Sunday, September 28, 2025

The Definition of Insanity?

 Is Our National Tolerance of Annunciation Tragedies  

Why You Don't Need an Assault Rifle

Like many people, I’ve had some time to think about the Annunciation horror. (Not that I wanted to.) In the brief interim there have been several more school and mass shootings so one might ask, is there any point to talk about this sort of thing anymore? (Although apprently I can't help myself, here’s a link to a very brief excerpt of a post of mine from 2023.) 


Seriously, I’m amazed that we still talk about this stuff at all.

But we must. 

Sadly, this national psychosis is nothing new for us (after all we are a notoriously violent people.) The first recorded school shooting in America was 1840 and then one every few years thereafter with one or two kids killed - until 1966 when Charles Whitman killed 18 people at the Univ. Of Texas. There were several more, of course, until the next big one, Columbine High School in 1999 where 16 people died.
 It wasn’t until the 21st century that the deaths really kicked in. Every year but two has had double digit deaths including Sandy Hook in 2012 with 28 dead, 17 killed in 2018 at a Parkland Fl school, and 22 dead in Uvalde TX in 2022. 

A rational country would have done something about this long before all that. But not here, almost weekly or monthly school shootings are now the norm in the US.

Yes, I know, other countries have mass shootings but school shootings are very rare and typically with far fewer victims e.g. 2000-2022 there were 6 events in France, 5 in Germany, 2 UK
 . . . and 109 in the US - American Exceptionalism on display! (Apparently, they also have lots of mentally ill folks.) 

By the way, the vast majority of shooters in America are young, white males. Obviously troubled but killers nonetheless.

Why have these horrible occurrences increased in frequency and violence in the past 30 years or so? That’s the question, isn’t it? Much smarter people than me haven’t been able to crack the code but here are some possibilities.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence but starting in the mid-70’s the National Rifle Association (NRA), which had been a sportsman organization, became a powerful anti-gun control lobby ($$$.) Then beginning in the 80’s and through the 2000's, many of the same things occurred that have brought us to this place politically, huge changes socially and economically, an opioid epidemic and, social media helping us retreat to our own little worlds and distrust of anyone outside of them. Not coincidently, we also decided to close most mental institutions (too expensive to treat all those folks?) leaving troubled people to get by on their own.

Then in 2004 the ban on assault weapons that had been in effect for 10 years expired. (It hadn't reduced the number of attacks by much but it did reduce the body count each time.) Perhaps the final push was the Supreme Court Heller decision in 2007 that said the anyone could have guns – without any conditions. Boy, did that open flood gates! (Of course, the NRA and gun owners immediately forgot – or ignored - what noted “liberal’ Justice Scalia said then, that "dangerous and unusual weapons" were not covered by the ruling.) Apparently, most assault rifles are not dangerous or unusual.

We’ve all heard the two main reasons we need guns: 1) to protect ourselves and family and, 2) to defend against tyranny (whatever that means.) I can only say that I would think you could protect our family with a shotgun, handgun, or a hunting rifle. As far as fighting tyranny, is that even germane? Unlike when the Constitution was written, we now have a standing military, the best in the world. If the government comes for your guns it is not going to be a fair fight - and you will not keep them e.g. Google Ruby Ridge or Branch Davidians. (Or, sadly, watch what is going on in DC and other cities today.)

So what about assault weapons and large capacity magazines? It seems to me that the actual reason for owners' “passion” for these weapons - that were solely intended for killing the maximum number of people in war in the shortest time - is some vicarious thrill. It's nothing more than a reckless hobby with dangerous side effects. Not illegal but certainly unnecessary.

Ultimately any hope of controlling any guns is stymied by (an interpretation of) the Second Amendment. Yes, owning an assault-type rifle is a right (a philosophical right based in the 18th century) but should we treat that right like freedom of speech or self-incrimination? Maybe the better question: is it the right thing to do?

Was the late right-wing influencer, Charlie Kirk, correct (somewhat ironically as it turns out) when he said: 'I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational."

So is it rational? Is that philosophical (not God-given) “right” worth accepting the death of innocent children - or a right-wing influencer - as the "price of freedom" to own such an unnecessary, deadly weapon? That is simply a mind numbingly stupid proposition in my opinion. Reality has met a philosophical belief - and reality is losing. 
It’s time for some reconsideration or recalibration; there is no logical reason to have a hobby with such deadly side effects. 

No, an assault weapon ban is not a cure all, and yes, much else must be done including better mental health care and several other things. But it's a start. 

One way or the other something must be done for the preposterous and pitiful goal of reducing the number of kids killed per shooting by crazed murderers. (I'm ashamed even writing that.)

In any event, I won't be writing about it again.

Tuesday, September 9, 2025

September, the Gateway . . .

 . . .To Whatever Comes Next

Sep 1st, Last Day of Minnesota State Fair 

State fair.jpg

                                                                  





                                                                                                                                 Sept 2nd 





Okay, a bit of an exaggeration but that’s what it seems like.  









Note:

I am not commenting on the horrific tragedy that occurred at Annunciation Church last month at this time. I simply don't wish to think or talk about these seemingly daily occurrences just now, perhaps later. (And BTW, thoughts and prayers are actually worse than nothing.)

How about something pleasant?

On to September, a truly wonderful month in Minnesota. There's still plenty of time and great weather for golf and enjoying the outdoors (though sadly those two are often mutually exclusive.) 

Yet, at least to me, there is also a sort of melancholy tone to this month: the end of the state fair, kids heading back to school and days becoming shorter than nights. Then, the leaves will turn, drift down, stupid pumpkin-spice latte's appear and . . . I don’t know, it’s just hard not to think about the quickening passage of time in September. 

Which reminds me, and I think most everyone of a certain age, that the passage of time seems to speed up as we get older. (Yet another rotten trick by nature.) I won't bother you with the technical reason why but according to experts it is actually true, it does appear to pass more quickly. Also true is that everyone has their own way of dealing with the passing of time.

Some better than others. 

Here's one way that I think you may recognize.
  
In my archive of ideas for posts I rediscovered this brief article from a dozen years ago. (I save a  lot stuff - my how time flies!) It was an item about the difficulties of facing the ravages of time by someone who, IMHO, is one of the most beautiful humans ever, Julie Christie. (And I admit I have always had a crush on her.)


You know, Lara from Doctor Zhivago with the haunting “Lara’s Theme?”  Age 25 in the movie. At the time of the article she had recently turned 73 and it seems that she was none too pleased about this aging thing.  (Mein Gott im Himmel, that means she is now 85!) 

 

Julie at 68
    

She says, and I quote: “I’m tempted every time I look in the mirror, I know what I look like, then I look in the mirror and think, “I don’t know who that is. You want to get your familiar face back and when you see all the lines around your chin, neck, eyes and mouth, and your bloody arms and everything else. . .” 

I know the feeling, sister!  

 



Some might say that is a shallow or foolish way for her to look at it. But we're not her. She has always been "beautiful" and has always known it. It was who she was. Maybe that’s why this is so difficult for her to accept. But what about the rest of us mere mortals? 

We Neanderthals er, I mean men, certainly can't speak for women. I have heard an old saying that "men dress for women and women dress for . . . other women." (If true that tells you something right there.) In any event, it may be gender or it may be cultural - lord knows our society is much harder on women - but ladies are entitled to whatever view they want.

Now men, on the other hand, definitely seem to think about aging in their own unique way. (When they think about anything at all except sex.)

Tom Selleck 27




Don’t get me wrong, no guy enjoys watching the invading army of time take its toll our powerful bodies and smooth but handsome faces any more than women. (Some people say I had a striking resemblance to Tom's brother, Bobo Selleck.* Well, except for the hairy chest. Okay, and the handsome face but otherwise . . .) 





Tom age 80
(What stupid hair)


Somehow, however, I think our outlook is different. That is, men place less importance on our outward attributes and for two reasons:

(And sure, okay, some people have better genes than others - or more money.)









1) Unlike women, nobody really cares what we look like including ourselves (well, MOST of us.) Alternatively, many of us are delusional and still think we really do look like young Tom (beer belly, hairy ears and all.) Whatever. It’s never really been the defining thing for us as guys (well, most of us) and, 

2) We care more about the inside stuff. Inner beauty or deep important thoughts? LMAO, heaven forbid! I mean health as in aches and pains and other unmentionably bad stuff. If all the parts work AND we're still reasonably healthy AND you’re not a complete Quasimodo - let alone Tom Selleck - then, as a guy, the aging process is being kind to you. Note: if you're a guy and don't agree with this that's okay but you're probably just weird. 

Well, that’s my theory (you're free to laugh now.) 

Julie today
25 or 85, you will always be "Lara" to me.

You will be happy to know that Julie is much more comfortable with herself and age now. (I, on the other hand, will continue to see myself as a handsome, young stud - to hell with reality!) 

Epilogue:

In the intervening years, I now have a daughter who has a PhD in Gerontology i.e. ("older adults.") Great timing, huh?! Anyway, I'm sure she frowns on this sort of shallow thinking about aging and appearance, and rightly so - but it's hard to ignore thousands of years of evolution.

Perhaps the main lesson here, as if you need reminding, is to appreciate getting older because there's only one alternative and it is very bad.

I apologize for the detour so back to our lovely autumn.

Tempus fugit - but there is still plenty left to be excited about fall - and life - so enjoy it!

FORE! (Splash)

Happy autumn!

*I stole this from another late great friend who would often introduce himself this way. (What a card, right?)


Music to pass the time . . .



Quote Du Jour

"Yesterday is but today's memory, and tomorrow is today's dream." Khalil Gibran



Resist




Pictures Worth a Thousand Words

If a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words . . . . . . How Many for 14 Charts? AI Free  T his was going to be my post  last month but I thought ...