd be a nut and need your head checked, but go head. Just remember that while you're yee-hawing and pretending to be Rambo, you might not be able to replace that ammo. Better keep it for when King George tries to take your rights away!
As for the thing about if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns, well, they'll have to check their ammo too. Certainly a black market for guns and ammunition would spring up, but can you imagine how fantastically expensive weapons suitable for use in crime would become?
Hunting rifles and their respective ammo would remain legal to manufacture. I'd like to see a street thug try to mug somebody with a .22? Or a gang try a drive by with a bolt action?
We could even abolish the gun registery, and not have to experiment with other forms of it.
So. Nobody would have their guns taken away. Some loss of jobs. Loss of fun at the target range. Gun crime would be reduced drastically, at least in the long term. Seems to me like every concern from the anti-gun control corner is addressed with this plan, with the exception of "fun at the range", which I think we can all agree is a minor, trivial issue, in the face of the enormous amount of suffering gun crime is responsible for, no?
Chris Rock once did a comedy sketch in which he suggests we drive the price of ammunition up, making guns an impractical weapon of choice for criminals.
I'm not sure how serious he was, but it strikes me as a great idea. Here's how we do it.
Make the manufacture of handguns, automatics and certain semiautomatics and their corresponding ammunition illegal.
Just the manufacture. Sale and ownership would remain legal.
Gun companies could continue to manufacture hunting rifles. They would have to downsize and there would be some resultant unemployment, but likely no more than a stand western country's economy could absorb.
The manufacture of handguns for police officers would be restricted to government contracts.
You want to own a handgun or two for home and personal defense? Fine, go ahead. You're not going to need more than a few rounds in an entire lifetime for that purpose. And practice sparingly.
You want to own an automatic rifle? You'd be a nut and need your head checked, but go head. Just remember that while you're yee-hawing and pretending to be Rambo, you might not be able to replace that ammo. Better keep it for when King George tries to take your rights away!
As for the thing about if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns, well, they'll have to check their ammo too. Certainly a black market for guns and ammunition would spring up, but can you imagine how fantastically expensive weapons suitable for use in crime would become?
Hunting rifles and their respective ammo would remain legal to manufacture. I'd like to see a street thug try to mug somebody with a .22? Or a gang try a drive by with a bolt action?
We could even abolish the gun registery, and not have to experiment with other forms of it.
So. Nobody would have their guns taken away. Some loss of jobs. Loss of fun at the target range. Gun crime would be reduced drastically, at least in the long term. Seems to me like every concern from the anti-gun control corner is addressed with this plan, with the exception of "fun at the range", which I think we can all agree is a minor, trivial issue, in the face of the enormous amount of suffering gun crime is responsible for, no?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
