Skip to main content

Absolutes

As you might have heard, Obama won the election. He's president now which means he gets to write this thing called an inaugural speech. Obama's speech adhered to a few basic American values, enshrined in several famous documents, and wrapped up everything in a nice, 'looking out for the less fortunate,' sentiment. Pretty standard stuff for a Democrat recently reelected by a significant margin.

At no point in the speech does Obama lay out a vision for the arrest of all Republicans. It doesn't call for war crime tribunal for Cheney. It doesn't even call for the repeal of the second amendment. Okay, so let's keep this in perspective when we look at what the Republican reaction was:

"Bereft of outreach to the other side," intones Brit Hume.

"The words were code for a progressive agenda," scolds Darrel Issa. "I'm hoping the president will recognize compromise should have been the words for today..."

"...Shadowbox(ing) a strawman," offers Paul Ryan.

That last comment is a frequent conservative criticism of the President, the charge that Obama ascribes views to his opponents they do not actually have, a charge nearly as frequent as the carping over his use of the teleprompter. According to Ryan, no Republican actually resorts to name-calling, spectacle, and absolutism, the President is inventing fictional opponents with no relation to reality.

Hmm. Ryan, it's not too hard to find these 'straw-men':


I'll save you the trouble of watching the whole thing and go right to the part you've no doubt heard about already, Lapierre's embrace of the term absolutist, and anger that the term should be declared synonymous with extremism. Goldwater once famously said that 'extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,' so I guess this is a step forward in that respect. At least Lapierre seems to recognize social cost of being called extreme.

But his defense of absolutes in a democracy is interesting to me. At one point he states that absolutes, and here I guess we're supposed to understand absolutes as an absolute right to bear arms, are all that prevents a situation where two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner. Dressed up rhetorically it's easy to miss what Lapierre is admitting to. "We're the lambs," he suggests, "You all are the wolves. If we didn't have our guns, you would gobble us up." This is further evidence of the kind of thinking John Stewart lampooned earlier this month, the idea that the real purpose of guns is not sporting, or home defense, but the last refuge of the over-regulated, over-taxed regular American from the tyrannical 'other' that has somehow seized America. That's the right they are seeking to protect, right more important than children's lives, their right to veto democracy.

And just so we're clear about what types of weapons an absolutist considers fair game, check out this quote from Representative Ted Yoho: "On guns, (my constituents) were saying that the sentiment, when you read the Second Amendment, is that the militia had the same equipment as the military to protect them against the tyrannical government. I think it's more important today than ever, that we uphold our second amendment."

Our military is equipped with all manner of weapons: rifles, artillery, tanks, airplanes, and missiles. Just how well-armed does Lapierre's lamb need to be?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading Response to "A Good Man is Hard to Find."

Reader Response to “A Good Man is Hard to Find” Morgan Crooks I once heard Flannery O’Connor’s work introduced as a project to describe a world denied God’s grace. This critic of O’Connor’s work meant the Christian idea that a person’s misdeeds, mistakes, and sins could be sponged away by the power of Jesus’ sacrifice at Crucifixion. The setting of her stories often seem to be monstrous distortions of the real world. These are stories where con men steal prosthetic limbs, hired labor abandons mute brides in rest stops, and bizarre, often disastrous advice is imparted.  O’Connor herself said of this reputation for writing ‘grotesque’ stories that ‘anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.’ This is both a witty observation and a piece of advice while reading O’Connor’s work. These are stories about pain and lies and ugliness. The brutality that happens to characters …

Arisia 2019: Wrap Report

Arisia 2019 is over!

It’s back to the real world this week after an entire weekend in Arisia 2019. I go to this convention every year, but this one will definitely be special to me. For one thing, this is the year that felt, at least for a moment, like it wasn’t going to happen. If the debacle with the e-board wasn’t enough, there was the strike at the Westin. The convention felt slimmer this year for sure. A lot of people self-selected to not come this year and honestly with the smaller, more confined venue of the Boston Park Plaza, that was a decision enormously beneficial to my enjoyment of this con.
I had a blast. I was more invested in the panels this year because I wrote a portion of them. It’s one thing to go to a panel and listen for reading suggestions, or new ideas, or people to follow on social media, but it’s quite another to put together a panel of people to create a very specific conversation and then get to sit back to see how the discussion plays out. I loved that aspect…

All Words Are Made Up

The title of this post (and the panel I’m participating in for Arisia 2019) come from a random exchange between Thor and Drax in last year’s “Infinity War” movie. It’s what Thor replies when to Drax when the always literal-minded hero doubts the existence of Niðavellir its forge. It’s a funny throw-away line and the title of this post because I think there’s always been a bit of defensiveness on my part when I add some invented vocabulary to a story of mine.

The art and craft of inventing new languages has a surprisingly long history. A 12th century nun by the Saint Hildegard is credited with one of the first (sadly incompletely recorded) constructed language. There was also a period during the Enlightenment when the creation of ‘philosophical languages,’ meant to resolve age-old problems and reshape society, were the vogue. Gottfried Leibniz, for example, tried to a create a language that was logically self-consistent. The task proved too much for him, but that drive to bring the peop…