Outrageous news out of South Dakota, where Republican governor Dennis Daugaard has signed into law a bill authorizing armed "sentinels"--including, potentially, teachers--in elementary schools, provided these sentinels undergo training similar to what law-enforcement personnel receive.
Are they fucking kidding me? TRAINING?!? I wasn't aware the Gestapo had seized control of the South Dakota legislature! I am a freedom-loving, gun-lusting American! Last time I checked, signing up to be a teacher didn't require me to surrender my Constitution-given right to pack as much heat and flail it around as recklessly as I want, whenever I want, at whomever I want! I mean, while I'm out receiving "training" and being taught to use my firearms "responsibly," exactly WHO will be protecting my students? The police? Ha! What do THEY know about stopping psychopathic marauders armed to the teeth? You better believe the maruaders aren't waiting to be trained! If all responsible gun-owners have to be trained than only irresponsible lunatics will be untrained! And you can all see where that will lead!
Look, I have been waiting a long time to receive permission to carry a gun in my classroom! You have no idea how often I've thought about shooting-- Protecting! I meant protecting!--my students. And now that the opportunity is just a short, 1,000 mile relocation away, I refuse to be thwarted by Kommandant Daugaard and his namby-pamby, training-obsessed sycophants in the state legislature! I say, No thank you, Sir! I will take my skills for pedagogy and wanton mayhem somewhere where they will not be straitjacketed by minimal restrictions! The Solipsist is going to Somalia! WOS, pack up the cats!
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Friday, March 8, 2013
Beat 'Em at Their Own Game
Did you see where Arkansas legislators have passed a law making abortions illegal after the twelfth week of pregnancy? They didn't just pass the law, either. They overrode a gubernatorial veto to do so. Of course, the 12-week limit goes against established legal precedent, is blatantly unconstitutional, and stands virtually no chance of surviving the inevitable judicial scrutiny, much less reaching the Supreme Court. Even most anti-abortion crusaders think the law unrealistically ambitious. Are those Arkansan lawmakers nuts?
Sadly, no. They know exactly what they are doing; they are doing precisely what anti-abortion activists have been doing for the last thirty-plus years. They are shifting the ground on which abortion battles are fought. They have not yet been successful in getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they have succeeded regularly in chipping away at its protections. A woman's right to choose is gradually succumbing to death by a thousand legislative cuts. In parts of this country, abortion is effectively illegal already, thanks to state and local laws on parental or spousal notification, "partial-birth" abortion, waiting periods, etc.--to say nothing of hostility towards abortion-services providers (including death threats and, in the case of George Tiller, murder). In this environment, pro-choice advocates will take solace when they succeed slapping down Arkansas' paleoconservative abortion restrictions. But when other lesser--but still onerous--restrictions are proposed or passed, the will and the resources to fight them will be that much more depleted.
It's a depressing scenario. I would suggest, however, that liberals should make lemons out of lemonade and adopt this same tactic toward left-wing causes. I'm thinking particularly of the gun-control debate. There is no chance of a state legislature successfully passing laws to completely outlaw gun ownership (indeed, very few people--liberals included--advocate such a total ban). But why not get sympathetic legislators to propose such legislation, the more implausible the better. Flood statehouses from coast to coast with all manner of handgun restrictions, from the relatively benign (background checks) to the utterly unrealistic (a law forbidding private citizens from owning any firearm more powerful than a musket). Make the gun lobby defend itself, make them fight numerous battles on numerous fronts. As the ground under the abortion debate has been shifted inexorably to the right, let's shift the ground beneath the gun-control debate leftward. It's worth a shot--no pun intended.
Sadly, no. They know exactly what they are doing; they are doing precisely what anti-abortion activists have been doing for the last thirty-plus years. They are shifting the ground on which abortion battles are fought. They have not yet been successful in getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, but they have succeeded regularly in chipping away at its protections. A woman's right to choose is gradually succumbing to death by a thousand legislative cuts. In parts of this country, abortion is effectively illegal already, thanks to state and local laws on parental or spousal notification, "partial-birth" abortion, waiting periods, etc.--to say nothing of hostility towards abortion-services providers (including death threats and, in the case of George Tiller, murder). In this environment, pro-choice advocates will take solace when they succeed slapping down Arkansas' paleoconservative abortion restrictions. But when other lesser--but still onerous--restrictions are proposed or passed, the will and the resources to fight them will be that much more depleted.
It's a depressing scenario. I would suggest, however, that liberals should make lemons out of lemonade and adopt this same tactic toward left-wing causes. I'm thinking particularly of the gun-control debate. There is no chance of a state legislature successfully passing laws to completely outlaw gun ownership (indeed, very few people--liberals included--advocate such a total ban). But why not get sympathetic legislators to propose such legislation, the more implausible the better. Flood statehouses from coast to coast with all manner of handgun restrictions, from the relatively benign (background checks) to the utterly unrealistic (a law forbidding private citizens from owning any firearm more powerful than a musket). Make the gun lobby defend itself, make them fight numerous battles on numerous fronts. As the ground under the abortion debate has been shifted inexorably to the right, let's shift the ground beneath the gun-control debate leftward. It's worth a shot--no pun intended.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Mr. Paul Goes to Washington--and Straight to My Heart!
I feel kind of dirty for saying this, but good for Rand Paul! The Republican senator from Kentucky, a libertarian and a Tea-Party favorite, yesterday took to the Senate floor to speak against the Obama administration's less-than-forthcoming responses to questions about its drone-warfare program. Specifically, he condemned the notion that administration policies seem to give the President legal authority to launch deadly drone attacks indiscriminately against anyone deemed to be a terrorist threat--even American citizens, even on American soil. Reasonable people can disagree about appropriate limits on executive authority when it comes to unleashing death from above on unsuspecting targets; nevertheless, the topic itself demands high-profile, public discussion.
What impressed me about Rand Paul, though, was less what he said than how he said it: He filibustered. And not one of these postmodern, virtual filibusters, either--the kind where senators basically promise to filibuster a piece of legislation in advance, thus requiring sponsors to round up 60 votes in order even to get a bill to the floor. No, Paul went old school: Before the Senate could vote on John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director (effectively a foregone conclusion), Rand Paul stood up and began to talk.
And he kept on talking.
And he kept on talking.
And twelve hours later he was still talking, before he finally yielded the floor and Brennan was, eventually, confirmed.
A purely symbolic action? Sure. But so what? That's what a filibuster is: A piece of performance art, a hopelessly outnumbered partisan's last stand against mathematically overwhelming opposition, a final raging against the dying of the light. The most a filibusterer can reasonably hope to achieve is a temporary reprieve before whatever business he or she seeks to prevent inevitably proceeds. But the power of the symbolism derives from the act of that one person stepping up to be the face of opposition.
Suggestions for filibuster reform periodically bubble up. Most go nowhere. The filibuster is a weapon of the minority, and though those in the majority would love to limit the minority's power, they recognize that in the future they themselves may need the weapon and thus refuse to weaken it. Still, one basic reform would provide no particular advantage to either party: Anybody who wants to filibuster should have to get up and filibuster, a la Rand Paul this week and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) a few years back. No shortcuts allowed. A Senator with serious objections to a piece of legislation should have the courage of his or her convictions and stand up and talk for a few hours. A small requirement for impeding the passage of undesirable legislation.
And if anyone doubts the power of a legitimate filibuster, consider this: A legitimate filibuster has gotten me to say complimentary things about Rand Freakin' Paul!
What impressed me about Rand Paul, though, was less what he said than how he said it: He filibustered. And not one of these postmodern, virtual filibusters, either--the kind where senators basically promise to filibuster a piece of legislation in advance, thus requiring sponsors to round up 60 votes in order even to get a bill to the floor. No, Paul went old school: Before the Senate could vote on John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director (effectively a foregone conclusion), Rand Paul stood up and began to talk.
And he kept on talking.
And he kept on talking.
And twelve hours later he was still talking, before he finally yielded the floor and Brennan was, eventually, confirmed.
A purely symbolic action? Sure. But so what? That's what a filibuster is: A piece of performance art, a hopelessly outnumbered partisan's last stand against mathematically overwhelming opposition, a final raging against the dying of the light. The most a filibusterer can reasonably hope to achieve is a temporary reprieve before whatever business he or she seeks to prevent inevitably proceeds. But the power of the symbolism derives from the act of that one person stepping up to be the face of opposition.
Suggestions for filibuster reform periodically bubble up. Most go nowhere. The filibuster is a weapon of the minority, and though those in the majority would love to limit the minority's power, they recognize that in the future they themselves may need the weapon and thus refuse to weaken it. Still, one basic reform would provide no particular advantage to either party: Anybody who wants to filibuster should have to get up and filibuster, a la Rand Paul this week and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) a few years back. No shortcuts allowed. A Senator with serious objections to a piece of legislation should have the courage of his or her convictions and stand up and talk for a few hours. A small requirement for impeding the passage of undesirable legislation.
And if anyone doubts the power of a legitimate filibuster, consider this: A legitimate filibuster has gotten me to say complimentary things about Rand Freakin' Paul!
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Just Another Day at Solipsist Central: Workplace Edition
STUDENT: Excuse me, could you help me on the computers?
SOLIPSIST: I can try.
STU: I'm trying to get on the regular internet.
SOL: The "regular" internet?
STU: Yeah, you know, I want to look at, like, job listings and stuff.
SOL: Oh, OK, let me see what you're doing.
(I go over to the computer he's using. There appears to be a Word document open.)
STU: You can close that.
(I close the document and click the Explorer icon. The college's homepage pops up immediately.)
SOL: OK, well, it seems to be working now.
STU: No, I want to get to the regular internet. This just takes me to the college's internet.
SOL: Oh. Well. Um. What does the "regular" internet look like?
STU: It says "Yahoo."
SOL: OK. Well, you see that rectangle? If you type "yahoo" in there, it will open up the regular internet.
STU: Really? (He sits down.) Capital 'y'?
SOL: Sure why not.
STU: (Types 'yahoo' and opens the regular internet.) Cool. You're awesome!
It's true. I am awesome.
SOLIPSIST: I can try.
STU: I'm trying to get on the regular internet.
SOL: The "regular" internet?
STU: Yeah, you know, I want to look at, like, job listings and stuff.
SOL: Oh, OK, let me see what you're doing.
(I go over to the computer he's using. There appears to be a Word document open.)
STU: You can close that.
(I close the document and click the Explorer icon. The college's homepage pops up immediately.)
SOL: OK, well, it seems to be working now.
STU: No, I want to get to the regular internet. This just takes me to the college's internet.
SOL: Oh. Well. Um. What does the "regular" internet look like?
STU: It says "Yahoo."
SOL: OK. Well, you see that rectangle? If you type "yahoo" in there, it will open up the regular internet.
STU: Really? (He sits down.) Capital 'y'?
SOL: Sure why not.
STU: (Types 'yahoo' and opens the regular internet.) Cool. You're awesome!
It's true. I am awesome.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Information Fatigue
If you go to the website of The New York Times today, you will see, plastered across the homepage in 19,000-point type a story about the death of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. If you continue onto the "Most Popular" tab, you will find, topping the list, an epic story of the search for the long-elusive Higgs Boson, the "God particle," the fundamental building block of all things thing-y. And as I browsed through these articles, I wrestled with a profound philosophical question: Do I care? Does anybody?
I mean, I suppose Hugo Chavez cares about his own death--or he would if he were alive. I guess it matters to Venezuela. I feel I SHOULD care about the Higgs boson if, as I understand, I'm made of them. . . or surrounded by them. . . or in danger of being swallowed by them--OK, I admit I don't get it. It's just been one of those days that makes me question the basic value of the news.
We're constantly hearing about the imminent death of print journalism. I resist this bleak diagnosis. But today, as I play the responsible citizen, performing my civic duty of making myself as well-informed as possible on all matters--and in the case of the Higgs, all FORMS of matter--I question how important any of it is. I think I need a reporter to step out of the frame and explaiin to me why this is important to me. Otherwise, I'm liable to throw up my hands one day and become one of those people who does nothing on the internet by seek out new and cuter cat videos. Those are made of bosons, too, right?
I mean, I suppose Hugo Chavez cares about his own death--or he would if he were alive. I guess it matters to Venezuela. I feel I SHOULD care about the Higgs boson if, as I understand, I'm made of them. . . or surrounded by them. . . or in danger of being swallowed by them--OK, I admit I don't get it. It's just been one of those days that makes me question the basic value of the news.
We're constantly hearing about the imminent death of print journalism. I resist this bleak diagnosis. But today, as I play the responsible citizen, performing my civic duty of making myself as well-informed as possible on all matters--and in the case of the Higgs, all FORMS of matter--I question how important any of it is. I think I need a reporter to step out of the frame and explaiin to me why this is important to me. Otherwise, I'm liable to throw up my hands one day and become one of those people who does nothing on the internet by seek out new and cuter cat videos. Those are made of bosons, too, right?
Monday, March 4, 2013
More Musings
In the movies, whenever a cop says, "Nothing to see here," not only is there something to see, but it's usually the coolest thing ever!
Sunday, March 3, 2013
Dunk the Magic Ball, Win a Million Dollars
Magic Johnson has offered a one-million dollar prize to the winner of the slam dunk contest at next year's NBA All-Star Game. He is doing this in an attempt to cajole Lebron James to participate in the contest. James, while highly proficient in the skill (art?) of hurling a ball with great force through a basketball hoop, has eschewed the dunk contest, in favor of more dignified All-Star weekend festivities, like the corn-dog eating challenge. (It's possible.) James is said to be considering the offer.
Now, I have a great deal of respect for Magic Johnson. He was a great player--one of those on the short list of "greatest ever" candidates. Moreover, when he retired from the game at the peak of his popularity after testing positive for HIV, he took the gutsy step of not hiding from the truth, not trying to disguise the fact of his condition with vague statements about his health or with claims that he wished to spend more time with his family. At a time when AIDS was an all-but-automatic death sentence and its victims were often treated as modern-day lepers, Magic became the face of resistance to the disease and a tireless advocate for medical research. In the years since, he has become a hugely successful businessman, and he has used his fame and fortune to promote entrepreneurship in minority communities. What I'm getting at is, Magic has done a great deal of good in his life both for the game of basketball and for society at large, and I suppose he has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his money. But still, aren't there better ways to throw away a million bucks?
It's not like Lebron James needs the money. And even though other participants in the contest may not be at a Lebron-esque pay grade, they're still athletes who get paid a one-percenter salary for playing a child's game. (The minimum NBA salary for a player with NO experience is over $470,000 a year.) Plus, the winner of the dunk contest right now already gets $100,000.
When I first read about this story, I assumed that Magic was offering, say, to donate $1 million to the charity of Lebron's choice if he (Lebron) participated in and won the dunk contest. (Presumably, he would make the same donation on the behalf of a player who beat Lebron.) Heck, he could even guarantee smaller donations to charities on behalf of all the participants. Such an offer would be in keeping with Magic's public image and would be a far more tasteful offer for Lebron to accept. The offer, as it stands, is an uncharacteristic PR misstep for someone who has made very few of them.
Now, I have a great deal of respect for Magic Johnson. He was a great player--one of those on the short list of "greatest ever" candidates. Moreover, when he retired from the game at the peak of his popularity after testing positive for HIV, he took the gutsy step of not hiding from the truth, not trying to disguise the fact of his condition with vague statements about his health or with claims that he wished to spend more time with his family. At a time when AIDS was an all-but-automatic death sentence and its victims were often treated as modern-day lepers, Magic became the face of resistance to the disease and a tireless advocate for medical research. In the years since, he has become a hugely successful businessman, and he has used his fame and fortune to promote entrepreneurship in minority communities. What I'm getting at is, Magic has done a great deal of good in his life both for the game of basketball and for society at large, and I suppose he has earned the right to do whatever he wants with his money. But still, aren't there better ways to throw away a million bucks?
It's not like Lebron James needs the money. And even though other participants in the contest may not be at a Lebron-esque pay grade, they're still athletes who get paid a one-percenter salary for playing a child's game. (The minimum NBA salary for a player with NO experience is over $470,000 a year.) Plus, the winner of the dunk contest right now already gets $100,000.
When I first read about this story, I assumed that Magic was offering, say, to donate $1 million to the charity of Lebron's choice if he (Lebron) participated in and won the dunk contest. (Presumably, he would make the same donation on the behalf of a player who beat Lebron.) Heck, he could even guarantee smaller donations to charities on behalf of all the participants. Such an offer would be in keeping with Magic's public image and would be a far more tasteful offer for Lebron to accept. The offer, as it stands, is an uncharacteristic PR misstep for someone who has made very few of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)