“Twelve dead? This is great—we can make another push for gun control!!!”
About 10 minutes from where I live, unidentified gunmen have killed 12 people (one of the gunmen is also dead) in an unexplained rampage. The facts are still being sorted out, and at least one shooter is still at large as I write this, but already two predictable examples of unethical disaster and crisis response have been on display:
1. Reflex anti-gun tragedy exploitation
Apparently from now until the Second Amendment is but a distant memory, some Democratic politicians and anti-gun zealots will use every gun-related tragedy as a springboard to lobby for more regulations, and the facts be damned. At this point, we have not been told why the attack took place, who the shooters were, whether it was a terrorist act or not, whether the killers were Americans, whether or not the weapons were obtained illegally and what kind of guns they were. Never mind: interviewed on the radio, D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congress’s non-voting member, immediately pointed out that with all the guns that are available in this country, it should be no surprise to anyone that tragedies like this occur. I’m sure she would have liked to have been able to claim that global warming also played a part, except that it is a cool day in Washington.
Everything is political; every disaster has to be exploited before the bodies are cool, and nothing—no tragedy or triumph—can be experienced without it being turned into a divisive partisan political weapon. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” has swallowed taste, prudence, respect and compassion.
Yechhh.
2. The “Your interests are trivial and an insult to the dead” response
They have postponed tonight’s Washington Nationals’ baseball game. This makes sense, because the stadium is in the Naval Yard’s neighborhood, and you don’t want a mad dog shooter loose in a packed baseball park, or in the crowd around it. That, however, was not the reasoning applied by former baseball executive Jim Bowden on his Sirius-XM radio show this afternoon. No, you cancel the game because “there are times when there are more important things than games.” You cancel the game because of respect for the dead and their families, and because lives are more important than mere sports…because there is a time to play, and a time to reflect on more important things.
Well, gee, Jim, why are you blathering on a sports call-in radio show? Why don’t you shut up shop, and take a day’s cut in pay?
Jim, you see, is adopting the lazy, illogical and ever-popular grandstanding position that arises any time there is a prominent tragedy: make the entertainers and athletes demonstrate that society’s sorry by sacrificing their livelihood for a day or a week, because what they do is trivial compared to what the rest of us do. Every actor, theater owner, athlete and professional sport always faces immediate pressure and shaming to force them to take, and pay for, a symbolic day of mourning, while doughnut makers and bloggers and sex-toy sellers and comic book stores and radio hosts go ahead with their lives and commerce with the certainty that what they do is essential, and for them to keep doing it after a tragedy is completely reasonable—not like those other people.
When the Nationals postpone a game, hundreds of vendors, parking attendants, ushers and other working people struggling to make ends meet lose money. Not inconsequentially, lots of baseball fans also lose the chance to forget about the troubles of their lives and the world, including that fact that people like Eleanor Holmes Norton have any control over our lives, and to have a few hours of enjoyment at the ballpark. They aren’t obligated to forfeit those assets and pleasure so Jim Bowden and other grief-bullies can talk solemn nonsense about what kind of activities are respectable and which aren’t. Do we have to watch only sad TV shows, Jim? Is it disrespectful for me to play my Spike Jones CD, or throw the ball for my dog? Can O make funny faces in the mirror? Is that disrespectful? Is sex inappropriate? How about if it’s really unpleasant sex. OK then?
After 9-11-01, my theater’s board chair tried to cancel a new show we were premiering on the 12th. I refused. People who bring down buildings and shoot innocent people want to disrupt our lives: it isn’t respectful to give them what they want, and it is unfair to declare that the humanities, arts and entertainment, the people who make their livings in those fields and those for whom they make life worth living, have to be the designated sacrifices to show that the rest of us care. We show we care by fighting and living, not by shutting down and surrendering to despair.
If you want to take a day off as your way to say goodbye to victims of a tragedy, I respect that: be my guest. But don’t tell me that my livelihood and interests are too trivial to pursue in the wake of disaster, and yours are too essential to pause. You make your own statement; I’ll make mine.
__________________________
Graphic: CNN
Ethics Alarms 
Jack: Well said on both points. I’m reminded, frankly, of my father, who mourned the death of my mother very deeply, but determined that he would persevere, prove that going on with his life was in fact a tribute to my mother, and that the world can’t just stop whenever there is a tragedy. Yes, this was a horrifying, terrible, ugly occurrence (even though we know little about it at this point), but so are hurricanes, wildfires, and tornadoes. What do people do after hurricanes, wildfires, and tornadoes strike? Take a few days to mourn the event and the people hurt and killed, or decide to triumph over it — even in mourning — and move forward doing their jobs, repairing damage, caring for loved ones, re-building, etc. And you’re right: I’m sure the Eleanor Holmes Nortons of the world are very, very disappointed that they can’t throw global warming into this mix.
I’m reminded, frankly, of my father, who mourned the death of my mother very deeply, but determined that he would persevere, prove that going on with his life was in fact a tribute to my mother, and that the world can’t just stop whenever there is a tragedy.
**************
Those words went right into my heart. 🙂
This comment is internally inconsistent. You (rightly) point out the absurdity of people drawing conclusions from this tragedy because: “At this point, we have not been told why the attack took place, who the shooters were, whether it was a terrorist act or not, whether the killers were Americans, whether or not the weapons were obtained illegally and what kind of guns they were.” (Of course — in many extremists’ minds, your questions are irrelevant as they view the problem solely as being that there are “guns.” So, I guess it is okay for them to comment at this time but probably no one else without more facts.)
But you then contradict yourself by saying that the arts must go on because: “People who bring down buildings and shoot innocent people want to disrupt our lives: it isn’t respectful to give them what they want…” Really? If I had to guess, I don’t think these guys cared if there was a baseball game, play, or marathon scheduled for tonight. We have no idea what was in the shooters minds — or in other mass shooters’ minds. Usually, what’s going on is quite frankly a waste of our time to try and understand because they are mentally insane.
The vendors will get there money when the game is rescheduled AND they probably will come out economically ahead because there would be an extremely low turn out tonight if the game went on as scheduled. Also, they might not want to be there as well — not just because there might be a shooter at large but also because they might be down in the dumps as well.
So what you meant to say was “not internally inconsistent, because A) if the motivation of the killers was to disrupt our lives, then don’t give in (as Jack asserts) or B) if the motivation of the killers can never be understood, then it is pointless to expect a very public portion of the economy to stop in its tracks (as Jack asserts).
Huh? If the shooter wants to disrupt things, why let them? If they don’t, who cares? Either way, nothing good comes from shutting down commerce,and I repeat, there is nothing respectful about shutting down. I salute the NFL for going ahead and playing after JFK was shot, and the Olympics for continuing in Munich after the massacre. Life goes on, business goes on, sport goes on. It takes guts and perspective, that’s all.
And venders do not necessarily make back what they lose—and at this stage of the season, the game might not be replayed at all. If it’s a play, there is no “make-up.” The money is lost.
Disparaging the cancellation of events in the wake of tragedy seems ungenerous. If something ghastly happens and you don’t feel like going to a ballgame, that seems reasonable, so why not if you don’t feel like playing ball, or running a ballpark? Yes, there are economic repercussions, but there are economic repercussions to any decision by consumer and business alike. And yes, the justifications in cancellation announcements are often illogical, sometimes offensively so. But aren’t the justifications just a way of saying “We just don’t feel like it”? And is there really no space in the world to respect an emotional response to an emotional event?
Some Colorado friends of mine, one a schoolteacher, postponed their wedding after Columbine. It wasn’t that they thought getting married was wrong in the wake of bloodshed. They just wanted to have a party when people were in the mood for a party. They asked around a little, but ultimately the decision was theirs. There was economic fallout for plenty of people. But it seemed like everybody understood.
On the gun-control insta-partisanship I totally agree with the post, adding only that those automatically asserting that the status-quo is the only acceptable scenario are as silly as those who assert that we must change everything right this second. A calm conversation would be best, but while I’m wishing I’d like a pony.
If I’m reading Jack’s post correctly, I don’t think he’s saying we shouldn’t cancel events. I think he’s saying we shouldn’t go around telling other people that they should cancel their events. (Except in cases of safety, consumption of scarce resources, etc.) If your friends had gone ahead and had their wedding, nobody else had the right to tell them not to “out of respect for the dead” or “because there are more import things.”
Point taken. Although the grousing about “when the Nationals cancel a game…” seems like he views it as unseemly to cancel such a thing, not just to suggest it.
Well, exactly. I thought the last couple sentences were pretty explicit on that point.
A wedding is an event. A baseball games and plays are called “jobs,”commerce,” “careers.” They are as essential as any other, and as serious. If the owner of a fish market wants to close up because of Aurora, that’s his choice, but nobody should be saying to HIM, “This not a day for fish.”
Crystal?
Wait, did you know I was grilling striped bass? Clear as the martini alongside.
Great, send me to bed jealous.
Someone’s already planting the seeds, awfully early.
“Obviously we will investigate thoroughly what has happened, as we have so many of these shootings that have happened, sadly.”
The suspect was a military contractor, who was familiar with the layout of the Navy Yard.
It’s an Obama quote. Prepare thyself for Rhetoric Playbook Chapter 1: Gun vilification.
I asked several of my friends how they felt about this shooting. Most of them jaded at this point couldn’t even express disbelief or grief for the victims without pointing out quite resignedly that “guess we get to hear another round of busybodies telling us we’re all bad people and need to be protected from ourselves, bet the politicization starts in about 5 minutes”
This guy was a whack job with a bad attitude. It’s too bad the police couldn’t have had locked him up sooner so the families of the victims don’t have to suffer thru this. But the police probably would have been accused of “profiling” him.
I just don’t know if I can trust people from Fort Worth, Texas anymore.
Wendy Davis country!
Two terrible symbols of killing on a massive scale to come out of Fort Worth. Thanks for reminding me…
I suspect he will be found to have severe mental health issues. After looking at case after case of these, I am beginning to think that only the severely mentally disturbed commit such actions. I find some comfort in the thought that no matter how bad society seems, no one is evil enough to do something like this. Only when they have a serious mental issue can they do it.
All societies have crazies. My question is, and will remain: Why, after discharge from the Navy, was he able to get a high security job with a military contractor? How do they vet their employees? I think we should stop talking about crazies, and start talking about military contractors who do not vet their employees, are only in it for the money, and end up with disturbed employees who, through the contractors’ auspices, access to high security sites. Too much of the military is run by contractors (translation: mercenaries)…WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THEM?
We can’t do much. People have rights. The only way to involuntarily detain or hospitalize someone who is seriously mentally ill is for a medical professional to certify it, then a judge to allow it…You also can’t seize their firearms until that occurs either. As in the incident in Aurora, Colorado, it is very difficult to get a psychiatrist to deal with this. They would rather kick them out on the streets and let something like what happened in Colorado occur. We seem to have created a situation where the only people allowed to deal with the problem don’t want to.
Military contractors didnt cause this shooting. They aren’t the problem here. They are a separate problem as are pretty much all government contractors these says and the entire contracting system, but the cause of this shooting is the shooter. Not the process of who contractors hire.
I believe it was Louis C.K. who put it thus (more or less): “You can tell how bad of a person you are, by how soon you masturbated after 9/11.
“Never let a good crisis go to waste,” has swallowed taste, prudence, respect and compassion.”
So, does Rahm Emanuel get permanent ethics dunce status for saying that?
He was quoting Churchill.
Rahm is still an ethics dunce.
And coming next…Is it terrorism? Does it being terrorism depend on whether the shooter is a Muslim? Did he know any Muslims? Did Obama call it terrorism? Does Obama’s not calling it terrorism sooner mean he’s a weak terrorist-coddler? Is the media in the bag for Obama because they didn’t call it terrorism? Are the people criticizing Obama for not calling it terrorism just a bunch of racists?…
A summary of our glorious media:
MSM (morning of the 17th): this just goes to show how bad AR-15s are. People really have no reason to own AR-15s. The 2nd amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to own AR-15s. This shows how dangerous and evil AR-15s are. If this shooter hadn’t had an AR-15, he wouldn’t have killed as many people. Wow AR-15s are evil. Slather blither. AR-15 bad, grunt. Yell! Argh!!!”
Someone who cares about facts, not agendas (around noon of the 17th): “uh, Aaron Alexis used a shotgun.”
MSM: crickets crickets crickets.
CNN ticker news (morning of 18th): the shooter used an AR-15 shotgun
An AR-15 SHOTGUN?? Where can I buy one?
Guh. They are called Saiga Shotguns – General AK body that fires 12-gauge rounds.
I don’t care for them, personally.
Ah. I knew it was too good to be true.