The shooting at a Connecticut
elementary school last Friday was a dreadful business, doubly dreadful for
happening a few days before Christmas. Any citizen with any power of
imagination can see the presents that will never be opened, the festive tree in
the living room on Christmas morning waiting for the eager little figures who
never come, and the excited little voices that will never again be heard.
That said, it didn’t take
long—around 24 hours—for me to feel that there had been quite enough coverage
of, and commentary on, the incident.
Not that there is necessarily
any harm in so much coverage, though there may be. There’s the
copycat business; and yes, crazy people get ideas from other crazy people. The Herostratus factor
is in there somewhere—the desire to attain fame by any method at all.
Herostratus was the bloke who burned down the temple
of Diana in 356 BC
for no other reason than that he wanted to be famous. The yearning to be famous
is widespread and normal and has inspired great deeds; but in the mind of
a lunatic it curdles, like other normal desires.
Certainly I would not want the
authorities to restrain or suppress coverage. There is quite enough bias and outright
suppression in crime
reporting already, most of it voluntary. Let ’em report the Connecticut massacre as much as
they want to. I just don’t want to read that much about it; not because I’m too
squeamish or fastidious, but because I don’t think there’s much content there.
News-wise, once it was clear
that the killer was a lunatic and would be making no further trouble, the only
things conventionally newsworthy were the pronouncements of politicians, which
were of course uniformly jejune. The nasal tones of New York City Mayor Michael
Bloomberg were prominent. Regarding Obama, Bloomberg honked that “The country
needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem.”
To fix it! Once and for all!
Just like that! Bloomie’s criminal-justice coordinator, a chap named John
Feinblatt, chimed in: “I think the American public wants a plan—is demanding a
plan—how the president is going to keep them safe.”
Because, you know, if the
president can’t keep us safe, who can? We will lift up our eyes unto the hills.
Whence cometh our help? Our help cometh from Obama.
For the left it’s all about
gun control. The people who’ve been telling us for years that we can’t possibly
deport eleven million illegal infiltrators without gross violations of human rights are
insisting that we can confiscate three hundred million
privately held firearms. Yes we can! The arguments for gun control are in fact
flimsy and easily disposed of: See Radio Free New Jersey do it here.
An alternative thread of
commentary has targeted
[sic] the mental-health issue. Given that psychiatry is much more an art
than a science, and a very approximate art at that, I’m no more keen on giving the
authorities the power to lock up weird people than I am to hand over my Second
Amendment rights to Nurse Bloomberg. Half my friends are weird. The Soviets
locked political dissidents up in asylums. Does anyone think our liberal elites
would hesitate to do the same, given the power?
Least helpful of all were the
comments by pious folk of various
denominations that the
Connecticut shootings prove “the existence of evil in the world.” You don’t
say. Didn’t the previous administration put an end to all that, though?
The search for reasons and
solutions is futile. Adam Lanza didn’t kill all those people because of
anything; he was just crazy. Evil isn’t a problem you can solve;
it’s part of the human condition, which you can at most hope somewhat, and
imperfectly, to tame and corral. We are not here in the realm of cause and
effect, of problems and solutions: we are in the realm of chaos, of purposeless
randomness—an inescapable component of the universe and of the human condition.
Returning to the real
substance of the matter—the bereaved parents’ immense grief—I think there is a
better, saner approach than the endless news din. Once the facts have been
reported and public condolences expressed, I think silence should reign.
That was also the opinion of
Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Mourning her beloved brother Edward, who died in a
sailing accident while visiting Elizabeth at the English seaside, she wrote:
…Full desertness, In souls as countries, lieth silent-bare Under the blanching, vertical eye-glare Of the absolute Heavens. Deep-hearted man, express Grief for thy Dead in silence like to death….
Our present civilization does
not much favor silence. (I write as a frequent railroad commuter.) Silence can,
though, be very expressive. Those great masters of verbal expression, the
poets, have ways to make the careful reader pause for an instant now and then, these brief silences adding force to the line. Silence can also carry
meaning, though there are cultural variables involved:
In response to the question ‘Will you marry me?,’ silence in English would be interpreted as uncertainty; in Japanese it would be acceptance. In Igbo, it would be considered a denial if the woman were to continue to stand there, and an acceptance if she ran away.So be careful with those silences.
—Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (1987), p. 172
I shall now take my own advice
and fall silent until the New Year, taking next week off. Readers here at
Taki’s Magazine, and Taki himself, have been wonderfully supportive in my
various tribulations these past few months, and I again express my heartfelt
gratitude. From all the Derbs to all of you, a very Merry Christmas, and may
you receive everything you wish for yourselves and your loved ones in 2013!
No comments:
Post a Comment