“Why why why?”
Gentle reader need not actually consult this link from the Times of India, though if she reads mass media at all, she will be inured to such material. Delhi, the centre of India’s vast bureaucracy, had already the reputation of being, too, the “rape capital of India.” But gang rape in a moving city bus is perhaps a new development. Note further, young ladies, that having a courageous boyfriend with you is no use when the assailants are wielding iron pipes. Oremus.
And it is not just rape, in the nexus of the “liberated” attitudes that have overthrown India’s erstwhile sexual inhibitions. As an Indian lady said to us a few years ago, while we watched rhesus monkeys at play by a boulevard in that city, “I prefer the monkeys. They don’t leer at you like the Delhi men.”
The monkeys have their own little foibles, however, & tourists should be warned to keep their distance. They are surprisingly dexterous, & quick, & will mug you for any food you might be carrying, while you are still babbling, “Look, he is begging! How cute!” They bite viciously, when resisted, & will go for the face of a person to whom they have taken a dislike. On the plus side, few are rabid, & the bacterial infections can usually be cured with conventional antibiotics.
For the homeowner in Delhi, caged as in a zoo while a tribe of these macaques cavort in his garden, the answer is to hire a much larger monkey, such as a grey langur, to urinate around the perimeter. The smell is intensely acrid, but it keeps the smaller monkeys away; until the smell fades, & the operation must be repeated.
That Delhi’s municipal administration has utterly failed to deal with the monkey problem, despite extravagant trapping campaigns, could go without saying. (Move them out of the city & they come right back.) And India’s new Green movement wants to give the monkeys rights. So far as we know, no one has proposed to give them corresponding duties. Hell, most monkeys can be taught to draw an “X,” why not give them the vote? (We might even train them to vote consistently for some fascist, anti-environmental party, that will have them all exterminated.)
“Our monkey friends lack malice,” said this (Catholic) Delhi friend. “They have ‘invincible ignorance’,” she added. They do what they do from the purest motives of self-interest, in pursuit of food, sex, & the like, including shelter for they nest in stolen human clothing. In that sense, they are exemplars not only of Darwinian eugenics, but of Smithian free market economics. Humans, by contrast, are unreliable & unstable. They cannot even do “self-interest” consistently. Instead of behaving as “rational actors,” pursuing “enlightened self-interest,” humans do things that make “no sense at all” — unless perhaps on the theory that, through the rough & tumble of natural selection, we are gradually evolving into urban monkeys.
Whether in India or America we have developed this neurotic tick, often blamed on moral notions engrained in our species, which have served their evolutionary purpose & should now be cast off. We read the latest horrific report — gang rape on transit bus, massacre in kindergarten — then ask, “Why why why?” But the feminists of the ‘seventies had an answer for that: “Pourquoi pas?”
Alternatively, it is a subject with which “traditional” Christians, or “traditional” Hindus, should have no difficulty. Indeed, all religious traditions are by force of circumstance (they must bear the weight of the human condition) prepared for the assault of this “Why why why?” The Hindu conception of Dharma — shared by Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs — is of a divine righteous order, distinct from all the gods of any pantheon & commanding the obedience of all men, in their myriad walks of life, in reverence according to ritual & station. It might be compared with our “Natural Law.” The antonym Adharma describes the terrible condition of disobedience, through acts that are unnatural & imbalanced, & therefore evil & wicked & wrong — & which will certainly require rectification, purification, & re-balancing, in accordance with the Shastras.
Humans, uniquely among the animals, are capable of something called Evil, a transcendental phenomenon. (Paradoxically, this makes them also capable of Good.) But in an environment “progressively” freed from the restraints of transcendental religion — which acts to restrain evil impulses not only through the individual conscience, but also through external social pressure, & a legal order founded on Divine Commandment — they will do what they do do.
Radical Evil has been around for some time: since Adam, according to the Biblical narrative; since before, as Milton points out. It is not something new on Delhi buses, or in Connecticut schools. The new thing is our pathetic inability to deal with it. For we can’t really deal with anything whose very existence we doubt; or refuse to believe even when we see it. (“Why why why?”)
On the morning of 11th September 2001, even the progressive types of our acquaintance suddenly recovered this transcendental concept. What they saw that morning was irreducibly evil. But by Christmas, in almost every case, they had got over it. The problem then became technical again. It was “Bush.” Get rid of him, and the problem with those Islamists is solved.
Mike Huckabee impressed us (not for the first time) in a couple of items from Fox News a reader kindly ping’d. After the Connecticut horror, he had the temerity to observe that people who had spent the last thirty years trying to remove God from every visible place in America were now theatrically asking, “Where was God?” Huckabee answered this question by noting the behaviour of several Christian heroes at Sandy Hook, including one modest schoolteacher who, from presence of mind, was able to save every child in her classroom, by the sacrifice of her own life.
God is present or absent, in us. He is present in the Saints, & in every act of human decency & unfeigned kindness, by Christian or by another. His absence is conversely marked by indecency, by faithlessness, & in the extreme, by the behaviour of real devils in human flesh. (Next question?)
Other old political pros are using the emotion of the moment (“never waste a crisis” as the leftists say) to grandstand for gun control. The effect of this is to disarm the very people who could put a prompt stop to such massacres. Instead we wait for the police to arrive, while the devil continues, gunning people down at so-many-a-minute. This is why, around the world, where gun control has tightened, gun-related crime has increased, often quite significantly: for now the devils are assured that their intended victims will be unarmed. (The legality of their own weapons tends not to be a concern with them.) This is why mass murders are already almost invariably performed in officially gun-free environments, such as schools & shopping malls in liberal jurisdictions.
The “liberal mind” is undistracted by such prudential considerations; its vanity is incurious about the payment to be made in other people’s lives. The point is for the liberal to make a lewd display of his own pretended virtue, that will be applauded by those easily conned. Even the cops are replaced by “violence awareness programmes” for the kiddies — consisting of yet more indoctrination for that fatuous worldview, in which evil is an artefact of short funding for progressive social schemes. Each advance prepares the ground for another. “Liberalism,” in this contemporary sense, is a cancer eating away at the body politic, rendering it defenceless against its own metastasis, & flourishing until the body dies.
In Delhi, as in Sandy Hook, “the people” do grasp there is something wrong, perhaps even seriously wrong. But cause & cure are alike beyond them. Outrage over the transit-bus gang rape is evident through the Indian media. But as in the West, the thinking in India becomes focused on the technical fix, & away from wrestling with intractable human nature. This is a big marketing break for purveyors of the sort of video recorders we’ve spotted on the ceilings of buses & trolleys in the Greater Parkdale Area. These cameras can’t stop anything, but they provide an important supplement to the spontaneous iPhone coverage, so we can all see what happened on the evening news. And we will all be demeaned by it.
No one has defended the behaviour of Adam Lanza. His mother may have loved him, but he shot her anyway. The strange “survivalist” culture in which she participated is itself a response to increasingly plausible fears of an impending social & economic meltdown. When told to register or surrender their guns, such people will hide them. Keep pushing them, & the blowback will occur.
It’s not just guns. America is more copiously supplied than India with shrinks & mad doctors, for the time being; & with psychiatric protocols themselves rapidly “changing with the times.” Thanks to broad public interest in pop psychology, which offers cures for the guilt once associated with sin, we get a range of truly irresponsible answers to that “Why why why?” question. We have, for instance, read some appallingly misinformed blather about “autism” & Asperger’s syndrome. One would think those suffering were witches. Today, of course, we don’t burn witches, the way they did at the height of the Reformation. We have more efficient means. Modern science seeks ever more “creative” biological interventions, such as new tests to predict autism, that will help moms pick which children to abort, the way they do already with Down’s syndrome babies, or unwanted girls. Oremus.
In fact, the studies we’ve seen show that the autistic are no more prone to violent or any other sort of crime than the rest of the population, & possibly less so. They may have wrangs, usually harmless, when their habits & the routines around them are disturbed. The outpouring is more likely to reflect pain in themselves, than hatred for some “perpetrator.” The notion that they are indifferent to affection is a lie. They may be fearful of strangers, may shy from intimate contact, express themselves in ways by which strangers are dismayed; but those who love them learn to understand. Like every other kind of human being, they benefit from a loving & secure home, indeed desperately crave it.
Conversely, crime correlates quite spectacularly to broken homes, especially fatherless homes, in one of which Adam Lanza happened to reside. (We gather it was an acrimonious divorce, that left both children traumatized, but Adam positively unhinged, alone with his mother in a gleaming high-tech mansion, her trophy from post-modern family law.)
That information is no use, however, to a generation taught that marriage is neither Sacrament nor trust, but a right & an entitlement like every other gift of Nanny State — a contract between “two persons,” that now comes with stipulated buy-out arrangements. Two generations have been taught, by both instruction & example, that inconvenient children may be discarded. Subtly or unsubtly every child learns that he is there if “wanted”; that he is potentially in the way of an adult “relationship” that trumps his own wellbeing; & that he may suddenly become another disposal problem. This is what the destruction of marriage has achieved: unloved people spreading their unlove; & sex expressing itself as pure animal hunger & aggression.
Indeed, for the state, the whole fiscal point of “traditional” marriage — one man & one woman, for life — was to limit claims on the welfare rolls. Even if cynically, the older politicians grasped the connexion. Progressive politicians have been overcoming this “uncaring” backwardness through legal & social engineering, with ever greater enthusiasm. For they have discovered that single moms, & vagrant dads, welfare dependents, & even the criminal class, vote overwhelmingly for progressive politicians, & respond like Pavlov’s dogs to “make the rich pay.” They benefit directly from the destruction of the social & moral order. It secures their monopoly on power.
What can one add, besides, “We have seen the past, & it works.” It is meanwhile incumbent upon every reactionary soul to explain why it worked, to people who may by now be too far advanced in moral & intellectual idiotization to understand a word they say. Who have become in effect voting monkeys, “selecting” for their own extinction.
Oremus.
Whew, not surprised there are no comments so far on this Praelatura Sanctae Crucis et Operis Dei regarding Indians, current events, et. al. (ok, I know the Tweed set loves Latin). Look, I can’t write as well as y’all, except if describing arcane computer algorithms, but I think I can think as well, and ramble just as well for sure. Opus Dei, described as the most controversial force within the Catholic Church. Is it?
I have to admit I bible thumped David’s decently formed earlier (Bush era) writings during raging political online debates here in Beverly Hillbilly, Colorado, birthplace of the crazy Libertarians, and now among the final resting places of the U.S. conservative. Didn’t help much, as a wedge doesn’t always penetrate wood–and that cuts two ways I reckon. I was a bit disappointed when D drifted away from the secular writing space but here we are.
I work with Indians (from India) most days these days (via disembodied remote computer connections) since they have much of the information technology talent we are short of thanks to crazy laws. Love them so far to a person (would say man but now verboten), and find group meetings with our two cultures highly entertaining. I did not know until recently that culturally Indians are not unlike Italians, prone to ‘working things up’. But hey, computer science is serious stuff–just look at the trials this website has gone through.
Why why why. Love the essay, it’s strikes me as generally true. Rush Limbaugh has been saying the same thing, though perhaps in a courser way–my wife detests him. T.S. Eliot: Some infinitely gentle and infinitely suffering thing. That could sum it up so far. But or course, that may have just been Vivienne.
C
A fascinating post. You seem to have intimate knowledge of and affection for India, something we share. I am an American, but taught in an English-medium school in India for many years. Most of my students came from Hindu families, though a good number came from Catholic and Syrian Christian families.
Allow me a couple of responses and observations. “Traditional” Hindus, in general, do not have a concept of Absolute Evil. Also, most Hindus believe that God is never “absent” in any of us.
As for the “gun control” controversy in America, it is not about “disarming” the American public, but rather about placing restrictions on the availability of assualt weapons designed specifically for war.
Ideally, this should be neither a “liberal or “conservative” position.
Of course you are right — “It’s not just guns.” Your observations about the dubious mental health “industry” and our declining morals is indeed part of the conversation all Americans should be having. But the proliferation of war weaponry is part of that decline as well.
MKD, you should know that the arms the British wished to confiscate from their colonials at Lexington were artillery pieces, not small arms. If we were right to go to war against our government to preserve our ownership of cannons back then, why should we let them take our select-fire carbines now?
Mr MKD above is quite right, that we have done no justice to the Hindus by casually conflating their view of evil with the Christian view; so we have tried to rectify the matter above, at the cost of expanding one paragraph into two.
Our point would stand, that whether through the lens of Dharma, or the Natural Law, or the Tao (as C.S. Lewis quickly reminds us), we are viewing one & the same thing: an order of right & wrong, written from the beginning into the human heart, which yet cannot finally be distinguished from “the Love that moves the sun & the other stars.” An order capable of discovery, by honest men, & which upon discovery commands obedience.
Beautifully said, Otiosus, thank you. One thing I would like to elaborate on is that from the Hindu (or Vedantic) point of view, the main culprit so to speak is not Evil (as a transcendental force), but ignorance or avidya.
Arkanabar, you reference a situation in the 18th century that can hardly be compared to conditions of 21st.
Otiosus, I just returned to read your expanded paragraph and must say it’s quite good.
I recall something the late Indian novelist Raja Rao (who was my neighbor) said about the lack of the concept of “tragedy” in classical Indian literature. In his opinion, this was because of the Hindu concept of karma and belief in reincarnation.
One could say that, according to Hinduism, the absence of God and/or Goodness in a person is because of avidya or ignorance, and that the remedy is Divine knowledge or vidya. Ideally, vidya is within the reach of most, though it may take many lifetimes.
I’m wondering right now what my Hindu friends would say about the “right” to “bear arms” and to whom this right should and should not apply, if at all.
“This is why, around the world, where gun control has tightened, gun-related crime has increased, often quite significantly”. Beautiful statement. Unfortunately not correct. The Washington Post has a very good article about gun laws and gun violence
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
Here are a few of the facts:
1) the U.S. has a death by assault rate that is approximately twice that of any other western country. The deaths by assault peaked in the mid seventies and has been decreasing since.
2) Remarkably, the decrease rate of gun violence corresponds with a decrease in private gun ownership.
3) Of the 61 mass murders that have occurred in the US since 1982, almost 80% of the killers used legally obtained guns.
4) States that have strict gun control laws have a lower rate of gun violence.
But, by all means, don’t allow the facts get in the way of your opinion. If the facts don’t fit, simply make them up. However, here is another inconvenient fact for you. Almost all of these mass murders have been carried out by young white males who’s political leanings are to the extreme right of the spectrum, and many claimed to be good christians.
Thank you for your humourless & ugly sarcasm, Mr Acartia, including the false accusation that we make up our facts. If a reader wants to pursue the argument of what happened after gun controls were tightened in England, Australia, Oregon, &c, he will soon find materials on the Internet, with straightforward search terms. And sure enough he will also find many pots, if he wishes to have a jam of cherry-picked statistics spread over him from either side.
We are not a policy wonk, at least not any more, & will not devote hours to a tediously footnoted survey of why we find one argument more candid & persuasive than the other, with comprehensive refutations of refutations of refutations; life is too short. Let those curious study the matter, & come to their own conclusions. We have given our own understanding of the case “in the main” — & might mention that our own view has moved, over the years, more towards than away from that of the “gun lobby.” We never thought a free market in military assault weapons was a good idea; but on the other hand realize that the advocates of gun control are using that for a wedge. Retreat on that, & they will soon go after the hunting rifles.
But the issue is further vexed by some hard realities on which no statistics can shine direct light. It was one thing to permit gun ownership in a society made up overwhelmingly of adults who were stable & mature. That does not describe American society today; nor even society in Switzerland for that matter. We touched on this throughout the essay.
If we were going to make an argument in favour of increased gun control, it would go like this: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people; but given the ease with which guns can be used to kill people, & the growing proportion of people who are batshit insane, we might want to review the licensing requirements.”
But then: sane people may now need guns all the more, to protect themselves against the insane people; & the principal at Sandy Hook should have been “carrying.”
Your last insinuation, Mr Acartia, was really quite unspeakably sleazy. Had we been your editor we would have recommended that you leave it out.
David. A little thinned skin, aren’t “we”? All I did was present some facts. What is sleazy about that?
Nobody has said that gun control will solve the problem, but it is certainly part of the solution. It is obvious that the problem centres around the combination of a complete failure in properly assessing and treating mental illness and the ready availability of guns. Any solution must address both.
If you don’t think that this is the case, simply compare Canada against the US. Most people admit that Canada and the US have very similar cultures. However, there are some very significant differences. The US has a “gun culture” whereas Canada has fairly tight gun control laws. Although strict belief in religion has declined in both countries, it has declined much more in Canada than in the US, and more in the northern US than in the southern US. And finally, the US culture condones the use of violence to protect property whereas Canada does not.
In 2011 the deaths by guns were 161 in Canada and 8583 in the US, five times higher than would be expected based on the difference in population size alone. Huckabee has argued that the increased violence is not unexpected given the trend in the US over the last thirty years to remove God from their lives. But then, how do you explain the much lower proportion of violent (gun related) crimes in Canada, where religion has wained even further. Or the higher proportion of violent crimes in the southern US, where religion is much stronger than in the northern US? Or the fact that the number of gun related crimes in the US has been declining over the last thirty years? Clearly the decline in religion is not the cause.
If we assume that the proportion of untreated mental illnesses are comparable in both Canada and the US, then that leaves access to guns as the major difference. But, obviously, mental health must be looked at seriously in both countries because even though the number of these types of events in Canada is lower, they are still too high.
Very good, Mr Acartia: your tone is much improved. And from our side perhaps we might concede having thought, “Given what we’ve had to say about ‘liberals’ lately, perhaps Mr Acartia’s response was fair potatoes.”
Now, we agree with almost everything you said, except the conclusion. This is because, to get a comprehensive view of the matter, we would need to bring in a number of factors that such statistics overlook, as well as other statistics that tell a different story over time.
It’s not just guns.
Consider, for one example, the relationship that might exist between the observed drop in USA violent crime, & the observed rise in the USA prison population.
There are other demographic factors in play, when comparing Canada to USA, incidentally; & causes behind effects behind causes. Off the top of our wee tiny head:
Item, sociological factors. We do not have anything like their black underclass & big city slums, wherein a large proportion of this crime occurs, the legacy of slavery to be sure, but compounded by later social policies. Beyond this, from the inertia of a much more diffused racial mix, a more docile Canadian population across the board.
Item, historical factors. We have a much less violent history, almost all of it confined to foreign battlefields. Our history is Crown-in-Parliament; the Mounties taking charge in our West. As opposed to, you know, Cowboys, Injuns, & the Rocket’s Red Glare. No Indian Wars up here, no Mexican Wars of conquest. We stole almost all of our land quite peacefully.
Item, even mythopoeic factors. Our Loyalist imagery, of the mill & the steeple in the clearing against the wilderness of nature & the wilderness in man. “Peace, order, & good government” as opposed to all this violent revolutionary “We the People” stuff.
Look back in time & you find that the differences were pronounced long before “gun ownership” became an issue in either jurisdiction.
Statistics, too, cannot reply to the issue of right, squarely addressed by those USA Founding Fathers in Constitutional Amendment No. 2, at the very heart of their Bill of Rights.
Contrary to popular belief, that right was not an American invention, only an American codification. It is many many centuries older than that, & grows out of a right more fundamental: that a man (or a woman: see High Noon) has an “inalienable” right to defend himself & his own from assailants — a right which no State can take away. Through the long history of the Common Law, the onus was upon that State to demonstrate why that right should be taken away from a particular individual. The onus was not on that individual to demonstrate why he should be “entitled” to a right that is written into Nature.
It is more than that. This individual has not only a right but a moral duty to defend himself & others, police or no police. (And the State’s police are a very recent invention.) Once again we suggest, the Principal at Sandy Hook (may he rest in peace) should have been carrying. Not merely by right but arguably by a moral duty, given what might occur & the absence of armed security in the school. Yet as we understand, he could not carry, in the school, under Connecticut law.
(And perhaps we should spell out here another little trick of statistics. Had that principal promptly shot Adam Lanza, there’d be a couple dozen fewer little bodies to add to the gun-crime statistics you are citing. Think that through.)
Agree, totally, that much more needs to be done for the mentally ill.
This is yet another vast topic, which cannot be comprehended except with some history. To make the prolix story concise, throughout North America we emptied the mental asylums in the 1950s & ’60s, only then to fill up the gaols. Look into the history: “liberals” & their statistics had something to do with it; budgetary issues had something more; but most profoundly the belief in the “technical fix” (in this case, blind trust in pharmaceuticals).
As we should think you will appreciate, this issue, too, goes much beyond guns. Consider: a very high proportion of the (mostly harmless) “street people” in every North American city show standard symptoms of known mental illnesses. What kind of society leaves them to freeze out there? Leaves those who truly lack the capacity to look out for their own basic interests prey to so many horrors?
Statistics invariably put the focus on that “technical fix,” when more profound issues are in the balance, & at stake.
Very well said Mr. O. I would also note the subject matter is well debated concerning solutions that won’t work as we speak. A very useful response is provided by the much despised R. L. at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/12/19/collective_solutions_rarely_solve_individual_problems. Despite your misgivings you should give it a look. Yes, yes get through the intro to get to the meat. As a U. S. citizen I consider an armed people a very prudent idea considering the drift of our government the last 30 years. C
Anyone who believes the Washington Post must be crazy … Can we get Arcartia committed before he acts out?
MKD I was very much smitten with your statement:
“Allow me a couple of responses and observations. “Traditional” Hindus, in general, do not have a concept of Absolute Evil. Also, most Hindus believe that God is never “absent” in any of us.”
Without belaboring it, the absence of this concept in Christian thinking, at least in the main, is sad to me. While Catholics especially feel they are given a pass since Jesus formed their beginning, all Christian religions reject or ignore this simple idea though they say they accommodate it at some level.
I too believe that God is present in all of us, regardless of our material earthly errors, and that at the cosmic eternal level can do no wrong. Hence I trust in the individual as a child of God to work through the decisions of their life
Thanks for reminding me. C
The circular argument seems to go like this:
Q: Why should the average citizen need an assault weapon?
A: To protect us from the government.
Q: What are you afraid the government is going to do to us?
A: Take away our freedom.
Q: What freedom are you afraid the government is going to take away?
A: The freedom to own assault weapons.
So we need assault weapons to protect our assault weapons.
*
At any rate, David said it beautifully. What kind of society leaves its sick and desperate out in the cold?
Indeed profound issues are at stake. And the influx of weapons of war into civil society is clearly a problem. Harboring “Red Dawn” style fantasies of fighting off a homegrown totalitarian state may be emotionally satisfying to some, but they are divisive when articulated and meant to be.
*
A personal note: my father, who was a WWII combat veteran, avid big game hunter, and life-long Republican, would have been horrified at the notion of putting weapons of war into the hands of ordinary citizens. He had no use for armchair generals or those who glorify war. He said it was his experience that most men who survived combat were not obsessed with war. And he openly expressed dismay at what he called the “psycho fringe” beginning to raise their voices in the NRA (he was a member, and I joined as well) before his death in 1976.
Clint, many thanks for your beautiful comment. I share your feeling.
Again, thank you.
Not wishing to mess with the glow of the moment, I do have to comment on the generally true, but dangerous statement: “What kind of society leaves it’s sick and desperate out in the cold?”
Starting with a simple idea as this, entire country-sized bureaucracies are formed. Entire entitlement societies arise. Society soon attempts to not leave anyone out in the figurative cold.
I recommend that if you can say this sentence concerning sick and desperate without other large considerations intruding upon your mind, you go without hesitation to http://www.amazon.com/Free-Market-Revolution-Rands-Government/dp/1470845989 and purchase a Kindle version of this book at the minimum and consider its ideas. These ideas target the able. Obviously the unable need our help, I do not dispute.
While the statement concerning sick and desperate is true in the abstract, and in the physical, the realities and implications of solving it are immense in a complex society such as ours where entitlement expectations rule the day. C
Mr MKD wants military assault weapons confiscated.
Mr Arkanabar, somewhere above, mentioned that the British wanted to confiscate artillery pieces at Lexington.
Mr MKD replied that was a different century & a whole ‘nother thing.
We agree with Mr Arkanabar, however, that, in principle, the two situations are exactly the same.
We agree with Mr MKD that military assault weapons should be confiscated.
As a man of reason & principle we therefore hold the artillery pieces should have been confiscated, too. Before those crazy “Patriots” got out of hand.
Our judgement is in no way influenced by the fact that, as our fathers before us, we remain a diehard United Empire Loyalist.
Surely anyone in his right mind would prefer George III to Obama.
Another little reminder to our fellow Americans (whether USA or BNA). George III passionately opposed slavery, & boycotted sugar to make his point. He levied no income taxes, & his excise on tea was just thrupenny on the pound. He gave thousands out of his own pocket to help the London poor, instead of taxing someone else to do it. He avoided foreign wars, & hardly started the American one. We could go on. True, he suffered from a blood disease, which made him seem a bit batty at times (always temporary), but he was no tyrant. He was willing to recognize the Continental Congress, & offered the Thirteen Colonies the equivalent of Dominion status within the British Empire.
But you Patriots wouldn’t take “yes” for an answer.
We could make some invidious comparisons with another George, but let bygones be bygones.
Now you’ve all seen how your Revolution turned out, may we humbly suggest that you drop the whole thing & return to the Monarchy.
We promise there will be no reprisals.
Though speaking on behalf of our own family, we would like our property in Massachusetts back.
Regarding the lost property Otiosus:
“Numerous Loyalists were forced to abandon substantial amounts of property in the United States. Restoration or compensation for this lost property was a major issue during the negotiation of the Jay Treaty in 1795. Negotiations settled on the concept of the United States negotiators ‘advising’ the US Congress to provide restitution. For the British, this concept carried significant legal weight, far more than it did to the Americans; the U. S. Congress declined to accept the advice. More than two centuries later, some of the descendants of Loyalists still assert claims to their ancestors’ property in the United States.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Empire_Loyalist)
Sorry. Even then it appears we had a do-nothing Congress. C
An old friend once suggested that America drop the whole democracy “experiment” and return to Monarchy. But he could never quite answer my basic question which was — Okay, then: how?
*
Clint, I fully agree that the realities and implications of helping the sick and deserate in a such a huge and complex society as ours are immense. I certainly have few real answers. But it’s a discussion worth having.
PS: I have neither a Kindle or a Nook.
Though I use a computer, I admit to being somewhat of a Luddite. In part by default.
MKD, helping the sick and desperate is only a huge and complex problem when we attempt to solve it at a city/state/national level.
In the good old days it was done at the family/block/neighbourhood/parish level where it belonged. More efficient. Direct charity to people one could actually see and know. Someone said (don’t remember who) that if we don’t know, and hang with, any poor people we just don’t know nothin’ and I buy that.
There seems to be some confusion, compounded by a foolish reliance on summary statistics, to confuse “Canada” and “USA” with actual entities possessing essential and accidental properties. But murder is something people do, not something countries do. The national murder rate is simply an aggregate of the individuals rounded up within various fortuitous borders.
A Canadian friend of mine once pointed out that the murder rate in those states bordering Canada are comparable to or even lower than the adjacent provinces. And if we were to exclude black and white Southerners and their descendants who migrated North, the USA would have the murder rate of Denmark. (This, he contended, was due to the honor culture of the Scots Borderers he claimed as ancestors. The spirit that moved people like Andy Jackson to fight murderous duels to defend their honor still prevails among those tutored by that culture, who will pull their nines if they have been “dissed.” Still another study noted that murders were committed by German-Americans no more often than by Germans; by Anglo-Americans no more often than by Englishmen; Japanese-Americans and Japanese; and so on. IOW, that there was a very heavy cultural component.
It is also difficult to suppose that New York City or Washington DC, with their strict gun laws are less liable to murder than more lenient places like Montana or Colorado or North Dakota. But the Washington Post may be unaware that these places exist.
In my little Pennsylvania city, there are more murders today than in my youth, despite a stagnant population, even though guns are legally more difficult to obtain. But in my youth it was still arguably a German city, while today we have drug gangs who have drifted out from New York City.
I much appreciate the sentiment behind your point, Barbara, but remember the vast majority of “homeless” in America are not members or residents of any particular community (block/neighborhood/parish), but are transients, beyond the reach of family (if any exists at all), either by choice or circumstance. The majority suffer from various forms of mental illness and trauma, as well as drug and alcohol addiction. All too often they have a criminal background. Sadly, many are war veterans. In my city, the numbers increased when the county asylum was closed. The single county hospital that serves a population of over 4 million was and continues to be overwhelmed because of this (the growing number of illegal immigrants — poor and without health insurance — only makes matters worse).
Plus there are many, many more now than in the “good old days.”
I’m late to the debate. Sorry to keep you waiting for words of wisdom from the frontier.
I’m generally in accord with DW, but there’s a proviso. Living in Texas, i.e., just across the Rio Grande from the Mexican war zone, I’m concerned the war could spill over into Texas to a much larger extent than it already has. Currently, No Country for Old Men encompasses the area a hundred miles or so from the border. If it were to enlarge, ten or fifteen years down the road, and were the cartels to invade my part of Texas (north of Houston), I will want a military, semi-automatic weapon readily available. And, I wouldn’t want to tell the people of South and West Texas who are already at risk, they will have to disarm.