Anthony Rizzo plays first base for the Chicago Cubs. Anthony Rizzo chokes up on the bat and still hits the long ball. And Anthony Rizzo’s old high school just got shot up by a 19 year old whom students there say was too uncool and creepy to pass even at the “Emo Gazebo,” where the misfits usually gather. So far, seventeen people are dead. That number may rise. Our Tralfamadorian politicians say, “So it goes.”
Parkland and Coral Springs please stay strong! This is out of control and and our country is in desperate need for change. I hope In this darkest of times back home this brings everyone together and we can find love. You’re all in my prayers 🙏🏻🙏🏻
— Anthony Rizzo (@ARizzo44) February 14, 2018
The way these types of events continue to occur without any change, except a loosening of gun laws brought to us by the conservative right, risks beating the rest of us down into an impotent state of learned helplessness, where embittered cynicism becomes a natural response and sardonicism becomes an attractive survival skill.
For Kurt Vonnegut, who survived the Dresden bombing as a prisoner of war, the Tralfamadorians looked at humans the way humans look at the Rocky Mountains. They are always there. Sometimes they are happy. Sometimes they are dead. Each condition is as real as the other, and as permanent and inevitable. So it goes.
But, unlike the Tralfamadorians, human beings don’t live outside of time and we’re not supposed to be fatalistic. Apathy is our enemy. We were born to learn from experience so we won’t repeat our mistakes, but it’s a problem if the only thing we learn is that our mistakes cannot be fixed or prevented.
We may see the same type of thing happen with immigration and the Dreamers, where there seems to be overwhelming support to do something, perhaps even something that isn’t cruel and awful, but nothing can be done because of the immovable force and entrenched power of conservatives.
This condition is not permanent. Our problems can be fixed. Objectively, our problems are tame compared to ones our grandparents faced in the 1930’s and 1940’s. But adopting a dark and detached mood of powerlessness and grim humor isn’t going to move the process along. I fall into this myself as a coping mechanism. I mock the “prayers and condolences” of conservatives as the new “So it goes,” and with good reason.
Serious question. Be honest.
Did you actually spend even thirty seconds praying that this day would never come? https://t.co/eACdFrdJNn
— Martin Longman (@BooMan23) February 15, 2018
But I need to remind myself of something I learned from David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest. There’s a scene in that book where the character Joelle van Dyne finds herself compelled to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings because her inability to conquer her drug addiction has given her a choice between recovery and death.
But the religious component is too much of a stumbling block for her and she’s particularly hung up on the cliches that are used in AA.
Her trouble is that ‘But For the Grace of God’ is a subjunctive, a counterfactual, she says, and can make sense only when introducing a conditional clause, like e.g. ‘But For the Grace of God I would have died on Molly Notkin’s bathroom floor,’ so that an indicative transposition like ‘I’m here but But For the Grace of God’ is she says, literally senseless, and regardless of whether she hears it or not it’s meaningless, and that the foamy enthusiasm with which these folks can say what in fact means nothing at all makes her want to put her head in the Radarange at the thought that Substances have brought her to the sort of pass where this is the sort of language she has to have Blind Faith in.
Gradually it becomes clear that she’s misapplying her faith in reason. It can’t be rational to be dead because ‘But For the Grace of God’ is a subjunctive while the person across the room whom can’t recite the alphabet is alive because they’ve bought into the program. What’s rational in a situation where your choice is life or death is only what works, not necessarily what passes logical muster. If you can’t quit drugs because you consider belief in a higher power to be submental, you might wind up a stone cold rationalist who can’t celebrate your fidelity to reason because you are dead. True, functional reason doesn’t compel you to commit suicide when you’d really rather be alive.
Steps two and three of the 12-step program ask us to believe that a Power greater than ourselves can restore us to sanity and to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand Him. Alcoholics Anonymous may have an annoying array of seemingly juvenile cliches but the rationalist who won’t give the program a chance because they won’t do the work to conceive of a higher power that they can understand? That’s also a cliche.
And that was Wallace’s point. He was really giving an autobiographical treatment of how he went through a process of finding a new level of reason. It wasn’t the reason he’d been taught to revere, but a kind of reason with better odds against natural selection. He needed sobriety or he’d die. He saw who lived and who died in the program, and he realized that people like himself didn’t make it. The rational thing to do was to figure out what the people who did make it were doing differently.
Now, if it isn’t clear how this discussion of A.A. applies to our politics, I can understand that. It really applies to our attitude towards a politics of gridlock and disregard for reason. It applies to any situation where you discover that things absolutely need to change but you find yourself totally incapable of changing them. The addict who can’t kick often becomes consumed with self-loathing and they disguise this with feigned apathy, dark humor, and lame self-justifications for their helplessness. That way lies death.
When it comes to guns, we’re a nation of addicts. Like addicts, we have two voices in our heads. One sees the problem and considers it as urgent that something change. The other voice will go to any length to rationalize the status quo so it can continue its self-destructive behavior. The addict voice is winning.
The way forward isn’t clear, but the wrong attitudes to take can be. First, we have to maintain a belief that this can be solved, even if we acknowledge that we can’t solve it all by ourselves. We need a support group. We need allies who will pick us up when we lose resolve. We can have coping mechanisms, but we can’t become synonymous with them. Individually, we may be helpless, but together we are a Higher Power.
So, as tempting as it might be to throw up your hands or make plans to move to Canada, we need to stick together and keep going. We can’t ever look at our schools getting shot up and just say, “So it goes.” We don’t have to accept what conservatives are doing to our country.
The US is unique in its worship of guns. The Second Amendment is a blanket of excuses that the gun lovers wrap themselves in, and our history as a nation of revolution, civil war, and world war reinforces that mentality.
What we need to do is figure out how to change our acceptance and glorification of violence. Young men who are ostracized by society don’t seek mental health advice because they’re not going to look weak, they’re not sissies, and they’re perpetually angry. So they punish others by eliminating them. And guns do it quickly and efficiently.
As long as we throw up our hands and cry with every gun death, be it an accidental shooting of a child by a sibling or the slaughter of a dozen innocent students or churchgoers or concert attendees, we can’t expect to stop them. Republicans are owned by the NRA, so we need to have legislation in place for stricter gun laws for when we regain control of the House and Senate. We need better campaigns with ads that spell out what we lose with every shooting.
I think we can look into gun buyback programs on the local level. I think we can look at how other countries deal with guns and see if anything can be applied to us. Granted, the US has unique problems, but we have to look into any possible solutions,
Thoughts and prayers don’t work. We need to figure out what will.
Some modest proposals for achieving gun sanity:
http://www.stonekettle.com/2015/06/bang-bang-sanity.html
I have learned, since moving to the South, that the people who answer their phones drop their defenses when you tell them I’m a Christian, and…”
So that’s what I do. And I force them to sit me reading through two of my favorite Bible verses, and then make them listen to me explain what they mean in plain English.
The first is James 2:14:
Plain English: Your prayers are empty without action. In fact, they’re a middle finger to the grieving. They are insulting.
The second is Matthew 25:31-46, which I won’t quote at length:
Plain English: God is watching and knows what you have done. And you are going to burn in HELL.
You must be talking to Methodists.
A good southern Baptist would just point you to Paul and tell you that they’re going to heaven on faith alone.
You are. Real faith automatically leads to works, if you have faith without works then you don’t actually have faith.
I certainly appreciate the sentiment, and I’ll never stop advocating for rational gun laws…
…but wow did this post miss the mark with me. I promote and work for and hope for all sorts of policy ideas I’m fairly confident will never happen. I certainly don’t do it by abandoning rational analysis in favor of blind faith. I just do it because it’s what I believe is right and just.
The research show that AA is not a particularly successful method of treatment in reforming alcoholics and is actively harmful to some people precisely because it demands irrationality. We can be the change we want without abandoning our reason.
Wow.
I could attribute your response to my own inability to communicate effectively, but I am pretty sure the problem lies with your preconceptions in this case.
I wrote of a higher level of reason. A reason with better odds against natural selection. Of a different kind of reason from the one Wallace was taught to revere.
I talked about how it is ultimately irrational to ignore the evidence of what works and go down a path that the evidence tells you leads to an outcome you do not want.
I talked about how it isn’t rational to be dead because you got hung up on your perception of rationality when another person without those hangups is alive because they were able to focus on the problem at hand.
Everything I wrote was either about developing a higher level of reason or about how rationality when seen too rigidly can actually be irrational, which are two ways of saying the same thing.
I did not say, for example, that people should take up a belief in some theistic God that their reason tells them is absurd. I said that rationalists in dire need of recovery would do better to do the work to conceive of a higher power that they can understand than they would if they walked away from a community that is there to save them because they can’t tolerate bad grammar, bad cliches, and a bunch of god-talk.
And the main point is that there are a lot of things we cannot solve on our own but that together We are the HIGHER POWER. In other words, find salvation in each other and our belief that together we can do things that seem impossible.
That’s not abandoning reason, but applying it.
Well if I read too much into your AA example than my apologies.
I do see your point but the reference to a “higher level of reason” alongside all the god talk pushes my buttons.
Certainly I agree that we should always be looking to make things better regardless of how impossible it might seem in current circumstances.
An acquaintance tells me that AA chapters are not generally steeped in religion. And if your first stop is one like that, there are many others that are not. They do tell the addicts whether alcholol or other substance to seek a higher power to help themselves. That higher power can be yourself or, more likely, the group. Most also have a sponsor who help out in times of trouble. It is imperfect and addicts who have abstained for decades can fall back and then the group or sponsor can help.
Booman, have you read “Resisting 12-Step Coercion: How to Fight Forced Participation in AA, NA, or 12-Step Treatment” by Peele, Bufe, and Brodsky? They may have other axes to grind, but the book makes a pretty good case that AA and NA are NOT the best treatment for most looking to kick the habit. And not using the best treatment is highly unethical (though it is often profitable).
Our country is probably unique in forcing AA/NA (i.e. religious based medical treatment) on prisoners, those on probation, our youth, etc. via the court system.
Though I get that you weren’t specifically advocating AA, and that your point was much more nuanced than that. Sorry to go off topic, but I didn’t start it. 🙂 Though, while I’m off topic, DFW (RIP) wrote a though-provoking essay on the questionable ethics of boiling lobsters alive.
Who knew?
(Flag, foul on the play. 15-yard penalty for undefined-acronym infraction.)
WTF (“What the fuck . . . ?”) (if not Dallas-Fort Worth) is “DFW”?
David Foster Wallace.
Compulsory 12-Step treatment is one topic.
The overall effectiveness of various voluntary methods of getting sober is another topic.
Neither of them are the topic I am discussing here.
I am not a 12-Step evangelist. I use Wallace’s example because it describes a process of achieving a higher consciousness. And it is a similar type thing to what I think we need on the left, frankly, although I hardly expect this to happen to most people. It would be nice if it happened to many articulate people with strategic analytical powers and some influence, though.
I very much appreciate your argument, I really, genuinely do. I get it and agree with it.
But the push-back is likely because, however you couch it, your argument employs 1. something very close to a religious cult and 2. the denial of rationality. It’s almost impossible (for me anyway) to not point this out, even if it’s clear that you don’t mean to advocate for those things.
OK, so I live in the country. I was brought up with guns and everyone around here owns guns. One problem is that the NRA has so thoroughly conflated the issues. When I talk about gun control I’m talking about the semiautomatics and Saturday night specials that have no legitimate uses in sport or self defense. People here think it means someone is coming for their 12 gauges and so they oppose any control. That confusion needs to be overcome. I actually had a conversation at the local grocery store with a clerk who told me, deadly seriously, that she opposed Hillary Clinton “because she’s gonna take away our guns.”
A huge percentage of Gun Cultists listen to/watch a steady diet of Fox, Rush, “Christiany” Broadcasting, NRA run media, Gun Cult Worshipping Radio and TV shows (these latter exist; their purpose is to encourage cult members to worship their death machines).
There is no “reasoning” with these people. They have been as brainwashed as the Kool Aid drinkers in Jonestown. Most still firmly believe that Obama was born in Kenya and is a secret Muslim.
Despite the pernicious propaganda that Obama would “steal all of their guns” and put them all in FEMA Camps – which never happened – these people are brainwashed endlessly that they just barely avoided a gun-stealing disaster, which is ever brewing on the horizon.
They are fed a steady diet of FEAR – FEAR of everything and everyone, especially “libruls” who “hate them” and are totally out to – you guessed it – “steal their guns.”
I will continue to advocate for gun control, but color me completely cynical. The NRA has truly poisoned the well, and it’s clear that the Oligarchs could give a sh*t about this sh*thole country. 17 teens mowed down by a white supremacist?? SCORE!!!!!! Less useless whining mouths to feed.
The end.
I don’t live in America. However I’m continually amazed that the NRA building isn’t burned to the ground of a dark night.
Garry Wills after the Sandy Hook shooting:
That horror cannot be blamed just on one unhinged person. It was the sacrifice we as a culture made, and continually make, to our demonic god. We guarantee that crazed man after crazed man will have a flood of killing power readily supplied him. We have to make that offering, out of devotion to our Moloch, our god. The gun is our Moloch. We sacrifice children to him daily–sometimes, as at Sandy Hook, by directly throwing them into the fire-hose of bullets from our protected private killing machines, sometimes by blighting our children’s lives by the death of a parent, a schoolmate, a teacher, a protector. Sometimes this is done by mass killings (eight this year), sometimes by private offerings to the god (thousands this year).
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch/
I read a book by Martin Gardner when I was a kid – I think it was Relativity for the Million – in which there is a discussion of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the development of relativity. When things don’t go as expected, check your assumptions was what I learned from that.
Later in life it occurred to me that if your principles are getting in the way of doing what’s right, better check those principles (after you do what’s right). Not always successful with that, but it has been helpful.
There’s some common connection between all of these – some common viewpoint on ideas and how to do things.
Occupy didn’t last long, but it had a long lasting effect. Why? Because the truth was so self evident it could no longer be avoided.
This problem is the same. A coordinated effort of civil disobedience with the narrow objective of one truth – our children are being slaughtered, do something – should be one that even the NRA can’t deny and the media can’t ignore.
Seems like we need some place to start with a gun control policy. How about banning the manufacture and sale of military assault guns to civilians. Those guns that the makers have successfully renamed AR 15 or Bushmaster (last name is cute ain’t it). Oh, and the bullets that an assault gun uses. Let the gun nuts keep what they got as private sales will also come to an end. Freeze the military assault gun in place. Challenge the NRA to continue to justify the sales to civilians.
AR-15 is actually the original name. I only mention this because this is the sort of error that causes gun people to stop listening.
Wikipedia will tell you far more than you wanted to know about the history.
This was my first thought as well.
Labels are a tool of the right. The only way to push back is to call a spade a spade. The conversation must be limited to military assault guns. Everyone knows what that means. Let the right get bogged down in labels.
Thank you for an interesting post.
I’ve defended responsible gun ownership on previous threads. However, I’m a strong critic of the NRA, and I support common-sense gun legislation.
Specifically, I’ve argued for banning sale of large-capacity magazines and assault rifles. I’ve argued against any legislation that would lead to confiscation of guns, because I thought it was politically untenable, and because it would lead to violent uprisings in many parts of the US. Seriously, I’m talking about an armed intifada in much of the South and Midwest.
Moreover, I must admit that I’m an example of Martin’s warning about learned helplessness, and hopelessness. After Newtown, I said, “if this didn’t change the terms of the debate, nothing will.” When there was no mass-movement for gun legislation, I gave up and assumed that mass shootings had become a permanent fixture of American life.
Here’s where I’ve had an epiphany, of sorts: legislation that deals only with gun sales is never going to solve the problem. I didn’t do enough research on the subject, so I massively underestimated the number of firearms in circulation.
According to a recent CRS report, there were over 170 MILLION background checks between 1999 and 2014. Even if half of those are for resale of pre-owned guns, it’s just a massive flood of weaponry.
So, even if sales of assault rifles and large-capacity magazines are banned tomorrow, we’ll continue to have mass shootings for another century. Old military-style weapons can remain in service for a long time – just ask the Viet Cong. And with hundreds of millions of weapons on the market, even a ban won’t raise prices enough to keep criminals and psychopaths from making purchases.
Therefore, some sort of confiscation/buy-back of assault weapons and magazines will be essential in order to reduce the yearly death toll. As a matter of policy, I have come to accept this.
The question is: how to accomplish it without triggering the Second American Civil War?
The friendly guy next to me in line at the gun store used to listen to Ronald Reagan and Paul Harvey on the radio. Now he’s into Alex Jones and other conspiracy-freaks who’ve become mainstream. So many gun owners have been completely radicalized. They will refuse a buyback, and they’ll resist confiscation to their last bullet. That means lots of dead citizens, lots of dead police and sheriff’s deputies, and the radicalization of large swaths of rural and exurban America.
I need to read more about the politics and economics of guns to understand how we got here. But we’re in a hell of a mess. I take your point that we need to keep working for change, but we also need to have our eyes wide open. We may face two awful choices: either a continued drip-drip-drip of gun violence, or thousands dead in violent resistance to gun legislation (legislation which might look very benign to those of us who are not brainwashed.)
Friends, please tell me where I’m wrong. I want to be wrong.
PS, I just quoted one number in my last post. Most evidence indicates that official statistics seriously undercount the number of gun sales and guns in circulation. My head spins.
I was conditioned to be pro-gun because they were tools for hunting or sports (not fetish toys) owned by every family in the midwestern community where I grew up. Now they are everywhere, in massive numbers. We truly have gone “gun crazy.”
PPS, just had an unrelated conversation with a old classmate who’s now a police officer. I took advantage to ask him about this debate.
He says my numbers are way off. He says he buys assault rifles undercover, black market for 50 bucks. They’re stolen, of course, but that’s just an example of how flooded the market is with weapons.
His view: the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. There are so many guns out there that it will be impossible to disarm our society.
…and don’t even get him started about where 3D printing (additive manufacturing) will take us. Designer assault rifles – made at home!
He is not agnostic about this. A 5.56mm round almost cost him his hand, which required multiple reconstructive surgeries. He was outgunned in the firefight with a fugitive. He would much prefer that this sort of hardware be off the streets.
. . . virtually 1 per American human . . . including newborns (i.e., ~300,000,000).
“it would lead to violent uprisings in many parts of the US. Seriously, I’m talking about an armed intifada in much of the South and Midwest. “
Good! Smoke these assholes out and let the professionals blow them away. I have nothing but contempt for these people. It is my strongly held belief that they should all burn in hell.
Chill out.
You know you’re off course when you start advocating civil war and killing huge numbers of your fellow citizens.
Relax. Have a cream soda or something.
Racer X, you wrote: “Smoke these assholes out and let the professionals blow them away”
I wonder, if we were talking about gang members in LA or Chicago, would you prescribe the same solution? Or is it OK to kill rural whites but not urban POC?
Many of these “gun nuts” are prisoners of their own ignorance, victims of a sustained political brainwashing campaign, and they are our countrymen. They are our fellow Americans. You also seem to disregard the lives of the law enforcement officers who would be carrying out any new policy.
I accept that the last resort may be to forcibly disarm people. But let us approach this horrible problem with a sense of humanity. Having mercy for one’s friends is easy. Having mercy for one’s enemies is the mark of a civilized people.
I’ve never heard, “We are a Higher Power” phrased like that before, Martin. It’s hitting me like a dollop of wasabi for this reason. I attended a Jesuit college in the late 1980’s, and the Jesuit Marxist Theologians occasionally came up with inspired phrases in lectures that would leave us gape mouthed. We are a Higher Power is wonderfully Hegelian. You’re standing traditional theology on its ass with a turn of phrase like that. Very eloquent phrasing. The sum power of We The People can move mountains much like St. Augustine’s faith that can move mountains, but ours is a non-metaphysical intervention. But, if you need metaphysics I’m reminded of a woman who came to our high school once, and told us of her struggle with alcoholism. She admitted that she had a load of trouble with “believing in a Higher Power” since most of her mother’s family had been wiped out in the Holocaust. It took her a while, but finally she decided to call her Higher Power “Irving.” She confided in us, “Irving and I get along just fine most days.”
Throwing a high falutin’ name around like Hegel requires some clarification. By way of Wikipedia: Hegel’s principal achievement is his development of a distinctive articulation of idealism sometimes termed “absolute idealism”,[17] in which the dualisms of, for instance, mind and nature and subject and object are overcome. His philosophy of spirit conceptually integrates psychology, the state, history, art, religion, and philosophy. His account of the master-slave dialectic has been highly influential, especially in 20th-century France.[18] Of special importance is his concept of spirit (Geist: sometimes also translated as “mind”) as the historical manifestation of the logical concept and the “sublation” (Aufhebung: integration without elimination or reduction) of seemingly contradictory or opposing factors; examples include the apparent opposition between nature and freedom and between immanence and transcendence. Hegel has been seen in the 20th century as the originator of the thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad;[19] however, as an explicit phrase, it originated with Johann Gottlieb Fichte.[20]
Hegel has influenced many thinkers and writers whose own positions vary widely.[21] Karl Barth described Hegel as a “Protestant Aquinas”,[22] while Maurice Merleau-Ponty wrote that “all the great philosophical ideas of the past century–the philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche, phenomenology, German existentialism, and psychoanalysis–had their beginnings in Hegel.”[23]
. . . Can anyone hear even a nanosecond of sincerity in it?
Reagan, as an experienced actor, could at least fake it somewhat convincingly.
Not me; can’t stand to listen to him for so much as a nanosecond; will drown him out by screaming “Shut up fuckface” as I lunge for the mute button or change the channel.
If Donald Trump has ever prayed to God, I will eat my cat.
I’m sure Trump has moved his lips and made sounds that others were led to believe he was praying to God.
That’s how you get the marks to give you a `mulligan’
For actual sincerity, remember this:
“Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.”
Gabrielle Giffords April, 2014
I’m going to make a suggestion and act on it as well.
The smoking model is a good (but imperfect matching) model for taking collective action against addicts (in hat case nicotine) to induce them to change their behavior and to discourage new would be addicts from getting addicted.
The one flaw in that plan is that the government was on the side of the victims instead of the perps. This time they are on the side of the perps.
Anyway, when I hear that most dating site profiles include `no guns’ as a requirement for compatibility then we’re making progress.
I do believe the people revolted at this behavior (gun ownership) can make gun owning uncool and help reduce demand. Smoking wasn’t eradicated but the health threat has been significantly reduced.