Jeremiah Blues 2017.10

So, here we are once more. From the unlikely hyper-real world of Las Vegas, a land of entertainment and escape, we are once again confronted with the definition of terrorism.  With no "other" here, we are left with only one of us, as definitively us as one can be, with no clear political motive.  Response to the 2016 St Cloud "attack" was a strong assertion of "terrorism,"  even though this individual had no explicit ideological motive.  The result was no fatalities and only minor injuries, although people expressed that they would not go to the mall anymore.  This would have clearly been just a crime, perpetrated by a lone-wolf deranged individual, if not for the otherness of his being.  So now, without otherness, we are, predictably, hearing about a mass-shooting, but not the T word.  It seems, however, that the scale of an action, even without ideological or political motive, can elevate an event into terrorism.  If a non-fatal knife attack can be terrorism, this certainly is.  The fact that someone could shoot 600 people, in an expectably innocent location, was unthinkable. Now it's not and we have to recognize how far gone we are before the next one happens - and it's bigger.

The responses today were completely predictable, from "Hillary's attack of the 2nd Amendment is wrong," (without any reasons given), "there's nothing you can do to stop this," to "it's the price of freedom." Well, that's some great freedom we have.  We are clearly paying too much.  Not all rights are equal: when they come into conflict the right to life must come first, it is a higher right, without prominence no other rights can even be sustained. Furthermore, there are, of course, things that can be done.  It is indeed the job of government, the very reason for its existence, to provide reasonable protection.  That is why we have everything from local police to the military. [1] Certainly, you can't stop all crime (although we still take proactive measures), but there has to be attention to protection, and mitigation, of mass public events. As Robert Reich stated: "This is a crisis of public health and safety."  This event clearly refutes the pro-gun arguments, or myth, that you only need good guys with guns to shoot back.  There was no possibility of that helping here (and the band even had guns).  Even police were not equipped to fire back, it would have required a sniper of supreme skill. Only preventative measures pertaining directly to firearms can help mitigate such future events. The hypocrisy of the right is astounding.  No expense is too great to protect us from them, you know, the real terrorists, no matter how small the event.  Walls, travel bans, trillions of dollars on wars that cost millions of lives (theirs, not ours) - it's all necessary.  We can lock ourselves in, but none of that makes us safer, because the danger is already here - in us.

It's time the government does its job serving the people.  And stops being a hostage to that portion of Americans who worships guns as a religion, as they place their empty, mythical, "rights" above actual reasons, debates, and practicalities.  If the country is serious about protecting us from terrorism, then gun regulation has to be a part of that.  Otherwise this whole elaborate structure of keeping America safe is just a sham.

Regarding the CBS executive and her inappropriate post, she's probably not a person one wants to defend. However [2], her classless response reminds one of another high-profile tweeter.  But, in this case CBS fired her, so there is thankfully a system to compensate. Despite the poor sentiment, deliberately unsympathetic and not retaining the humanitarian position she would apparently hope to hold, an interesting consideration emerges.  One is responsible for the world they create, even if they become victims of their own negative effects.  These terror events are not precisely equal, there are degrees of difference.  As horrific it as this one has been, the Sandy Hook event contained a further dimension that I don't think needs explanation.  And, this event may be a layer removed from a concert filled with teenage girls.  It seems likely that the majority of attendees do support extensive, or unlimited, gun rights, it is a view consistent with the country subculture. I would seriously be interested in statistical information on that. Additionally, we have an extreme example of white on white violence here. What if this concert was a rap one where a gang shootout result in similar deaths?  Would anyone on the right care? Or would they say that the moral decadence of that subculture was to blame?  What if it was an NRA convention?  Surely the dominant views of the participants play a role when they are directly relevant to the outcome.

In terms of other obnoxious responses, Alex Jones has once again called this a false-flag event.  At least he's consistent. But, it's odd that before he made such ridiculous accusations as an attack on the president (as head of the deep state).  Now he seems to be ranting against the deep state because of its detachment from the presidency (and his savior) But, Scumbag Jones can't have it both ways. Either the president has control of government, or he doesn't. That doesn't change because one approves of one and not the other.  However, I think he might be somewhat right even in his ludicrous delusion.  If the deep state perpetrates events to manipulate the population, it will certainly happen during conservative administrations as much as liberal ones.  And, I would wager any draconian moves would really happen in a conservative era.  The smoke and mirrors show is enacted to place the blame on the left  (look at how well the gun industry did under Obama, for instance, as opposed to now).  If Jones wants to fight the deep state, he's on the wrong side. But, he doesn't. He just wants to promote his own brand of authoritarianism.

[1] Of course, that's only a minor function of their existence. Preserving power structures, it could be argued, are their rai·son d'ê·tre.  However, we should still try to get these entities to provide service to the citizenry that maintains them.

[2] After hearing the mental contortions of conservatives trying to defend Mnuchin's use of taxpayer money when their own party and current administration are (in theory)  built upon ending such corruption, as well as Trump's "very fine people" remarks, it seems that everyone is defend-able these days.