ridiculous and marvelous

There was a freezing mist in the air on Friday. Great weather for sitting inside — for the reading of books and the making of soup. It was wretched weather for driving or for walking, or for being outside at all. But because the freezing mist coated the entire area in a thin, barely perceptible but incredibly lovely casing of ice, outside is where I went.

Driving on primary roads was treacherous, but it was relatively easy to drive on the secondary gravel roads that abound in the American Midwest. Gravel means traction, even in icy conditions. So that’s where I went. And this is what I saw.

dirty snow

A great deal of nothing much. Eighty-five thousand years ago a glacier pushed its way through here. It hung around for about seventy thousand years, then gradually withdrew. It left behind a landscape that alternates between rolling hills and large swathes of flat terrain. Farmland. Good for growing things; not much to hold the eye.

Or so it seemed at first. As I drove down this gravel road I found my eyes drawn to the ditch. At first I gave my attention to the ice-coated weeds, but I quickly found myself more interested by the wind-sculpted snow, and the abstract patterns created by the windblown topsoil.

topsoil

There’s an East Asian form of ink-and-wash painting that’s generally referred to by the Japanese name sumi-e. Other East Asian cultures practice the art, and they each have different names for the style. The Chinese (who likely invented it) call it shui-mo hua; in Vietnam it’s called tranh thuỷ mặc, and it’s sumukhwa in the Koreas. There are minor differences between the styles, but in general the techniques and the approach are the same.

In essence, sumi-e paintings are created using subtle gradations of black ink diluted by water. The approach attempts to interpret the spirit of the subject rather than to create an accurate representation of it. If, for example, the painting was of a duck, the artist would be more concerned with instilling it with duckness — with a sense of the way a duck moves, with that absurdly duckish dignified waddle — rather than with a detailed illustration of the bird. There are variations of the style in which color is used, but in its purest form it’s just black and white and spirit.

more dirty snow

As I drove along, stopping periodically to get out of the car and walk the ditch, I realized I was seeing a sort of organic sumi-e. Not in the sense that some Cosmic Artist was at work interpreting the spirit of the wind along a quarter-mile stretch of earthen canvas, but in the sense that the wind itself had revealed something of how it moved, and did it largely in black and white.

The thing I found most intriguing, I think, was that the beauty of the dirty snow wasn’t limited by scale. I found the same delicate shading, the same unexpected lines and shapes, the same beautifully uneven distribution of soil whether I was looked at an area of a few inches or several yards.

gate

I suppose I was out exploring the freezing mist for about ninety minutes. I spent maybe fifteen minutes getting out of town and finding that road, and another fifteen getting back to the warm, dry house. The other hour was spent rambling down a quarter-mile stretch of gravel road, looking at dirty snow in a ditch.

I’ll be meeting my brother for breakfast this morning, and at some point he’ll ask me what I’ve been up to. And when I tell him I’d spent an hour out walking in the freezing mist, getting cold and wet, looking at a ditch, thinking about glaciers and East Asian art and unevenly distributed bits of soil, I know he’ll grin and shake his head — because it sounds ridiculous.

And maybe it is. But we live in a wonderfully ridiculous world, and even in a great deal of nothing there’s a lot to see.

gun control / legal pot — spot the difference

Sometimes smart people make stupid arguments. That surely happens more often when you’re writing on a deadline. I don’t know if that’s the case with S.E. Cupp’s recent opinion piece in the NY Daily News, but I don’t know how else to explain it.

SE Cupp

S.E. Cupp

Cupp describes herself as a ‘mainstream conservative’ but she’s not — not in the modern conservative movement. She’s an atheist who supports the Log Cabin Republicans, which takes her completely out of mainstream conservatism. I rarely agree with her views, but I’m willing to admit she sometimes makes a point worth considering. Not this time. She suggests the legalization of marijuana in Colorado will pose a political problem for progressives. Why?

[T]he legal weed experiment could at least put the politics of progressivism – all the rage in liberal circles now – in a tricky spot. For one, there are glaring inconsistencies between the liberal argument for pot legalization and positions on other issues. An obvious one is gun control. The same argument used against guns is used for pot: that legalizing pot and making it more available will reduce crime.

It’s not the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard from a conservative, but it’s pretty close. Of course legalizing pot will reduce crime, if only because possession of pot is no longer criminal. A person who purchased pot last month was a criminal; this month, that same person making that same purchase is an honest citizen supporting the local economy and increasing the State’s tax base. Hey bingo, crime reduction!

Honest citizen supporting the local economy

Honest citizen supporting the local economy

That’s stupid — but it’s not the stupidest part of her opinion piece. Here’s part of Cupp’s argument:

We’re told pot users will “responsibly” use marijuana in the privacy of their own homes…. [W]hy aren’t lawful gun owners afforded the same level of trust?

Why? Because nobody cleaning their lawfully obtained pot accidentally wounded or killed themselves. Or another person in the same room. Or a neighbor in an adjoining apartment. Because nobody ever pulled out a lawfully obtained dime bag in a moment of road rage and used it to kill another driver. Because nobody ever went into a school and slaughtered teachers and students with lawfully obtained marijuana. Because no unattended infant ever found lawfully obtained pot on a table and used it to accidentally blow his brains out. Because nobody ever tried to put lawfully obtained pot in his pocket and accidentally put a hole in his leg.

Jeebus on toast, this seems pretty fucking obvious, doesn’t it? Gun owners aren’t afforded the same level of trust because marijuana isn’t a lethal weapon. Let’s make this even easier to understand. Last Sunday a 13-year-old Chicago boy killed his 16-year-old cousin by shooting him in the head. This is from the Chicago Sun Times:

The boy gave a statement to police admitting to shooting his cousin, according to court records. Police said a possible argument over video games may have led to the shooting. It is unclear how the 13-year-old obtained the gun, police said.

Now, let’s apply the Cupp Argument:

The boy gave a statement to police admitting to getting his cousin stoned, according to court records. Police said a possible argument over video games may have led to them getting high. It is unclear how the 13-year-old obtained the marijuana, police said.

And that, Ms. Cupp, is why gun owners aren’t afforded the same level of trust. Ain’t nobody has to worry about an irate 13-year-old with a blunt doing you a hurt.

I suspect the bear would prefer to be stoned

I suspect the bear would prefer to be stoned

But Cupp also has another concern.

“While there’s obvious support among libertarians, others worry about the moral implications of legalizing risky behavior simply because people are ‘going to do it anyway'”

Yes, she’s right — there are risks associated with marijuana use. One obvious risk is to the user’s health; smoking anything damages the lungs — but research strongly indicates that smoking pot is much less injurious than smoking tobacco. A significantly greater hazard is the risk of injury — to the user and to others. Pot clearly impairs psycho-motor performance. There’s certainly evidence of drivers impaired by marijuana being involved in auto accidents. Again, though, the numbers are much lower than for drivers impaired by alcohol.

I’m going to say this again: S.E. Cupp isn’t stupid. I often disagree with her, but she’s definitely not stupid. I don’t know, maybe she was high when she wrote that opinion piece. You can write opinion pieces when you’re stoned — another advantage of marijuana over guns (just ask the bear). But just to settle the question — no, the legalization of marijuana in Colorado doesn’t pose a political problem for progressives.

Stupidity, on the other hand, does pose a political problem for — well, for everybody.

ADDENDUM: Last night Kentucky State representative Leslie Combs was attempting to unload her handgun in the capitol building annex “when it accidentally fired. The bullet struck the floor and ricocheted into a bookcase.” Nobody was injured. Combs, though, might have been high, given her calm response to the accident: “I am a gun owner. It happens.”

he’s no gandhi

So there’s this guy in Utah who’s decided to go on a hunger strike. His name is Trestin Meacham. He’s a Mormon, a former candidate for the Utah State Senate (he lost), and a member of the Constitution Party. As you might guess, the Constitution Party is a pretty conservative group. Their goal:

[T]o restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

They want a moratorium on immigration, English as the official language of Utah and the United States, an end to legal abortion (even in cases of rape and/or incest), a ban on pornography, to criminalize certain sexual behaviors, and marriage to be legal only for a man and a woman.

Trestin Meacham

Trestin Meacham – hunger striker

It’s the last issue that’s sparked Meacham’s hunger strike. The day after District Judge Robert Shelby ruled Utah’s Amendment 3 (which prohibits same-sex couples from marrying) was unconstitutional, Meacham began to fast. He wrote:

I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home. Some things in life are worth sacrificing one’s heath and even life if necessary. I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Never the less, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore.”

He’s been called crazy, a nut case, an unhinged whack job, and an extremist. He may well be all those things. But even though I disagree with his beliefs and his position on same-sex marriage, I respect his approach.

Suffragette hunger striker being force-fed

Suffragette hunger striker being force-fed

The hunger strike belongs to a very long and honorable tradition. Under Brehon Law (the civil law which governed behavior in pre-Christian Ireland), it was called troscadh. A person who believed he’d suffered an injustice would set himself outside the door of the offending party and refuse food. He would remain there, outside the door, until the offending party relented, or until he abandoned the troscadh, or until he died.

The moral weight of the act was staggering for both parties, especially in a culture where hospitality was so highly honored. There was tremendous social pressure on both the person fasting and the person accused of the injustice to reach a settlement. It was rare for the injured party to be sincere enough in his claim to actually starve himself to death, and for the offending party to be sincere enough to allow that to happen. On those rare occasions, it was understood that the person accused of the injustice would pay compensation to the family of the dead man.

When used by an individual against a group or a policy or an entire government, the act was called cealachan. It was more about social justice than individual justice. It was used by the Irish against the British for centuries, but the practice of the hunger strike is pretty universal. Gandhi used it several times, American suffragettes used it, Cuban dissidents used it, and detainees in Guantanamo have used it.

Gandhi during one of his hunger strikes

Gandhi during one of his hunger strikes

And now Trestin Meacham is using it. I confess, I don’t understand his reasoning. I can’t think of how allowing same-sex couple the legitimacy of marriage could be considered an injustice. This is what he says on his blog:

On Friday the 20th of December, a federal judge overturned the State Constitution of Utah and ruled against and its restriction against same sex marriage.  In so doing, Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment of the U.S Constitution were violated.  Even worse a law voted on by a strong majority of the people of Utah was rescinded, thus robbing the people of their voice in government.  And if this law remains, the natural rights of free speech and religious freedom, vouched safe by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, will be violated.

But how is free speech violated? He has a blog that can be read by anybody, in which he openly expresses his religious and political views. That IS free speech. Nor can I see any barrier on his ability to openly practice his religion. Nobody is preventing him from attending services, nobody is interfering with his right to live his life according to his religious beliefs. Nor is anybody interfering with his hunger strike, which is in itself an expression of his civil rights.

This has nothing to do with hatred of a group of people.  I have friends and relatives who practice a homosexual lifestyle and I treat them with the same respect and kindness that I would anyone.  This is about religious freedom, and an out of control federal government.

Well, no — it’s not about religious freedom. It’s a ludicrous claim. Nor is it about ‘an out of control federal government.’ It’s about the simple fact that Meacham’s religious and political beliefs are in conflict with the law. He may not hate gay folks — I can’t see into his heart, so I don’t know. But I do know he wants the right to discriminate against them.

Suffragettes engaged in hunger strikes to secure the right of women to vote. Gandhi went on hunger strike to support Indian independence from Britain and to stop violence between Muslims and Hindus. IRA hunger strikers were fasting to assert their right to be recognized as political prisoners, not common criminals. The Gitmo hunger strikers are protesting their continued incarceration without having been tried or convicted of a crime.

Trestin Meacham, on the other hand, is fasting to prevent people who love each other from marrying.

I support Meacham’s right to protest the law. I support his right to speak out against same-sex marriage in Utah. I support his right to go on hunger strike, and starve himself to death for a cause he believes in — despite the fact that I think his cause is absurd and hateful. I even support his right to claim he’s doing this a noble cause.

But there’s nothing at all noble about denying other folks the rights you enjoy yourself.

Addendum: Today Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor put a halt to Utah’s same-sex marriages pending an appeal of Judge Shelby’s ruling. More than 900 same-sex couples were married during the interval between Shelby’s decision and Sotomayor’s order. None of this had anything to do with Meacham, his fast, or his civil liberties.

otherwise responsible

So this guy, Steve Pfeister, runs a fitness center in Vero Beach, Florida. He’s just sitting there in his office a couple weeks ago, right? Minding his own business and all, when guess what happens next. Never mind, don’t bother guessing, on account of I’m about to tell you what happens next.

A .40 caliber bullet rips through the wall, is what happens next. Rips right through the damned wall and hits Stevo in the right leg. But this is a .40 cal round, and it has less respect for the structural integrity of the human leg than it does for the wall. So it goes completely through Steve’s right leg and grazes his left leg. Guy’s sitting in his office and he gets shot in both legs with one round fired by somebody who’s not even in the same damned room.

Was this a poorly implemented drive-by shooting? No sir, it was not. An assassination attempt by a disgruntled fitness client? No ma’am, it was not. Was this the Amazing Fucking Kreskin with a grudge, shooting through walls with ESP? No, no, no, it was not. Shall I tell you what it was? I believe I will.

.40 caliber Glock 23 -- superior penetrating power, bitches

.40 caliber Glock 23 — superior penetrating power, bitches

It was an otherwise responsible gun owner sitting in the fitness center’s locker room, showing his .40 caliber Glock to another guy who was thinking about buying one. I don’t know which model it was. Maybe the Glock 22, maybe the 23, maybe the — you know what? It doesn’t matter. All three .40 caliber models of the Glock will punch a damned hole through a wall and a leg. That’s why you buy the .40 cal.

Now, you may be wondering why this guy felt he needed such a powerful handgun while he was at the fitness center. I’ll tell you why. Shut up, that’s why. It’s our god-given right as American citizens to tote powerful handguns any fucking place we want. That’s why Paul Revere rode his horse to that one place to warn the common people that the British had landed. Or were arriving. Whatever. Also? You take your .40 cal to the fitness center because you never know when you might be called upon to demonstrate its penetrating capacity by shooting through a wall and a leg. That’s why we have a Second Amendment to the Constitution of These United States.

And think about it logically. If you’re considering buying a weapon for your own personal protection, you want to know for certain and in advance if you can shoot some sumbitch in the next room. If you wait until he’s in the room with you, well hell — then you might just as well buy yourself a fucking sword, right?

You may be wondering if the guy who shot Stevo through the wall and one leg — did that guy get in trouble? No sir or ma’am, he did not. The Indian River County Sheriff’s Office responded to the shooting, as did the Indian River County Fire Rescue squad (all at taxpayer expense, mind you). But the victim, our poor bleeding Steverino, declined to press charges. He declined on account of the gun’s owner was a friend. And (this is my favorite part) he declined to press charges because (and I swear I’m not making this up) he considered his friend to be “an otherwise responsible gun owner.”

Seriously. The guy is totally responsible. You know…when he’s not accidentally shooting folks through the wall.

Some shit you simply cannot make up.

two related but separate things

First thing: I’ve gotten several comments over the past few days suggesting that the only way to stop school shootings is to put armed guards in every school (and/or arm the teachers and school administrators and support staff). This is not entirely stupid. It’s pretty damned stupid — especially the notion of arming teachers and janitors and other school employees — but it’s not entirely stupid.

The sad fact, however, is that there have been armed guards present in many of the mass murders in recent years — not just in schools but in other public venues. They just don’t prevent these events from happening. That’s true for several reasons.

First, for the most part the shooters in these events don’t expect to survive. These shootings are often elaborate suicides, intended to make as many people as possible as miserable as the shooter is. Knowing there’s an armed guard present doesn’t dissuade a shooter who doesn’t intend to come out alive. Second, the firearms most often used in these shootings are semi-automatic weapons. Combine the ability for rapid fire with large capacity magazines, and you have a situation in which a shooter can kill a lot of people in an alarmingly short time.

Robert Steinhauser -- 13 teachers, 2 students, 1 police officer-- 10 minutes

Robert Steinhauser — 13 teachers, 2 students, 1 police officer– 10 minutes

Adam Lanza killed 20 children and 6 adults in less than 10 minutes. Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children and an adult in about 4 minutes. Robert Steinhauser killed 13 teachers, 2 students, and a police officer in 10 minutes. Seung-Hui Cho killed 30 Virginia Tech students in around 11 minutes. They weren’t able to kill that many people in that short a time because they were superior marksmen; they were able to do it by firing a LOT of rounds.

We’re no longer talking about the ‘classic’ Charles Whitman-style mass murderer. Whitman climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas in Austin and methodically, almost leisurely, picked off his victims. He killed 17 and wounded 32 others over the course of an hour and a half. In today’s mass murderers, the emphasis is on mass.

Thomas Hamilton - 16 children, 1 adult - 4 minutes

Thomas Hamilton – 16 children, 1 adult – 4 minutes

Guards with weapons won’t prevent these mass shootings, but they will almost certainly reduce the body count — and that’s a good thing. But why not take other steps that can help reduce the body count? Why not limit the capacity of ammunition magazines? Every time a shooter has to pause to reload, there’s a chance for victims to escape and for courageous bystanders to act (Jared Loughner — 6 dead and 13 wounded in around two minutes — was tackled by a wounded bystander when he was forced to reload his pistol).

Adam Lanza - 20 children, 6 adults - 10 minutes

Adam Lanza – 20 children, 6 adults – 10 minutes (plus 1 earlier)

Why not require stricter background checks before letting a person purchase a firearm? Why not require background checks at gun shows? The weapons bought at gun shows are just as lethal as those bought through a licensed gun dealer.Why not require states to report and share mental health records with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System? Currently only 27 states have laws that allow (or require) them to report mental health records — and many of those states fail to do so because of state budgetary reasons.

Seung-Hui Cho -- 30 students - 9 minutes (plus 2 earlier)

Seung-Hui Cho — 30 students – 9 minutes (plus 2 earlier)

None of those things — armed guards, universal background checks, limits on large capacity magazines, mental health information — will stop mass murders and mass shootings from taking place, but each of them will have some effect on the body count. By combining several (or better yet, all) of those measures, we can reduce the body count even further.

Second Thought: Claire Davis died. She was the young woman Karl Pierson shot in the head ten days ago. I took a moderate amount of crap for suggesting that “nobody other than her friends and family will remember her in a couple of weeks.” That’s a horrible thing to say. It’s all the more horrible because it’s true. It won’t be very long before there’s another school shooting — or some other mass casualty event — with a new set of innocent victims. And for a few days, the names of the victims will be in the public eye, and then they’ll be forgotten in turn.

There have been 22 school shootings so far this year, resulting in 19 fatalities and 34 wounded. Do we remember any of their names? There have been 351 mass shootings so far this year — 351 incidents in which at least four people were wounded or killed. Most of them don’t result in multiple deaths, but they easily could. Do we remember any of their names?

Claire Davis -- not a statistic

Claire Davis — not a statistic

Their friends and family members remember them. For the rest of us, they’re numbers. It doesn’t lessen the pain felt by the family and friends of the victims. Nothing can. That pain can only be exacerbated by the ugly fact that their loved ones are reduced to mere statistics.

We can reduce those numbers. Maybe not by much, but we can reduce them. We can reduce them without damaging the Sacred Second Amendment. We really can reduce the body count.

But we don’t.

Update: I incorrectly located the Seung-Hui Cho mass murder at the University of Virginia; in fact, it was at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (more commonly called Virginia Tech).

in which i defend that duck dynasty guy, sorta

I’ve never watched Duck Dynasty, but I see the faces of those guys everywhere. As I understand it (and I admit my understanding is awfully shaky here), it’s a ‘reality’ show about an eccentric Louisiana family who made a fortune by manufacturing duck calls. Now a member of that family, Phil Robertson, has said something moderately stupid and offensive about gay folks. As a result, the network that produces and broadcasts the show has removed him from the show, at least temporarily.

This, to absolutely no surprise, has pissed off a lot of conservative folks. They see the network’s action as an assault on free speech, an attack on Christian values, an insult to conservatives everywhere, and part of the gay agenda war against common decency. And probably some other stuff too.

duck dynasty1

It’s not any of those things. It’s not an assault on free speech; it was his right to free speech that caused this fuss. He freely gave an interview to a magazine, which freely published it, and which anybody who wants to read it can freely buy. It’s not an attack on Christian values; it’s a corporate decision involving Robertson’s contract, which gives the network the right to remove employees if their conduct is seen as harmful to the product (the show and the network, in this case). It’s not an insult to conservatives; it accurately depicts the opinions of a lot of conservatives about homosexuality.And it’s not a part of some mythical gay agenda; gay folks are just as diverse as straight folks, and there’s no more a gay agenda than there is a Christian agenda or an Asian agenda or a football fan agenda.

That said, Robertson has the absolute right to say whatever he wants, and good on him for being honest and open about it. And the network has the absolute right to enforce the contract they have with Robertson. And conservatives have the right to protest his termination, and gay folks have the right to boycott the network if they don’t push back against Robertson.

What this entire incident shows is the system working. Working in a way that’s sloppy, hypocritical, greed-driven, and entirely cynical, but it’s working. That’s capitalism, folks. Conservatives usually champion capitalism, and corporatism, and the right of a business to hire or fire workers as they see fit.

duck dynasty2

And by the way, I don’t recall conservatives being so upset when Alec Baldwin was fired for making anti-gay comments. I don’t recall them being so enraged when Isaiah Washington was fired from Grey’s Anatomy for making anti-gay comments. But Baldwin is something of a liberal, and Washington is black, whereas Robertson is a white conservative hunter with a really magnificent beard.

Personally, I think it’s pretty damned idiotic for a network to produce a ‘reality’ show then object to the reality.

Circumstantially newsworthy

So. Another school shooting. Kid named — well, it doesn’t really matter what his name was, does it. ‘School shooter’, that’s the only way Karl Pierson will ever be referred to from now on. Far as that goes, Karl wasn’t really a kid; he’d turned eighteen. Not old enough to buy beer yet, but old enough to go out and buy the pump-action shotgun and ammunition he used.

This shooting took place around the anniversary of the Sandy Hook slaughter. Which, let’s face it, is why the shooting has been so widely reported. If it had happened, say, three weeks ago, it would have been a local story. The national news media probably wouldn’t bother to report it. It’s a circumstantially newsworthy story.

Name doesn't matter; you'd forget it soon anyway.

Name doesn’t matter; you’d forget it soon anyway.

Nobody famous was involved, the body count was low (just the school shooter Karl), and the entire incident took place in less than two minutes. Yes, a 17-year old girl got shot, but if it weren’t for the Sandy Hook anniversary thing, the national news media would probably have ignored it. Still, they did what they could with what they had. They emphasized the Cute White Girl Who Loved Horses angle, making her a classic innocent victim. They found some really nice high school photos of her. What was her name? Kaylee? Claire? Callie? Something like that — pretty sure it starts with a ‘k’ sound. She got shot in the head. With a shotgun. Nobody wants to hear about that. And nobody other than her friends and family will remember her in a couple of weeks. Same with what’s-his-name, the school shooter. Karl.

Poor Kaitlin/Carly/Courtney wasn’t even the target. She just happened to be sitting there. The guy — you know, Karl — fired five rounds from his shotgun. Three were apparently just random shots down hallways. One took Kirsten/Cameron/Kendall in the head. The last round went into his own. Ninety seconds or so from the first shot to the last, and it was all over. Well, except for the girl — Kassidy/Kimberly/Caryn — who’ll be fucked up for the rest of her life. However long that’ll be.

The local sheriff said he believed what’s-his-name…uh, Karl…shot himself because he heard the approach of the deputy assigned to the school (think about that for a moment; we live in a society that has to assign armed personnel to patrol schools to shoot school shooters — how incredibly fucked up is that?). I don’t know. It seems unlikely to me that in the chaos of those ninety seconds the school shooter Karl would hear — and able to identify the footsteps — of an approaching school cop.

Pump action shotgun; brand doesn't matter -- they all do the same thing

Pump action shotgun; brand doesn’t matter — they all do the same thing

I think it’s more likely he saw what his shotgun had done to Carmen/Kasey/Kelsey and couldn’t live with it. I’ve had the misfortune to see what a shotgun blast can do to the human head. It’s not like it is in the video games young Karl played. It ain’t pretty.

So what happens now? You know the answer to that. Nothing. Oh, politicians will look earnest and say something like “We must do something to keep our children safe,” but nothing will actually happen. Or maybe it will. Maybe they’ll try to find the money to make the doors to classrooms bulletproof, so children will have a secure location to ‘shelter in place’ when the next gunman goes roaming through the hallways. But that would mean raising taxes, so probably not. For certain, we won’t do anything about guns. Because, you know, it would be wrong to punish all responsible law-abiding gun owners because of the actions of some disturbed kid.

Of course, what’s-his-name…young Karl…was assumed to be a responsible law-abiding gun owner when he bought his shotgun. In fact, he was a responsible law-abiding gun owner until he carried his shotgun into the school. And that guy (I don’t remember his name) who killed all those people at the Navy Yard recently? A responsible law-abiding gun owner until he took his weapon out of the car. And the mother of the kid who murdered all those 2nd graders and their teachers in Sandy Hook? Adam Something? She was a responsible law-abiding owner of over a dozen firearms when her boy shot her four times in the head while she was asleep.

That guy at the Navy Yard, no longer a responsible law-abiding gun owner.

That guy at the Navy Yard, no longer a responsible law-abiding gun owner.

That’s the thing, isn’t it. Most mass murderers are responsible law-abiding gun owners up until the moment they start their mass murdering.

Oh well, freedom isn’t free as the gun rights advocates tell us. The occasional school shooting is just the price we have to pay for living in a free society. Well, it’s the price Kaylee has to pay. Chloe? Claire? Whatever.

no, megyn kelly isn’t that stupid

If you’re not aware of it yet, FOX News personality Megyn Kelly (yes, that’s actually how she spells her name and no, that’s not her fault — blame her parents) said something stupid on her show. She was speaking about an article written by Aisha Harris in Slate. Harris wrote about the discontinuity of growing up as an African-American girl and having two Santas — the ubiquitous jolly white guy in the red suit, and “the Santa in my family’s household” who was black. When she asked her father about the two Santas, she got a perfect answer:

My father replied that Santa was every color. Whatever house he visited, jolly old St. Nicholas magically turned into the likeness of the family that lived there.

That’s incredibly sappy, but it’s also a perfectly lovely notion. But nonetheless Ms. Harris grew up feeling “slightly ashamed that our black Santa wasn’t the ‘real thing.'” So in her article she suggests (and I presume this is tongue-in-cheek) that we should abandon the notion of Santa Claus as a human and begin to present him as a penguin.

santa black

It’s too bad, in a way. Harris makes some important and interesting points about the duality of growing up black in what is essentially a white culture. The whole ‘Santa as Penguin’ business rather distracts from that — but still, the article is worth reading.

Enter FOX News in the person of Megyn Kelly. FOX News isn’t in the business of debating interesting social phenomena (nor is FOX News in the business of news, for that matter). FOX News is in the business of being outraged by interesting social phenomena. In a panel discussion about the article, Kelly categorically states that Santa is a white guy. And so, by the way, was Jesus.

Over the last couple of days there’s been an indignant cascade of cheerfully pissed off folks railing against Kelly. They’ve explained in detail the ethnology of the tribal cultures that inhabited Galilee in the first century. They’ve expounded on the symbolic and social evolution of Nikolaos of Myra from a tall, thin, Turkish-Greek priest to the jolly red-suited fat man created by Haddon Sundblom in the 1930s for Coca Cola adverts.

santa white

In effect, folks have been calling Megyn Kelly stupid. Profoundly stupid. Stupid on a galactic scale. People have been suggesting that the sheer mass of Megyn Kelly’s stupidity is so great that it’s capable of affecting tides. But folks, she’s not stupid — not at all. She’s worse than that.

There’s no shame in being stupid or ignorant. If you lack the capacity to be intelligent, it’s not your fault that you’re stupid. If you lack access to accurate information, it’s not your fault that you’re ignorant. If you lack the means to obtain a good education, it’s not your fault that you’re uneducated. The shame is in being willfully stupid, deliberately ignorant, consciously uneducated.

Megyn Kelly is intelligent, has easy access to accurate information, and received a quality education. In other words, the shame begins with the fact that Megyn Kelly works for FOX News.

megyn kelly

It’s her job to be outraged and to engender outrage in others. That’s the FOX News mission — keep their viewers uninformed and angry. Keep them feeling victimized. Because if you’re a victim, then you’re not to blame. If you’re a victim, you have a right to defend yourself. You have the right to defend yourself against minorities who want a non-white Santa. Against gay folks who want marriage equality. Against women who want to control their own reproduction. Against people who believe in evolution. Against anybody who believes differently than you do.

Megyn Kelly isn’t stupid. She’s a willing participant in an organized movement to prevent change. Megyn Kelly isn’t stupid; she’s just getting paid to act that way.