Fiscal Cliff Notes

Arming like it's 1999

In the past few days, there's been a lot of talk about arming teachers as a defense against school shooters. It's a dumb idea for all sorts of moral, ethical and logistical reasons (not to mention how most people calling for it otherwise claim teachers are corrupt union minions who practically saturate their Charles Darwin books over the thought of indoctrinating our youth). That we're even having a serious conversation about arming teachers shows just how far we've eroded in just a few years.

In 1999, Esquire magazine ran this item in its year-end Dubious Achievements compilation:

For those of you unfamiliar with this feature, Esquire's Dubious Achievements issue highlighted all of the craziest, dumbest and most bizarre public moments of the past year. And 13 years ago, a proposal to arm teachers merited a choice entry on that list. It was crazy, dumb and bizarre, and the near-exclusive province of the nation's most famous gun nut. 

So much has changed since 1999. So much. And yet, it doesn't really seem like that long ago.

I have a longstanding habit of keeping old magazines. In going through them, I'm often grateful I never did the sensible thing and threw them out. And it's because of things like this. Shifts in national attitude often work like weight gain — you see yourself all the time and you know on some level you're changing, but you're too close to see the day-to-day effect. But then one day, you see a picture of yourself from 13 years ago and say, "Damn." The picture reminds you that change happens. And it reminds you that you can always change again if you don't like what you see.

Over the past decade, our collective fear of everything has blown off the charts. It's almost quaint to recall a time when we were supposedly innocent. But for all we've learned and come to appreciate in that time, I think we've also lost some degree of sanity. Maybe our first instinct shouldn't be to default toward more aggression. What was ridiculous in 1999 is still ridiculous today. Unfortunately, we're a little more ridiculous too.

Our problems deserve better solutions than past punchlines.

Welcome to the end of the world

Well, the rest of 2012 has been good practice...

Planes, Blades and Automatics

Another sticking argument in the gun debate is that deaths committed by cars, planes, drugs and crude weapons, just to name a few, don't prompt the same anger toward those items.

No, we don't call for bans on things that are not guns when they're used to kill people. 

But we do take some action.

When terrorists hijacked our jet airliners to kill thousands of people, we increased the security measures required to get on a plane. 

When someone wants to drive a car, they have to be of a certain age, take training courses, obtain a license, purchase insurance and obey traffic laws, as well as ensure their vehicle meets minimum safety standards. If they are reckless in operation of a vehicle, even if no one is hurt, they can have their license revoked.

When authorities discovered over-the-counter pseudoephedrine was a main ingredient in crystal meth, they enacted laws requiring accountability for each purchase.

Crude weapons such as bats, knives, nun-chucks and brass knuckles tend to be far less lethal and accurate than guns. However, their use in a violent context still means strict punishments. 

As for pipe bombs and IEDs, well, those seem to be universally considered as terrorist tools. Few people are falling over themselves to consider those constitutionally protected arms. Like with Sudafed, people buying mass quantities of bomb components generally reek of probable cause.

Are some of these measures excessive? Pointless? Counterproductive? Downright silly? Yes on all counts. But sometimes they're not. Either way, we've collectively decided in these situations that freedom comes with a degree of responsibility, and put it in action. It's an evolving process. But it's a process, at least. We didn't dismiss it offhand because there weren't these types of laws 200 years ago.

And none of this regulation has led anyone to believe that we can't fly, drive, ride, buy Mucinex or own items that could become weapons (or that just are weapons). And most sensible people will say that gun control hasn't made it impossible to own a gun.

If anything, the car/knife argument shows how ridiculous an exception guns are when we talk about safety and purpose.

Oh, We People

Let's talk about politicization

Politicization is not when you hear about a tragedy and, instead of simply mourning, look to answers for preventing future incidents.

Politicization is asserting that the shooter chose his target because he knew it was a gun-free zone.

And claiming that lack of prayer in school fostered the massacre.

And dismissing proposals to curb gun violence as liberal claptrap.

And insisting, uniquely to guns, that passing laws is pointless because criminals will break them.

Gun violence shouldn't even be a political issue. But it is. And those making it so are mainly the people who complain about politicization.

The media: Invasive, or integral?

OK, enough about guns for now. Let's talk about the media.

It's popular these days to chastise the media for allegedly glorifying the assailant of a shooting. These critics claim that the shooters seek notoriety, and the press is complicit in that, so no wonder these shootings continue.

Another complaint is that journalists are being overly intrusive, exemplified by the "eat a dick" meme that's gone viral.

In a sense, I get all that. A tragedy has occurred. Children are dead. Reporters can be insensitive and downright banal — I hate the "how does it feel" question as much as anybody. But I hate the question not because it was invasive but because, having been a journalist myself, I think it brings nothing to the conversation. We all know how the grieving families feel. But as far as attempting to construct a story, I can't fault journalists for doing that. That's their job. And it often sucks for them as much as for anyone else. I always found cultivating sources to be the hardest part of reporting, because the percentage of people willing to talk to you on the record is small in general, and even lower in the wake of tragedy. At the same time, the immediate aftermath is when pressure to produce is strongest. 

The very people who applaud the "eat a dick" meme are also the ones who can't get enough coverage, and aren't happy to hear that there's no new information. Hence, journalists often find themselves flailing for angles and sources, sometimes in opportunistic ways that probably make themselves cringe. That's part of the job, the one that tends to make or break news reporters. Being told some variation of "eat a dick" starts to wear on you after about the 15th time. The journalist is out one source and a chunk of time and still has to file a story to appease the glued audience. Somehow. And they do it, sometimes several times a day, even if they feel at times like one of the torch-bearing masses.

Imagine how much harder that process would be if the media adopted the policy of not disclosing information about assailants. This is one sentiment I can't get behind at all. First off, the press is complicit in nothing. Most reputable outlets are far too busy finding, assigning, writing and dispatching stories to care about some side agenda. (And when they do bother with that, it's about profit, not who they can make famous.) Second, the press has a duty to share the facts at its disposal. That's not just responsible reporting, it's in fact the entire purpose of a free press. Sensationalism does occur (like I said, profit), but sharing the killer's name, photo and known circumstances is not that; such information is vital to fully understanding the incident. The press must paint as complete a picture as they possibly can; anything less is shirking that responsibility. If you choose to divert your eyes to one aspect of the story, that's your prerogative; but journalists cannot and should not do that.

As tempting as it is to want to remake the media in a more emotionally soft image, it cannot and should not be done. Journalists are not the bad guys, and bad guys don't deserve obscurity just because they're unpleasant. Skewing toward silence won't make the media better and it won't make tragedies any less tragic. But knowing all the facts just might teach us something that makes the country better going forward. 

We can hope.