House of Eratosthenes

As we saw on Wednesday, lefties do not appreciate anti-gun-control arguments too much. They claim to be agitated because they just want to “save lives,” but I notice when it’s pointed out to them “such-and-such a proposed rule would not have saved a single life at Sandy Hook,” they don’t have a rebuttal for this, so they must understand they don’t have a rebuttal for it. Therefore, they must understand the measure in that particular case would not have helped out any with that particular problem. And because of that, they must understand that opposition to their bill, contrary to their rhetoric, doesn’t really endanger anybody.

Yet, the agitation they show when confronted with anti-gun-control arguments, is not the same agitation they show in the face of, say, anti-affirmative-action arguments or anti-stimulus-plan arguments or yes-Sandra-Fluke-is-a-slut arguments or reveal-the-global-warming-scam arguments or anti-tax-increase arguments.

It is a very special kind of agitation. I do not see them display it uniformly, although I do see them display it when they encounter: stay-at-home Moms; home-schoolers; school voucher programs; the right not to join a union.

Earlier this month I examined the culture that must ALWAYS win. Concluding that this is above, or beneath, the conservative/liberal divide to which we have become accustomed, I noticed its credo appeared to be…

So this culture is not concerned with safety or danger. It has definite ideas about individuals and what, or how, the individuals should be.

The common theme I’m seeing throughout it all, is that the individuals should not be prepared or equipped.

I noticed, a couple months ago in the Palo Alto area, I was beset on all sides with what might be the consequences of such a culture. I can’t name any one particular example, it was the confluence of many things: B.A.R.T.; hand sanitizer dispensers; SmartCar recharging stations; doggy poop bag dispensers on the walking trails. It wasn’t just general-urban-living, it was the continual presence of systems. Systems, systems everywhere.

The individual must be reduced to something weak. Sexually vague. A mere parasite upon the host, utterly dependent on it for its daily sustenance, providing nothing in return. Except, in the case of government, perhaps some useful information. But the culture strips the individual of independence, oftentimes for no good reason that can be discerned, save for discouraging foresight. Example: You need a pump-kiosk because you forgot your hand sanitizer? What’s a bottle of hand sanitizer cost, anyway? You have a dog and you live between a walking trail and a ninety-nine-cent superstore, but you own no baggies? Huh?

I think it is a myth, after all I’ve seen this week, that gun control opponents think about home defense situations and gun control supporters do not. I think the gun control supporters think about that too. I think both sides are arguing about what is the real issue: The individual being equipped to handle problems, both within and outside of the ordinary. And those who oppose individual capability, are in a state of high dudgeon about it all.

They like to feel like they’re trying to save little kids’ lives, although they know that is not the effort they are undertaking. And they certainly like the feeling of being smarter or better-informed or more-well-read than their opponents. But, that can’t be it either, since they have no qualms at all about drawling through those sad words, “I don’t know anything about guns, but I do feel…” And, it continues to flummox me how much there is to know about guns, that these people do not know — it doesn’t bother them in the slightest. So what the heck are they reading that makes them feel so well-informed?

So, tentative conclusion: We are experiencing a conflict of cultures: The ready versus the unready. One guy has a metal lunchbox with an industrial-grade construction workers’ thermos, just in case, in his huge truck that has four-wheel drive, just in case, with a pack of road flares and a winch and a set of jumper cables, just in case. And bottled water and energy bars and candles and dry matches AND a gun. The other guy is out walking, without packing anything at all, relying on his next kiosk-encounter for the next dose of hand-sanitizer, doggy poop bag, wet wipe, iPod recharge and energy drink.

So yes, it is more about control than about the guns. But a lot of the gun-control advocates will protest that they have no designs on controlling anyone, be they friends, foes or complete strangers. And they’ll be right about that. Their cause is one of: I am not ready, and I don’t want that other guy to be ready either.

I’m sure it’s more complicated than this, but in my most cynical moments I almost believe that leftism really is nothing more than the revenge of the nerds.

Everything’s an all-or-nothing proposition to a teenager. Totally binary. If it’s not black, it’s necessarily white. So: Jocks are the ones who get dates. We don’t get dates, meaning we’re not jocks, which means we’re nerds. Nerds are smart. Smart people are intellectuals. Intellectuals always think big thoughts. Big thoughts take up all available brain space, leaving no room for mundane concerns like buying hand sanitizer or carrying doggy bags. When we think about stuff that happens in daily life, like walking the dog, we think about Society as a whole, because that’s a big thought. And Society must be managed, because the world’s full of jocks, and we’ve seen what happens when they’re left unsupervised…..

To reclaim the culture, we simply have to break this connection between liberalism and “intelligence.” Tom Sowell wouldn’t go this far, I’m sure, but when I’m dictator, setting oneself up as an “intellectual,” in the way Sowell uses the word, will be punished by catapult.
- Severian | 04/19/2013 @ 07:56
“I am not ready, and I don’t want that other guy to be ready either.”

Bingo Yatzee! Which it just another offshoot of control. They want/need/have to have everyone under the same control. “I don’t know anything about guns/Don’t have any desire to know/Will never bother to know anything…” “Therefore, no way should anyone else be at an advantage over me”. “We should ALL be defenseless”. Very pathetic and sad way of living.

But we’re seeing it now in it’s full manifestation with Social Security, tax the shit out of the “rich”, home loans to folks who can’t afford to pay it back, Obamacare, etc.
- tim | 04/19/2013 @ 09:30
I’m recalling something I should’ve added in to this…
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2013 @ 09:34
I noticed, a couple months ago in the Palo Alto area, I was beset on all sides with what might be the consequences of such a culture. I can’t name any one particular example, it was the confluence of many things: B.A.R.T.; hand sanitizer dispensers; SmartCar recharging stations; doggy poop bag dispensers on the walking trails. It wasn’t just general-urban-living, it was the continual presence of systems. Systems, systems everywhere.

Yeah, that creeping Good Samaritanism, that hegemonistic civilization. If we’re going to remain barbarians and stunt the growth of good living, we have to fight civilization at every turn, right?

Were they systems, so what?

Why would anyone get so worked up over the good deeds that make easier the doing of other good deeds by other people.

These are systems that make it possible for people to take responsibility for their own lives, for their own disease prevention, for their own reducing carbon footprints, for their own environmental clean-up of dog poop. A patriot would celebrate each of these things, don’t you think?
- edarrell | 04/19/2013 @ 11:13
Why would anyone get so worked up over the good deeds that make easier the doing of other good deeds by other people.

From the best I can tell Ed, you and President Obama are the ones getting worked up.

I’m merely noticing it.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2013 @ 11:15
I’m merely noticing it.

No you’re not, Morgan. You’re “[getting] worked up over the good deeds that make easier the doing of other good deeds by other people,” because you want us “to remain barbarians and stunt the growth of good living, [so] we have to fight civilization at every turn.”

Just admit it, man — you hate civilization. That’s what wondering why we need mutt mitts every five steps inexorably leads to — hate. Of civilization.

Why must you hate so, Morgan? Have you thought of the children? Every time you wonder why people don’t buy their own damn hand sanitizer, the ghost of Hitler gets a chubby.
- Severian | 04/19/2013 @ 11:28
“Good deeds”? Oh that is some precious shit right there. Must wash hands = good deed. Must pick up my dogs crap = good deed. Must need a system to help me do the shit I’m suppose to do.

As Chris Rock said “Niggers want credit for shit they’re suppose to do” –

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

Poor Ed, he wouldn’t know a good deed or a patriot if it beat him on the ass. Anyone who writes “These are systems that make it possible for people to take responsibility for their own lives” and NOT realize the irony…I actually feel sorry for anyone with that barbaric way of thinking.
- tim | 04/19/2013 @ 13:08
“These are systems that make it possible for people to take responsibility for their own lives”

Holy smokes! I didn’t even see that one, so transfixed was I by the spectacle of Mr. Darrell nailing himself to his cross yet again. Apparently, in liberal-land, one needs a whole mess of government-directed, taxpayer-funded “systems” before one is able to take responsibility for one’s own life. It is not possible — Darrell’s words — to do so otherwise.

Ever read that old Orwell essay “Inside the Whale”? Seemingly that’s where our friend longs to be:

For the fact is that being inside a whale is a very comfortable, cosy, homelike thought. The historical Jonah, if he can be so called, was glad enough to escape, but in imagination, in day-dream, countless people have envied him. It is, of course, quite obvious why. The whale’s belly is simply a womb big enough for an adult. There you are, in the dark, cushioned space that exactly fits you, with yards of blubber between yourself and reality, able to keep up an attitude of the completest indifference, no matter what happens. A storm that would sink all the battleships in the world would hardly reach you as an echo. Even the whale’s own movements would probably be imperceptible to you. He might be wallowing among the surface waves or shooting down into the blackness of the middle seas (a mile deep, according to Herman Melville), but you would never notice the difference. Short of being dead, it is the final, unsurpassable stage of irresponsibility.

[Perhaps related: This is an essay on Henry Miller, who coined the phrase while describing Anais Nin’s work. What that says about our liberals and their relationship to the state is best left to the imagination].
- Severian | 04/19/2013 @ 14:17
Back after 9/11, we were all supposed to be on the alert for suspicious bags left unattended. Most airports had rules about that, remember? Well, from what I can tell from pictures online, the bag with Bomb 1 in it at the Boston marathon was not only unattended, it was left outside the metal fence. No one paid any attention to it. (From what I’ve read, Bomb 2 was dropped and went off about 2-3 minutes later, so not as much time to react there.)

And even after all that, I’ve yet to hear a single news commentator, or read an article online, suggesting that we should be more vigilant about such things. How much will it take to wake people up? Boston pats itself on the back for the cops getting Bomber 2, which didn’t happen until they lifted the lockdown and a private citizen found him. The clear lesson is that we need vigilant citizens and that seems to be the last thing that the government wants you to be.

And if I ever rule the world, the first thing I’ll do is start firing bureaucrats, lots of them, in DHS, DNR, EPA, etc.
- teripittman | 04/20/2013 @ 15:35
Why would anyone get so worked up over the good deeds that make easier the doing of other good deeds by other people.

I wouldn’t get worked up at all about it, if it was a good deed. But it’s paid for by someone else, against their will, which severely impacts the goodwill involved.

Contrast this with, say, the “Ooops” stations in my local pet supply store, which welcomes the pets alongside their owners. Those are paid for by the actual chain, and probably for below-cost considering economies of scale and wholesale purchasing… certainly more cheaply than I can get it retail two aisles over.

You could protest, of course, by saying that the cost is passed along to the customer. These would, of course, be the exact same customers who are bringing their pets into the store with them, causing the problem in the first place (unless it is they themselves dropping anchor near the cat toys, in which case we all have a bigger problem to deal with). Instead of ruling the pets out of bound entirely, or building separate entrances for the grooming department and the puppy training and the veterinary service, they make provision for the occasional accident, the customers are grateful, the pets are happy, everyone wins.

Is it a case of “oh, they just want the money from those customers”? Even if it was, who cares? Why have customers otherwise? We can always take our business and our pets elsewhere. Nobody’s forcing us to build all those Ooops stations in every store in the land, including the ones we avoid. That’s the point.
- nightfly | 04/22/2013 @ 13:23
[…] like complaining because — ta-da, by definition, that’s exactly what it is. The system is set up, and if it doesn’t work, you complain until it works. Here I have another complaint about how […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 07/21/2013 @ 13:19

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

DJEver Notice? LXXVIIFriday, April 19th, 2013

DJEver Notice? LXXVII
Friday, April 19th, 2013