House of Eratosthenes

Item: I notice it’s been an entire year since the “Don’t Touch My Junk” revolt against the TSA, which is now a whole decade old and has yet to stop a single terrorist attack. And in that year, I haven’t flown. Lord willing and the creek don’t rise, I hope to see many years come and go before I fly. Not because I’m afraid of heights, but because I don’t like being treated like a barnyard animal to be herded around, the situation’s become completely unraveled and completely absurd. Confiscating cupcakes, fer cryin’ out loud.

Item: The current crop of presidential candidates is receiving some dismal report cards on the subject of illegal immigration. We should expect to see these grades diminish even further over time, since it’s clear that our votes are being diluted by invaders who simply hop the fence and punch ballots. We don’t know when they do it, but very little is being done to stop them from it so it’s silly to argue that they aren’t. Especially when our politicians, and candidates for their offices, work so hard at pandering to the invaders when the people whose votes are supposed to count, clearly want the problem to be addressed more directly.

Item: I see warning signs everywhere that, to put it plainly, make me want to vomit. This [blank] uses [chemicals/materials] known to [regulatory entity] to cause [malady]. Warnings everywhere. The list of things I can’t do is long, and growing longer, but I’m not any safer and neither is anybody else. Can’t jaywalk. Can’t order beer to be delivered with my pizza. The ammunition downstairs is going to last a good long time, since here in California firearms are only for the designated range…which means I only shoot paper targets. Not empty wine jugs like I used to do with my Dad. As for the poor unfortunates who are kids today, they have to wear helmets to do everything. Don Surber points out that me getting fat is now a national security issue…and so is everything else. Safe, safe, safe — whatever we can do, is something someone hasn’t quite gotten around to stopping us from doing quite yet. Whatever rules haven’t been written, haven’t been written yet.

What do these three items tell me about our guiding social ethic? Two things.

On a cosmetic level at least, it is very important to us that nothing bad ever happens to anybody, even if they richly deserve it. One of my favorite John Wayne quotes, which he likely never actually said, is “Life’s tough; it’s tougher if you’re stupid.” I don’t care if it’s apocryphal because it’s true, and don’t ask me how I know. Let’s just say I can vouch for it. Well, apparently someone doesn’t like that and is trying to undo it, to make life just as painless for stupid people as it is for smart people…which is not something that’s gonna happen.

Still & all, it is nice to see life valued.

Oh no wait, we can see that’s not really happening…because of the other thing we notice from the above items…notwithstanding the discussion to ensue about how effective these safety precautions might be, we see safety is not the most important thing. One of my most favorite things to observe & inquire is, on these commercial passenger jet trips I’m not taking, after I pass through the random screening and am safely ensconced into my seat, I will be required to power down my cell phone and any other electronic device. We’re not completely sure why that is, but it’s got to do with safety so we all just bow down and genuflect before the safety gods as we always do. Well hey…I’m seeing a burgeoning cottage industry crop up around diagnosing adults with learning disabilities…what if the pilot of my plane has a learning disability? The statistics, and the description of the symptoms, make it clear that this is a much bigger issue for my safety than any silly ol’ cell phone. Can I demand to be given this information? Can I switch planes? Maybe such a diagnosis should be a disqualification from applying for a single-engine or multi-engine pilot’s license.

You know the answer to this already. It’s a complete non-starter to talk about what the afflicted can be disqualified from doing. Heck, it’s a stretch for us to admit blind people shouldn’t drive cars. Now if you want to talk about what the diagnosed qualify for, we can drone on about that all day long.

So from this, I’m discerning that we have two rules in place — on which we never actually voted, but from which we’ll brook no deviation, we’ll tolerate no violation, and yes, we pass judgment on the character of our fellow citizens according to not only their compliance with these rules, but their enthusiasm for so complying. One, we don’t discriminate. Ever. If we do, we make sure we discriminate in the “right” direction. Two, human life is precious. It is so precious that we have to make sure everyone is out of danger, all the time, no matter what, and we seem bound and determined to keep writing more and more safety rules until everyone lives forever.

But here is the strange, weird, inexplicable thing about this guiding social ethic: We’re not that militant about the safety thing, because there is a decided elevation of Rule One above Rule Two. If we have to discriminate to save a life, all of a sudden our safety is about as important as yesterday morning’s used coffee grounds. And I also notice, thinking on it some more, that there is a noticeable and repeatedly-demonstrated “appearance of impropriety” aspect to Rule One that does not apply to Rule Two. Fulfilling the substance of Rule Two, is an objective made inferior to the fulfillment of the cosmetics of Rule One.

And so what I find immediately perplexing, here, is that vertical alignment between Rule One and Rule Two. Would it not make a great deal more sense, and manifest a more sincere respect for the values enshrined in the rules, if Rule Two were to be elevated in importance and passion above Rule One? Things the way they are, our message seems to be: You have an absolute right to stay alive forever, and once you’re alive you can enjoy the benefits of non-discrimination, just keep in mind that if we have to discriminate against someone else to keep you safe and alive, you’re screwed. What, then, is our goal? What is our vision? A level playing field or no playing field at all? It starts to look kind of like Animal Farm: All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. Or a competitive sport taking place on such a level-playing-field, with no score kept, everyone gets a trophy for showing up, except if you are caught saying or doing something politically incorrect you get disqualified from the game and can’t go out for pizza afterward. There’s something phony about that; either everyone counts, or some people don’t, but you can’t have it both ways. Would it not make more sense to say: You have a right to exist, and since you’re here we’re going to work as hard as we can to make sure you’re treated fairly — short of putting undue jeopardy on that other guy’s right to exist. That, it seems to me, would make better sense.

Maybe I’m biased because I’m a six-foot-tall straight white guy still possessing all twenty-one digits, but I think we’ve got it cockeyed, and since this is a matter far too important to be entrusted to the doltish voters, I’m not sure what can be done to fix it. I suppose it’s encouraging that we as a society have managed to maintain such strict control over three distinctly separate levels of priority: Non-discrimination, life is sacred, and everything else. That does require some sophistication. But even that, I’m afraid, is viewing the situation through rose-colored glasses.

A more cynical perspective would be that we aren’t interested in making anyone safe at all, we’re just concerned with ass-covering. And, as Surber opines, the people we put in positions of power just like to push others around. Maybe it’s a case of, a certain job will attract a certain personality type. These jobs have authority invested in them…so that’s the personality type they attract. Bullies.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News and Washington Rebel.

And, as Surber opines, the people we put in positions of power just like to push others around.

That’s it in a nutshell. The Nanny State is not, and never has been, about safety. It’s about sad little nonentities bossing us around because they can — because it’s the only thing in their sad, puny lives that validates them.

And these rules you note are all of a piece. Their aim is to get us to do –and to affirm, publicly, often– the most counter-intuitive thing possible. We must all wear safety helmets when we cross the street, but blind people can drive cars. Both are ridiculous, there’s no possible way to connect them using Earth-logic…. but if we consider that the underlying motive is to make as many people as possible jump when some bureaucrat yells frog, it makes perfect sense.

Back around the turn of the century, nascent labor unions came up with a brilliant idea — the “work-to-rule” strike. Everyone would still come to work and do his job, but he’d do it to the letter. All the little shortcuts and workarounds that make industry go, got thrown out the window. If a new or unexpected situation came up, they’d call management over and refuse to do anything until micro-specific regulations got promulgated from the top to deal with that situation. They’d do this with every tiny variation from the script. Entire factories ground to a halt within hours.

I’d love to see the American public try this some day. You know how that jackass tried to make fun of religion with My Year of Living Biblically? I’d like to see someone do that with all the gajillion little local, state, and federal regs they keep foisting on us. My Year of Living Legally. Think anyone could even leave his house, much less live his life, obeying the letter of all the laws?
- Severian | 12/31/2011 @ 11:42
One of my favorite John Wayne quotes, which he likely never actually said, is “Life’s tough; it’s tougher if you’re stupid.”

One of his characters in one of his movies said it. I think I remember him saying it but unfortunately cannot remember the movie.
- pdwalker | 12/31/2011 @ 21:18
There’s been so much confusion about that particular quote that at this point, I’d like to see a video clip before I consider the matter settled.

However, IMDB has it listed, which I would have to consider pretty persuasive evidence. We’ll hunt it down some more, and post an update if necessary. Probably won’t happen this year.
- mkfreeberg | 12/31/2011 @ 22:48
[…] Cross-posted at House of Eratosthenes. […]
- Memo For File CLI | Washington Rebel | 01/01/2012 @ 10:31
Think anyone could even leave his house, much less live his life, obeying the letter of all the laws?

No. In fact, over at Calguns.net, we were discussing the implications of California’s (at the time, proposed) ban on open carry of handguns and what this might mean for the simple act of moving one between your car and home.

Some old curmudgeon wrote, “I probably commit five or six felonies just going outside to get the *** **** mail.”
- cylarz | 01/02/2012 @ 01:03
[…] Anti-War “Occupy 101″ DJEver Notice? LXIX The First Morning of 2012 Dinner Matters Memo For File CLI Girandoni Air Rifle Hilliker Letter Give Me One of Your Testicles, and I’ll Cut Off Both of […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/05/2012 @ 06:10

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Memo For File CLISaturday, December 31st, 2011

Memo For File CLI
Saturday, December 31st, 2011