"The Gun is Good"

Has anyone (else) seen the movie Zardoz?  It's title character is an enormous flying head, apparently made from stone, which is God or at least represents God in yet another post-apocalyptic world of the kind we like to envision now and then.  Although it has an angry look, it floats about serenely, coming to rest eventually among a crowd of men riding horses and shouting its name.  From its mouth it more or less vomits firearms among its worshippers, bellowing "The Gun is Good!" among other things.  This is, as I recall, the opening scene.

The movie stars Sean Connery, wearing a very silly costume, and Charlotte Rampling "as a bit of tail" as Monty Python would say, and others.  Zardoz provides guns to men who keep slavish serf types in line while they grow food for a group of women and less than virile men (compared to Sean) who rule over them.  I forget why, or how, and most of the movie.  I am fond of the big stone head, however, which you may find easily enough via Google or some other browser.  It appears sad in some way, but very angry because it is sad, and so seems to simultaneously cry and roar ferociously.  I sometimes wish I could find a Zardoz mask to wear.

The head sticks in my mind, as does the phrase "The Gun is Good!"  It seems to express a sentiment which many hold today in our Great Republic, that Americans should own guns.  Why some of us have this sentiment is something I'd like to explore, however briefly, in this post.

I'm the owner of a shotgun, with which I shoot clay pigeons or discs.  I enjoy owning and shooting this firearm.  I even enjoy cleaning it, more or less.  I like the way it looks, feels and handles.  Based on these feelings, I suppose it would be appropriate to say that I find it "good" to own and use the gun, in a fairly limited sense.  The "good" I would refer to, though, would merely express my pleasure in its ownership and use.  It would be "good" in the same sense food would be "good" in my opinion if I enjoyed it.

No doubt other gun owners feel much the same about their firearms.  But the sentiment I refer to now is plainly more than that. 

Guns in America are not merely enjoyable.  Owning a firearm is considered a right, established in the Constitution, of course, but the fact that one has a right to own a firearm doesn't mean one should own one.  That, however, is what is now being claimed. 

The Second Amendment plays its part in the conception of the gun as good.  This is because it's thought that grants us a right which, unlike other rights, is not paired with an obligation or duty to others, but instead is derived from a perceived need.  The need is no longer associated with keeping us from hunger, so the gun isn't good because we need it to survive.  We need to have a legal right to own firearms in order to protect ourselves, not from others but from the government itself.  Owning guns has somehow become essential to our liberty.  The gun is good not just to put food on the table as once was the case, or because it may be used in hunting or sport.  It is good as laws limiting the power of government are good, to prevent tyranny.

By virtue of this conception of the Second Amendment, the gun has become a kind of totem.  It is a peculiarly American emblem of freedom.

Although many of those urging us to buy guns are associated in various respects with gun manufacturers, and so may be considered mere shills and salesmen, the "sales pitch" made isn't typical given the great status of the gun in our society.  We're not being told we should buy a gun because we'll enjoy having one as we can engage in sport shooting or hunting.  Those doing the urging aren't trying to exploit our sense of pleasure, or that is in any case not the focus of their efforts.   They tell us we should have guns to protect ourselves and our families.  Of course, we have a duty to protect our families.  Having a gun is good as well as it allows us to comply with that duty.

More than this, they tell us we should have them so that we may participate in the effort to stop assorted bad people who would shoot us; terrorists and the mentally ill, and perhaps even common criminals, all of whom have guns themselves.  Even certain members of law enforcement now claim that we should have guns, as we cannot rely on law enforcement to protect us fully, or can aid them by using guns before they arrive on the scene.

So, the gun is not a tool it's good to have, or something good to have so that we may use it to enjoy hunting or sport shooting.  It's good to have because it is associated with America itself, and the founding of America.  It's good to have because it protects our liberties and our families.  It's good to have because it will allow us to become active participants in the struggle against evil.  For these reasons, we should have guns. 

Are they good reasons?  As to the Second Amendment, I don't think it can be ignored that at the time of its adoption, the likelihood is that most everyone had guns and most everyone used them.  However, it's unlikely that, after the Revolution, they were used for the purpose it's being claimed led to its adoption.  They were probably used to hunt, for food, and to kill vermin.  They may have been used now and then during duels.  They could well have been used to kill Native Americans.  They were very useful in ways in which they're for the most part no longer used.  Far more useful than they are now.

Everyone having guns, the demand being at least as great if not greater than the supply, I doubt the Second Amendment served the purpose of motivating the acquisition of guns, as it's being used now.   To the extent there was a concern over government tyranny, I think the concern was related to the possible confiscation of guns already possessed, not the need to acquire more guns.  It was good to have guns, but not necessarily good to get more guns.

As to the need to protect ourselves, our families, and participate in the struggle against evil, one would think that in order to do so effectively something more than the mere possession of guns would be required.  We would have to learn something about using them and trained to use them well.  Those urging us to get guns don't seem inclined to urge us to do that, though certain of them want us to carry them around with us.  The lack of emphasis on responsible and efficient use of firearms is disturbing.  There also seems to be a lack of evidence that citizens owning guns, or even carrying them, prevents gun violence or inhibits evildoers.

If the gun is good as claimed, shouldn't there be good reasons for that claim?

The Christmas Conglomerate

Let's escape, however briefly, the vast Fun house of our national politics and the distorted images of human beings (the candidates) lurking there for our amusement and dismay.  It's time, once again, to consider--or at least appear to consider, or say we're considering--the True Meaning of Christmas.

Just what the True Meaning of Christmas (TMOC)  is may be a subject of some dispute.  Generally, though, it's thought to have something to do with Jesus Christ, or Christianity in one form of another, and may actually be about them for that hour or two many of us attend church services.  They of course are also subjects of some dispute, and have been from the beginning.

So the popular claim we should "put Christ back in Christmas" provides little guidance to those seeking or saying they seek TMOC.  It's unclear, though, that those who demand Christ be "put back" believe they require any guidance in this respect, and it's likely they're unaware of any dispute regarding Christ or Christianity.  Arius, Pelagius and the many others disputants are probably unknown to most of them.  We may be reasonably certain they've heard of Martin Luther and John Calvin, however, and some even of John Wesley.

Also generally, TMOC is thought to have something to do with peace on earth and good will towards men, possibly even by those who don't think Christ needs to be put back in Christmas or anywhere else.  In any case, TMOC is normally believed to have little if anything to do with Santa Claus or anything commercial, as such things, though they may have meaning in themselves and indeed are prevalent, even omnipresent, at this time, nonetheless lack True Meaning.  In fact, TMOC is said to be significant because it has nothing to do with them.

But it's hard to ignore what has become increasingly clear regarding Christmas, its celebration, iconography and mythology.  That is, that we humans have been involved in celebrating this time of the year for countless thousands of years and were doing so long before Jesus or even Abraham were heard of, and that those celebrations had much in common with what takes place now.  Christmas is a relatively new development with very old features.  Christmas is in fact a relatively new way of characterizing a very old tradition and celebration; one that was old when Christianity came to exist.

It's doubtful anyone living believes Jesus was actually born on December 25.  It was decided his birth should be celebrated on that date long after he died.  The early Christians were diligent, even ruthless, in their suppression of pagan beliefs, but could do nothing to alter the arrival of the winter solstice or the fact that it had been celebrated for many, many years as the time at which Light inexorably began its triumph over Dark, and the Sun born or reborn.

The winter solstice had long been considered for obvious reasons a time for celebration of Helios, Sol Invictus, Mithras and other gods associated with the Sun.  These gods were worshiped during Christianity's development in the Roman Empire; other Sun gods were worshiped outside the Empire, and before it.

Early Christian leaders and thinkers were no doubt aware of the fact that Mithras was claimed to have been born on December 25th, in the presence of shepherds and three kings.  The Church Fathers were disturbed by many things about the worship of Mithras, which included a sacred communal meal of bread and wine, the bread marked with crosses according to certain depictions of the ritual.  They were also no doubt aware the winter solstice was a time for gift-giving, for the Saturnalia in fact, when the roles of master and slave were reversed.

I'm not one who thinks that but for an accident or two, Mithras would have become universally worshipped in the West rather than Christ.  Males only were allowed to become initiates to his mysteries, and it seems clear women played a significant role in Christianity's triumph over its rivals.  I don't think we would be setting up figurines of Mithras and his bull, Helios, Cautes and Cautopates instead of manger scenes if things went a bit differently 1700 years ago.

So I doubt December 25 was chosen as the day of Christ's birth solely because it was the birthday of Mithras.  But as the winter solstice was a time for universal celebration in the society in which Christianity was born and, as it were, raised, it made considerable sense for the early Church to choose it as the time at which Christ's birth would be celebrated.  It was plainly a major social and cultural event already, with significant religious overtones; it was ideal for the purpose.  And like Christianity itself, Christmas took on aspects of pagan worship and culture.  In a sense, Christ was put into Christmas, or Christmas-time, long ago.  There was a time when Christ was new to the party; a latecomer.  The Christmas we know is a conglomerate, as is Christianity.

Helios/Sol Invictus/Mithras/Jesus and their predecessor gods have been part of what we call Christmas-time for thousands of years.  The religious tone of the time is well-established and unquestionable.  More interesting is the association of Christmas-time with "peace on earth, good will towards men."

That phrase is claimed to have been part of a statement made by angels to duly astonished shepherds during the Annunciation; the announcement of the birth of Jesus.  Here there is also a dispute, however.  The dispute is over the correct translation of what was said by the angels from the original Greek of the New Testament.  Pagans of the time thought the Gospels to have been written by persons whose Greek was very bad, but I don't know if that was truly the case or whether it would make a difference in this case.

It seems that more ancient versions of the text are believed by scholars to be more appropriately translated as "peace to those men with whom God/Jesus is pleased" or words to that effect.  Peace, therefore, is bestowed on those who have the good will of God/Jesus.  This is a different sentiment of the season than that with which most of us are familiar.  If we're to have good will towards men (instead of God having that good will), it may be we shouldn't have good will towards all men at Christmas-time, but only to those men who please God.  As the statement is made in connection with the birth of Jesus, it would seem those who please God are those who believe in Jesus as God.

If this is correct, TMOC wouldn't be good will, friendliness towards, or tolerance of all, but only of Christians.  A sobering thought for those of us who have believed good will was to be extended to all at this time of the year, but one that may make more sense given the context in which the Gospel was written.  Is this in fact the True Meaning?

Merry Christmas to all.  Perhaps.  But whether the good will we're supposed to feel at this time of the year is towards all or only a portion of humanity, we may be grateful, as the great Tom Lehrer sang regarding National Brotherhood Week, that Christmas-time doesn't last all year.

Fear is an Idiot

Fear is much on my mind these days, or I should say the prevalence of fear.  More specifically, the prevalence of fear here, in God's favorite country.

I suppose this is to be expected now, as we are in the midst of a seemingly endless political campaign for the presidency.  The great Sage of Baltimore, H.L. Mencken, noted that it is the goal of practical politics to keep the people alarmed, and our politicians, practical or not, are busy doing so, none so diligently than Mr. Trump.  Mencken also knew (and said) that people value security more than liberty.  Napoleon commented that the two levers which move mankind are fear and self interest.

One can of course find other quotes about fear with considerable celerity, thanks to the Internet.  But one which seems particularly appropriate at this time is the statement by Ambrose Bierce to the effect that fear has no brain, and is an idiot.

Bierce was no stranger to fear, having fought in several battles of the Civil War, including the battle of "Bloody Shiloh."  He seems to have been reasonably successful in keeping his wits about him during combat, but there's every reason to believe he was correct in concluding, as I think he did, that those overwhelmed by fear are thereby overwhelmed by stupidity as well.

These are fearful times; quite literally fear-full.  The fear seems to arise more and more from the random violence which results from, or is inspired by, terrorism.  If the fear is also caused by random violence otherwise inspired, though, it seems that fear is given less attention, particularly if that fear relates to the use of firearms by those who are not terrorists.

The surplus of fear  may be due to the fact that in the politics of the moment, simple answers are sought, but not sought as much as simple characterization of problems.  Good and bad, black and white, Muslim and Christian, Americans and immigrants.  It's desirable to characterize these problems in a simple manner as by doing so our politicians--and media--may better maintain that they may be answered simply as well, and whine when they aren't answered quickly.  Simple answers to complex problems are stupid answers, but stupid answers appeal to the fearful, fear being, as Bierce noted, an idiot.

Sadly, among the Republicans, many seem enamored of a man whose political ability and acumen (for all I know he is a very able businessman) seem to me equivalent to that of the know-it-all one may always find at the local bar, and who is likely to respond much as that know-it-all would to questions after perhaps three drinks.  That is to say, loudly and without thought.  His popularity may be attributable to the fact fear has no brain. It's to be hoped that such an individual won't become president, but fear being an idiot anything is possible.  It's disturbing that it seems many understand him to be dangerous, but it doesn't seem to matter.  It must be wondered whether Mencken was correct about democracy and that we will, inevitably, eventually elect a moron to the presidency. 

That fear is an idiot may work to the advantage of our politicians, but provides us with little hope of resolving the problems we face.  It may instead lead to more problems, or rather an increase of problems of the kind we experience.  Events such as that which took place in San Bernadino seem to have at least one predictable result; the increase in the sale of firearms.

The possession of firearms isn't, to me, objectionable in itself.  But I think when fearful people have firearms, it's likely they will use them and use them ineptly, accepting as I do Bierce's description of fear.  I question whether those who buy firearms out of fear will go to the trouble of learning how to use them well and safely. I also think it likely that angry people will use them if and when they can, if they're very angry.  Anger may be an idiot as well.

FDR famously noted in those bleak times that we had nothing to fear but fear itself.  Sadly, fear itself gives us good cause to fear in these all too interesting times.

Anachronism, Stupidity and Futility

Certain of the more self-righteous and, I think, tiresome students (and professors?) at some institutions of higher education in our Glorious Republic, who evidently are not preoccupied by their studies, have taken to demanding that the names and statues of significant historical figures be removed from sight.  At Princeton, for example, the name and likenesses of Woodrow Wilson offend them; at The College of William and Mary and apparently elsewhere, that of Thomas Jefferson should be purged, or so it's urged.  They were racists, you see.

It must be wondered whether The College of William and Mary should be required to change its name as well, as it's quite certain that both William and Mary were racists under the current definition. The George Washington University, of course, is particularly problematic. 

I should note that I'm not very fond of either Wilson or Jefferson.  Wilson was a pompous ass in many respects, an egotist and a pretentious one to boot.  Lloyd George and Clemenceau made him look like a fool at Versailles nonetheless.  His messianic conceits so annoyed those in Congress that most of his plans came to naught. By all rights he should have resigned due to his incapacity after his return to the United States, but instead allowed his wife to act as President.

Jefferson was without question a man of genius, but he was also without question a hypocrite of the highest order, who did his best to rule as a tyrant once he obtained the presidency.  Although himself adept at defamation, he objected to criticism of any kind, and at one point even sought to change the law so that truth was no defense to libel.  His conduct in the matter of Aaron Burr was reprehensible for its disregard of the law.

It happens they were also racist.  But while I dislike Wilson and Jefferson (and racism) I dislike anachronism as well, except sometimes in works of science fiction.

What is interesting about this interest in erasure of references to figures of the past is that but a short time ago, relatively speaking, all or most people were racist.  Many still are.  If all who were racist are unworthy of honor, then it's arguably the case that nobody except some of those who have been alive in the past 50 years are worthy of honor, because only certain of those people would not be deemed racist by those who employ that term now.  Though it may be a surprise to those who seek to purge college campuses at this time, racism isn't exclusively European in origin.  All peoples have, at one time or another, thought strangers inferior and contemptible.

So those qualities of Wilson and Jefferson which cause students to fume at this time were likely shared by everyone in recorded history, except some of those of the current generation and possibly some of the last generation. The question arises:  Is it appropriate to condemn all those who have ever lived, or at least not to display them on university grounds, except those who lived recently, because they failed to believe as some of us do now? 

Curiously, it's probable that those who presume to judge those of the past by the standards of the present wouldn't dream of judging those living now by any standard.  They've been taught not to judge.  At least, they've been taught not to judge those living now because they believe or think differently.   Differently, that is, from those who are European or of European descent, whom the naive believe are the only racists ever to live on this planet.

There's apparently something about the dead that renders them subject to judgment due to their failure to recognize what has only been recently recognized by we the living.  And we came to recognize the evil of racism only after a long, hard and continuing struggle, usually by those who are dead as well.  We have no cause to be self-righteous; our enlightenment isn't our achievement, and it's fundamentally unfair to blame those who didn't have the benefit of our knowledge for failing to have our knowledge.

It is stupid to apply the standards of the present to the past because that is simply to fail to know and understand the past, thus dooming ourselves to repeat it, as Santayana put it.  It is futile to do so because it achieves nothing of significance now.

Wilson and Jefferson and the billions of others who have lived are not honored, or even thought of, for their racist views if they are thought of at all.  Those who do think of them for any extended period of time are most likely professors and students, who are of course exempt from criticism being the critics themselves and presumptively free of racism.  Taking names off buildings and pulling down statues won't make anybody less racist or more tolerant, as satisfying as those acts may be to those who deal in appearances and little else. 

"In Times of War, the Law is Silent"

Cicero, in his speech normally referred to as Pro Milone, spoke the words which serve as the title to this post.  Well, being a Roman of the first century B.C.E., he actually said "inter arma enim silent leges" or at least that is how his words have come down to us.  The speech was given and the words were spoken in favor of the Roman politician Milo (Titus Annius Milo) and against Publius Clodius Pulcher (not to be confused with Publius Claudius Pulcher, who as I've mentioned before I admire for his treatment of the sacred chickens).

The speech was given during a time when both Clodius and Milo were inflaming the Roman mob, driving it to a most impressive spree of violence in favor of the political factions they represented.  They also hired armed mercenaries to threaten one another, and we're told gladiators were brought to sessions of the Senate to cow senators into compliance.  Clodius was eventually killed, and Cicero defended Milo, who was charged with the murder of Clodius.  In his defense, Cicero did not bother claiming Milo was not involved in the killing, and instead claimed that it was necessary, and lawful self-defense, in a time of emergency.  In fact, "war" wasn't referred to by Cicero, but arms were (arma) and in Latin silent doesn't mean "silent" but rather "mute."

Cicero himself, while consul, with the approval of the Senate condemned Roman citizens to death without trial during the time of the Cataline conspiracy against the Roman Republic.  No doubt he felt the law was silent at that time as well. 

It must be acknowledged that since these words were spoken, they and the rule they state have often come to mind and been relied on by those in power (and others) whenever there is armed conflict and the belief is that laws applicable in times of peace must stand mute until the conflict is resolved.  That was the case after 9/11, and long before that.  It's likely that will be the case again regarding the terrorist attacks in Paris.

Do these attacks indicate that this is a time when law, or some laws, should be silenced?  This should be decided as soon as possible, I think.  Otherwise, response to the threat will be haphazard, and it's likely nothing will be achieved of lasting effect.  Our leaders will end up doing what they always do, and blame one another for the lack of success while people die.

Anyone with due regard for the rule of law must find the claim made by Cicero to be disturbing.  I for one am disturbed, but not merely by the fact that the claim, if true, allows for the waiver of the laws, but because such waiver--a deliberate failure to enforce or honor the law--may actually be necessary, or at least prudent, in extreme circumstances.  There is a danger that those who waive the law may do so unwisely, or solely for their own benefit, or as part of scheme of oppression, or maliciously  There is also a danger that a failure to waive legal restrictions may lead to grievous harm.

It seems clear that Cicero didn't mean that all laws are silent in times of conflict or emergency, and there is no reason to believe that is how the statement should be interpreted.  But depending upon the nature of the emergency, it's unsurprising and not necessarily wrong if certain laws are deemed not to apply in certain circumstances.  Whether that should be the case and, if so, what laws are to be disregarded, is a matter of the greatest significance and should be the subject of careful consideration.

It's unlikely there will be careful consideration, though, or indeed intelligent consideration of any kind, with respect to any response.  Responses to attacks of this kind are visceral, and this also is understandable.  They cannot be tolerated or justified; they must cease.  Perhaps the world at large will finally understand, now,  the magnitude of the evil of these primitives and their death cult and make a unified effort to rid us of them, setting aside selfish concerns and quests for power.

If it is decided that laws should become silent, it should be recognized that this should be the case only because a crisis is of such significance that it should be deemed war or the equivalent of war.  Is that a commitment we wish to make?  It seems we've been putting that off, at least as to the current threat, and possibly as to others if by war we mean a national devotion to the conflict. If we are willing to commit to it, what will we do in pursuing the war?

The tendency is to demand that the threat be destroyed through the use of "any means necessary."  This is a thoughtless response, and generally merely indicates we don't know what means to employ.  Thus we've sanctioned torture in the past, and some still do and will, despite the fact that it's usefulness (if not its morality) has been questioned even by those who have not hesitated to make war, like Napoleon.  Sometimes, it seems, we're impressed by responses only if they're ruthless.  But it shouldn't be the ruthlessness of a response that is valued.  It should be valued only if it is effective, and a thoughtless response is bound to be ineffective.  One remembers the boastfulness behind the "shock and awe" tactics employed not all that long ago.  Those tactics seem to have had no useful result.

So chest pounding and loud, flashy tactics will do us little good.  If this is the great fight of our times, then it should be treated as such, and a sustained and devastating response made, not a piecemeal one.  However, it's doubtful there will be such a response unless it becomes a coordinated effort by all nations with an interest in the area, and that for good or ill should include those nations which maintain they are Islamic.  If they refuse to contribute, though, the response must still be made.  Either that, or we continue to be subject to such attacks, doing the best we can to avoid them.

What of the law in all this?  Well, it's unclear just what laws would be subject to consideration and waiver at this time, except those applicable to privacy and those related to the conduct of war and the treatment of prisoners.  We've already evidenced a disregard for laws impacting those issues, though, without putting the nation on a war footing.  However, it's conceivable that others, such as those prohibiting discrimination, would come under scrutiny.   Is there such a thing as "profiling" at a time of crises?  is there a legal obligation to take in refugees?  To what extent are the boundaries of sovereign nations to be honored?  Should we restrict or prohibit immigration?

If this is the great fight of our times, then it is inevitable that laws will be found to conflict with war aims.  We must be prepared to address that conflict as well.  But all this comes into play only when we've decided what our response will be.

For a response of such magnitude that it will bring the law into scrutiny and require a national commitment, it seems clear to me that Congress must be involved.  That would be a "real war", and it is the Congress which has the power to declare a real war, though it has shirked this terrible duty often in the past by granting war powers to the Executive.  All our elected representatives should be held responsible for such a decision.