2011)

Posted on September 11, 2012 by wellsdc

The following was originally posted to Wells Law Blog on September 11, 2011, the tenth anniversary of 9/11. This year has not featured as many “retrospectives” and visceral re-livings of the tragedy, but it still looms large in our national consciousness. To those who lost loved ones on that terrible day, my thoughts are with you today. I cannot begin to imagine the pain you still endure. For myself, this post that I wrote last year still expresses my thoughts today fairly well, so I am sharing it again (slightly edited to remove snarky commentary specific to the 10th anniversary aspect):

Photo by NASA, via CNN.com

I mean, I really do not want to talk about 9/11. So far, I have managed to avoid it. I haven’t watched any TV in days, partly because of busy-ness, and partly to avoid the inevitable outpouring of visceral, voyeuristic retrospections on what does it all mean? and ten years later, what have we learned?

No thank you.

[snip]

In all seriousness, though, I wish we could just quietly commemorate the day for a moment and then go on about our business. I remember exactly where I was when I first saw what was happening, and I remember exactly what I did all day. I can sum it up for you quite succinctly: I watched TV and I tried to get drunk. That was it. I never felt any great sense of resolve. I felt pants-wetting fear. I am interested neither in commemorating nor reliving that time.

A Facebook status update is making its way around, that demonstrates the rather absurd lengths to which some people are taking their observance of this anniversary:

ON SEPTEMBER 11TH FROM 8:46 am -10:28 am … Everyone on Facebook should be silent, no postings or chats, from the time the first plane hit until the last building fell … Do this in memory of all who perished 10 years ago.

Needless to say, I am not going to do that. If other people want to observe a 102-minute moment of silence, go right ahead. I won’t even bother you. I intend to commemorate that time by not dwelling on it the way I dwelled on it in 2001.

I have ignored all of the “retrospective” news items on 9/11, even the ones I suspect I would find politically agreeable. I remember two pieces in the media from 2001 that have stuck in my memory, and they are the only two I care to remember:

Leonard Pitts We’ll go forward from this moment,” Miami Herald, September 12, 2001:

You see, the steel in us is not always readily apparent. That aspect of our character is seldom understood by people who don’t know us well. On this day, the family’s bickering is put on hold.

As Americans we will weep, as Americans we will mourn, and as Americans, we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.

So I ask again: What was it you hoped to teach us? It occurs to me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred. If that’s the case, consider the message received. And take this message in exchange: You don’t know my people. You don’t know what we’re capable of. You don’t know what you just started.

But you’re about to learn.

All I can think, reading this now, is of the opportunities we missed to follow, as the saying goes, the better angels of our nature.

“Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell,” The Onion, September 26, 2001:

The hijackers who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon expressed confusion and surprise Monday to find themselves in the lowest plane of Na’ar, Islam’s Hell.

“I was promised I would spend eternity in Paradise, being fed honeyed cakes by 67 virgins in a tree-lined garden, if only I would fly the airplane into one of the Twin Towers,” said Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, between attempts to vomit up the wasps, hornets, and live coals infesting his stomach. “But instead, I am fed the boiling feces of traitors by malicious, laughing Ifrit. Is this to be my reward for destroying the enemies of my faith?”

The rest of Atta’s words turned to raw-throated shrieks, as a tusked, asp-tongued demon burst his eyeballs and drank the fluid that ran down his face.

The view from Highway 71 heading into Bastrop, September 7, 2011. That’s not fog up ahead.

Dear sweet baby Jeebus, did we ever need to laugh that week.

I want to help the people who suffered and lost on that still-unimaginably terrible day. I do what little I can. What I do not want to do is relive that pain.

I also want to help the people who are suffering right now in my own city. As of yesterday, fires in Bastrop, Texas have destroyed 1,386 homes and taken two lives. I was in Bastrop this week. I doubt it is anything like Manhattan or DC was, but it is a place in dire need of help. I have seen an astounding capacity for strength, resilience, generosity, and selflessness out of the tragedy in Bastrop and other areas around Austin. This capacity was on display after 9/11, but that is generally not what we remember when we speak of commemorating that day.

9/11 was both a tragedy and a crime of epic proportions. Of that there is no doubt. But we have allowed it to define us for too long. On this most arbitrary of anniversaries, I sincerely hope that we can learn to remember without reliving, to help those who need our help now, and to honor what was lost by living our lives as best we can.

Rice University and that Place that Sells Chicken

Posted on September 10, 2012 by wellsdc

I just learned from an alert friend that Rice University, of which I am a proud alumnus, has an at-least-somewhat cozy relationship with The Chicken Restaurant That Shall Not Be Named. (That’s too wordy, on second thought. I’m referring to Chick-Fil-A.) As of this afternoon, the Rice Athletic Department lists Chick-Fil-A as a “Preferred Restaurant Partner.”

Screen Shot 2012-09-10 at 1.07.59 PM

I couldn’t find much else about a relationship between Rice and Chick-Fil-A, except one indication, via student reviews of campus food, that Chick-Fil-A is available on campus.

Screen Shot 2012-09-10 at 1.15.15 PM

This is what roughly five minutes of Googling revealed, anyway.

My involvement as an alumnus with Rice is pretty minimal. I send money now and then, but I’m not a “patron,” “booster,” or “donor,” so much as I am the guy who pretends to have a forty year-old rotary phone whenever the Rice Development Office calls. Nonetheless, I am not thrilled in the least with the school’s affiliation with Chick-Fil-A, which, as far as I am concerned, goes against everything I learned about tolerance and inclusion while a student at Rice. I matriculated at Rice as a spoiled, entitled, sheltered little shit whose life experiences mostly involved fellow WASPs. By the time I graduated, I was still a little shit, but my Rice experience allowed me to expand beyond everything else. Rice’s diversity accounted for about 90% of that. (I now know that Rice actually wasn’t all that diverse, but you have to think like 18 year-old me here.) I mean not only cultural, ethnic, racial, or religious diversity, but also diversity of lifestyles.

Rice is a private university. This means that it has considerable discretion to decide with whom it associates. No one disputes that. As a private organization, however, it also has considerable leeway to decide with whom not to associate. Are you listening, President David Leebron and Athletic Director Rick Greenspan?

BONUS: See Culturemap Houston’s guide to non-Chick-Fil-A chicken in Houston.

Remembering the True Meaning of Labor Day

Posted on September 3, 2012 by wellsdc

Labor Day is about taking a day off work and buying reduced-price consumer goods, if Google’s suggested search terms are any indication.

The actual history of Labor Day is a bit more interesting than that. It is also a bit more “socialist,” considering that much of the impetus for declaring a national holiday revolved around labor unions in the 1880’s and 1890’s. The U.S. Department of Labor has a historical summary of how the first Labor Day celebration took place in 1882, and how it grew from there:

Labor Day: How it Came About; What it Means

Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country.

***

The First Labor Day

The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday just a year later, on September 5, 1883.
In 1884 the first Monday in September was selected as the holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a “workingmen’s holiday” on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.

Labor Day Legislation

Through the years the nation gave increasing emphasis to Labor Day. The first governmental recognition came through municipal ordinances passed during 1885 and 1886. From them developed the movement to secure state legislation. The first state bill was introduced into the New York legislature, but the first to become law was passed by Oregon on February 21, 1887. During the year four more states — Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York — created the Labor Day holiday by legislative enactment. By the end of the decade Connecticut, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania had followed suit. By 1894, 23 other states had adopted the holiday in honor of workers, and on June 28 of that year, Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of each year a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories.

A story on “The Origins of Labor Day” from PBS, first published in 2001, presents a far-less rosy view of how the holiday came to be:

Conceived by America’s labor unions as a testament to their cause, the legislation sanctioning the holiday was shepherded through Congress amid labor unrest and signed by President Grover Cleveland as a reluctant election-year compromise.

The 1880’s and 90’s featured considerable labor unrest, and a number of prominent strikes figured into the decision to make Labor Day a federal holiday. A big one was the Pullman Strike of 1894, in which almost 4,000 non-unionized Pullman employees (the company that made railroad sleeper cars) walked off the job to protest pay cuts. They lived in Pullman, Illinois, a planned company town where the company owned almost everything, rent was deducted directly from employees’ wages, and Mr. Pullman ruled everything like a feudal baron.

The company fired hundreds of workers during an economic depression in 1893, then cut everyone else’s wages. It did not, however, lower rent, so people’s real income plummeted. A boycott of Pullman railroad cars resulted in 125,000 rail workers refusing to handle the company’s cars. The strike ended after President Grover Cleveland (in his second non-consecutive term in office) deployed 12,000 Army troops and thousands of U.S. Marshals to Pullman. Thirteen strikers were killed, at least two in direct confrontation with federal troops. This and other strikes created political pressure that led to Labor Day as a statutory federal holiday:

The movement for a national Labor Day had been growing for some time. In September 1892, union workers in New York City took an unpaid day off and marched around Union Square in support of the holiday. But now, protests against President Cleveland’s harsh methods made the appeasement of the nation’s workers a top political priority. In the immediate wake of the strike, legislation was rushed unanimously through both houses of Congress, and the bill arrived on President Cleveland’s desk just six days after his troops had broken the Pullman strike.

1894 was an election year. President Cleveland seized the chance at conciliation, and Labor Day was born. He was not reelected.

In a sense, the Labor Day holiday is a concession to the labor unions of the 19th century. As an interesting postscript of sorts to this story, Grover Cleveland didn’t even get his own party’s nomination in 1896. The Democrats chose William Jennings Bryan instead, who lost in the general election to the business-friendly Republican William McKinley. McKinley was assassinated in 1901, elevating his Vice President, Theodore Roosevelt, to the White House. Students of history know that Teddy Roosevelt did quite a bit to curb many of the excesses of government and industry and help workers.

Happy International Bacon Day!

Posted on September 1, 2012 by wellsdc

I don’t have time to post anything substantive, but I wanted to wish the internet a very happy International Bacon Day.

An Open Letter to America’s Hipsters

Posted on August 30, 2012 by wellsdc

Punkartkaietsi has created tutorials on how to make two kinds of bracelets (1, 2) out of expired pills that are still encased in their original blister packs. She used her expired ferrum pills for both craft projects. (via Laughing Squid)

This is it, hipsters of America. This is the moment that you Went Too Far. Please stop now. Your glasses look stupid, and the mustaches are even worse. Your poetry and your photography were never very good, and many, many engineers worked very hard to develop multi-geared bicycles to facilitate travel within urban areas. It’s over. Go take a shower.

(Cross-posted on Tumblr.)

Rice University, The Happiest Place on Earth!!!

Posted on August 20, 2012 by wellsdc

320px-Rice_University_-_Rice_statue_with_Lovett_Hall

If Willy’s statue could talk…

Maybe I am overselling it a bit.

The Princeton Review released its big book of rankings recently (h/t Bob), and West Virginia has regained its title as the best school for gaining 25 pounds due solely to beer and having to explain to your parents pictures of yourself naked and fellating an unfamiliar lacrosse team on Tumblr . Okay, that’s what I think “#1 party school means,” but what the hell do I know? I went to Rice.

Rice retained its title as the school with the “happiest students,” which must be a new development in the decade+ since I graduated. I mostly remember a bunch of neurotic nerds, but I was also pretty drunk during that four-year period.

This year’s rankings require registration at the Princeton Review‘s website, but I did find a description of Rice from last year’s announcement of the rankings.

Academics

A sunny and social place to get a prestigious degree, Rice University is Houston’s answer to the Ivy League. Consistently ranked as “one of the top universities of the nation,” Rice maintains a stellar faculty, a “vibrant research program,” and a “diverse selection of courses and departments.”

Okay, good education, but happiest?

Life

Rice University offers “the most amazing balance of serious education and an unbelievably rewarding personal life.” According to most undergraduates, “The college system is the key to life at Rice University,” through which students are assigned to residential communities for all four years of study. The cornerstone of the Rice community, “The ‘Hogwarts style’ housing system creates an intimate place to create lasting friendships, as well as friendly competition between different dorms.”

I graduated from college around the time J.K. Rowling was writing the first Harry Potter book, so the Hogwart’s comparison obviously was not around when I was there. Here’s the thing: Hogwart’s was not a happy place.

Student Body

While they look like a bunch of “outgoing, down-to-earth kids,” students reveal, “Everyone at Rice is, in some way, a nerd.” At this “geek chic” school, “Regardless of your interest and no matter how nerdy it might be now, you’ll definitely find someone else who shares your passion.”

***

“Rice genuinely has a diverse community that accepts people of all backgrounds.” Nonetheless, Rice students do share some common traits, generally described as “liberal for Texas,” low-key, and “good natured.” While most undergraduates are “studious,” they’re not overly serious. The typical student “rolls out of bed in a t-shirt” and is “willing to help you out in times of need.”

I think this is the key. The single most important thing uniting Rice undergrads, in my experience, was that we were all nerds in high school, and we all came to Rice to be among our own people. The Rice University of the 1990’s was a sociological experiment run amok: take 2,600-2,700 people aged 18-22, almost all of whom spent their high school years studying, at debate tournaments, or playing 8-bit video games, turn them loose on a campus in the middle of America’s fourth-largest city with no adult supervision, and see what happens. I could tell you tales of wildness, but my memory is fuzzy.

The Rice University Class of 2017 started classes today, as it happens. I wish them well. This is a different world (old-school TV pun intended) than the one in which I attended college. I have heard that the administration is more cautious, and that today’s students may not have the opportunity to learn firsthand that releasing twenty pounds of live crickets inside another dorm building is not, in fact, a funny prank. The old Wiess Commons is no longer standing, so there is no obvious place to post cutouts of German porn magazines in preparation for Night of Decadence. Still, I have no doubt that this new crop of kids will let their freak flags fly proudly.

To the students of Edgar Odell Lovett College, I have two bits of wisdom to share:

1. No matter how many times they paint the bathroom walls in the Commons, Cobb will still suck.

2. Rah rah, fuck.

Photo credit: ‘Rice University – Rice statue with Lovett Hall’ by Daderot (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Not performing well on the test, apparently

Posted on August 19, 2012 by wellsdc

I saw this on my Facebook feed the other day, and I’m still trying to figure it out. Are men supposed to drop everything, at any given moment, to look at breasts? That doesn’t seem like much of a way to build a productive society.

This is similar to the “gay test” meme, in which your choice of whether to look at a hottie or some other object apparently determines whether or not you are gay, with the implication that being gay is a Bad Thing.

I’m betting that more than likely you have seen some variation of the “Gay Test”. The basic premise of it is to take some sort of image of an attractive woman, point out something that is considered to be of less importance than attractive women (and apparently EVERYTHING ELSE is less important than an attractive woman) and declare that if a guy notices that other thing before noticing the attractive woman then it’s a sign that he is gay, which is apparently bad news.

Yea I’m sure you can see how this is jacked up on so many levels right? Don’t worry I’m going to go over them.

For the most part these “tests” depict women that fit the bill of being conventionally attractive. White, thin, young, blond, large breasts and butts, revealing clothing, possibly in a sexually suggestive position (of a notable exception are the ones that are based on anime where the women change from white to Asian, the hair can be any color under the sun, and the laws of probability, physics, and reasonable comfort are suspended when it comes to breasts).

Aside from the considerations of objectification, overt homophobia, and the simple fact that everyone has their own unique ideas of what is worthy of leering at, there could be any number of reasons not to stare. In the photo above, for all we know the guys in the background are old high school/college/war buddie reunited for the first time in years. No offense to Anonymous Breast Lady, but friendship carries a lot of weight. Besides, she’s facing away from them.

In the photo accompanying the “gay meme” article, the choice is between staring at a conventionally attractive woman in a bikini and an aircraft carrier. You can see might be the edge of a dock, but it sort of looks like the aircraft carrier just drifted over to the beach. Is it really so unusual to think “Hey, girl in bikini and holy shit an aircraft carrier just washed up on the beach!!!!!”

Or maybe I’m overthinking it.

American Angry at Being Denied the Right to Shoot Canadians

Posted on August 16, 2012 by wellsdc

Just when you thought American tourists couldn’t do any more to make us all look bad, you realize that when it comes to looking like fools, Americans are truly exceptional.

Meet Walt Wawra, a police officer from Kalamazoo, Michigan, who recently vacationed in Calgary, Alberta with his wife. But like any good American, he knows that we are never truly safe, anywhere. Walt wrote to the Calgary Herald of a harrowing experience:

I recently visited Calgary from Michigan. As a police officer for 20 years, it feels strange not to carry my off-duty hand-gun. Many would say I have no need to carry one in Canada.

Yet the police cannot protect everyone all the time. A man should be al-lowed to protect himself if the need arises. The need arose in a theatre in Aurora, Colo., as well as a college campus in Canada.

Two short paragraphs in, and we already have guns, implicit mockery of Canada, and the invocation of Aurora. This is not off to a good start.

Recently, while out for a walk in Nose Hill Park, in broad daylight on a paved trail, two young men approached my wife and me. The men stepped in front of us, then said in a very aggressive tone: “Been to the Stampede yet?”
We ignored them. The two moved closer, repeating: “Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?”

I quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, “Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye.” They looked bewildered, and we then walked past them.

From this description, only their tone was aggressive, whatever that might mean. Walt’s years as a cop must give him unique insight into interpreting Canadian tones. Beyond that, it is unclear what exactly happened. Perhaps the two men looked bewildered because Walt didn’t surrender his wallet out sheer politeness? Oh well – at least there’s no need to blow such a minor situation out of propor–

I speculate they did not have good intentions when they approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort, but rather concluded it was in their best interest to leave us alone.

Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another? Why then should the expectation be lower for a citizen of Canada or a visitor? Wait, I know – it’s because in Canada, only the criminals and the police carry handguns.

Goodness, I can see the cause for Walt’s fear. Stampedes kill people, and it probably ain’t a pleasant way to go! What is this Stampede that these nefarious ruffians spoke of, anyway?

Organized by thousands of volunteers and supported by civic leaders, the Calgary Stampede has grown into one of the world’s richest rodeos, one of Canada’s largest festivals and a significant tourist attraction for the city. Rodeo and chuckwagon racing events are televised across Canada.

Oh.

Walt, Walt, Walt. Maybe the problem isn’t park ruffians. Maybe the problem is that the Canadians aren’t the thugs here. Have you considered that? (Of course he hasn’t.)

Not at all surprisingly (or undeservedly), Canadians are not taking this outrage lying down. The situation became a Twitter meme for a time (#NoseHillGentlemen), and the Calgary Herald felt the need to confirm for readers that Walt Wawra’s letter was not a hoax.

Oh, and the two guys Walt thought he might have to shoot? They were event promoters giving out free tickets to Stampede. No wonder they looked “bewildered.” I hope the event organizers include something in the training for next year’s Stampede on how to approach skittish American tourists who seem to be wondering who needs to get got.

Another Shooting

Posted on August 15, 2012 by wellsdc

Some guy walked into the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council this morning and shot a security guard in the arm. He reportedly said something about the FRC first, although the FBI has not said exactly what. Reports indicate that the alleged shooter volunteered for a LGBT community center, and he was in possession of “Chick-fil-A materials.” The security guard, Leo Johnson, managed to disarm and subdue the shooter, and is expected to recover fully from his injury. Bravo to him for controlling the situation without escalating, and for generally being a badass. As of right now (8:00 p.m. CDT), law enforcement says that the shooter’s motives remain unclear.

LGBT organizations moved quickly to condemn the shooting:

We were saddened to hear news of the shooting this morning at the offices of the Family Research Council. Our hearts go out to the shooting victim, his family, and his co-workers.

The motivation and circumstances behind today’s tragedy are still unknown, but regardless of what emerges as the reason for this shooting, we utterly reject and condemn such violence. We wish for a swift and complete recovery for the victim of this terrible incident.

Atheist organizations did likewise:

While we disagree with the Family Research Council on nearly every issue, the debate surrounding the role of religion in the public sphere should be fought with reason and logic, not guns. We absolutely condemn this sort of senseless violence.

It really should go without saying that shooting sprees and attempted shooting sprees are never, ever, ever, EVER, EVER justified. Somehow that message does not get through. A common refrain after most shootings is that it was unpredictable, or that the shooter was mentally ill, or that we can’t possibly know the motivations behind it. Here, the alleged shooter went after a decidedly right-wing target, a rather rare (though not at all unprecedented) occurrence. The Family Research Council really does not support LGBT rights. So, of course, people on the right now blame LGBT-supportive groups for the shooting. While many on the right were focused on the injured guard and were actually allowing the investigation to proceed, not everyone was so patient:

“Today’s attack is the clearest sign we’ve seen that labeling pro-marriage groups as ‘hateful’ must end,” Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement.

That’s not going to happen. See, I happen to agree that people jumped the gun after the shootings in Tucson last year, even if many Republicans’ rhetoric made the argument plausible. If it was wrong to jump to conclusions then, it’s wrong now. Furthermore, the FRC is hateful, unless you believe that the precious religious fee-fees of one particular subset of the Christian faith are more important than the basic ability of LGBT individuals to live their own lives as their hearts and consciences dictate. I have neither the ability nor the desire to give the FRC the benefit of the doubt on its stances, and I can easily condemn the shooting without giving one iota of credence to their regressive, Bronze Age superstitions. (Note that I am disdainful of their policy positions. I have no hatred towards the actual people, but I do think they are wrong. Unlike sexual orientation, political opinions can change.)

And that’s really the thing: groups that stand in stark opposition to everything for which the FRC stands have unequivocally condemned today’s incident. I’m not aware of many other acts of violence of this type perpetrated against those who oppose LGBT rights, but here’s what I do know:

Approximately 1,296 hate crimes were perpetrated against LGBT individuals in 2007, including five murders, 242 aggravated assaults, and 448 simple assaults (via Human Rights Campaign, PDF file).
There were about 1,254 anti-LGBT hate crimes in 2009 (via CNN).
Between 2009 and 2010, the number of anti-LGBT hate crimes increased by thirteen percent, including twenty-seven murders (via USA Today). Based on CNN’s 2009 figures, that would be 1,417 incidents.

I am not suggesting that the FRC was behind any of these incidents, nor am I suggesting that the FRC’s rhetoric was what specifically inspired any of the assailants. There is similarly no reason to assume that today’s shooter was specifically motivated by any rhetoric of GLAAD, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or any other group that advocates for the rights and basic humanity of LGBT individuals. Still, these LGBT rights groups have condemned today’s shootings. What has the FRC ever done for victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes? Not much. I don’t have statistics for 2008, but for 2007, 2009, and 2010, I count 3,967 statements of support to hate crime victims that the FRC owes, and then the FRC and its supporters can justifiably criticize its opponents’ rhetoric.

One final note: I assume Leo Johnson was armed, yet he managed to tackle the shooter, disarm him, and detain him until police arrived, apparently without ever using his own weapon. Again, bravo to him. I wish him a speedy recovery.

Defense against tyranny

Posted on August 14, 2012 by wellsdc

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” –Not Thomas Jefferson (cf)

We are not supposed to talk about tragedies in anything other than the most treacly way for some undetermined period of time after they occur. I’m going to violate that unwritten rule of society today, because of something that happened yesterday, not too far from me. Some guy in College Station, Texas shot six people, killing two, before being killed by police gunfire. One of the deceased is a Brazos County constable named Brian Bachmann, who was reportedly serving eviction papers on the gunman when he opened fire from inside his house. The other victim was a 43 year-old “civilian bystander” named Chris Northcliff, who was the shooter’s landlord. You can look elsewhere for the shooter’s name. His family told the media that they knew it was just a matter of time before he snapped, but they never told authorities. He also loved guns a lot.

I am a vehement supporter of sane and reasonable gun rights. I’m not sure how many people actually want to ban all guns, but those people have zero chance of succeeding in today’s America, and that would be a terrible idea anyway. But people who advocate for unrestricted, or near-unrestricted, gun rights, have some issues to address. The right to bear arms is often cast in terms of the right to defend oneself, to defend one’s home, or as a defense against tyranny. It is entirely possible that the College Station shooter believed he was doing all three, or some combination thereof, in his possibly-warped mind (I’ll buy into this mental-health-treatment-not-gun-control argument when someone actually does something beyond talk about it). When you cast something as a struggle between liberty and tyranny, you cannot count on anyone interpreting “tyranny” the same way as you.

Police, in large part due to the First Rule of Policing, get rather wide discretion on the use of force in a specific situation. As the law currently stands, civilians do not. Whether or not this is fair is a debate that will likely rage on for years. What happened yesterday seems to be exactly what the more hardcore gun rights advocates, in promoting defense of self, home, and liberty, are talking about. It was also, by all accounts, an unspeakable crime and tragedy. See the problem?

Will College Station police now send SWAT teams to serve legal documents? It would not be unprecedented. Hopefully a revolution will not be started by gun-toting mouth breathers who can’t see past their own front door.

Cryptic Philosopher

Asymptotic to the Z-Axis

Category Archives: Culture