“Who Are You Calling A Nut?” And Other Ethics Issues In The Community College Shooting Aftermath (Parts I-VI)

mr__peanut_s_cane_gun_I. A good friend, who is a nice man so I chose not to upset him by explaining why he sounds like an idiot, announced on Facebook that he wasn’t reading any more “gun nut” posts. Hmmmm. I wonder what he thinks a “gun nut” is? Is a gun nut a teacher who punishes a student for pointing his finger like a gun, or who prevents a deaf child from signing his name, Gunner? Or is it someone who believes that the Second Amendment, which wasn’t second by accident, should be followed? Is it someone who keeps saying that laws need to be passed that will stop shootings like the one in Oregon, but who either has no realistic proposals to suggest or who suggest measures that wouldn’t have affected that shooting at all? Isn’t it nutty to engage in magical thinking? I think so.

II. I also think it’s nutty, not to mention hypocritical, to decry the lack of “civil debate” regarding gun policy and then call anyone who doesn’t want guns melted down by government order “nuts.”  Actually it’s worse than that: pundits, politicians and anti-gun advocates are increasingly equating  opposition to gun regulations advanced using false arguments, dubious logic, ad hominem attacks and deceitful statistics with insanity and intractable evil. Frankly, I resent it. I’m not opposed to sensible gun regulations, but my job is to oppose false arguments, dubious logic, ad hominem attacks and deceitful statistics, as well as to make sure that they don’t succeed lest “the ends justify the means” become a social norm.

III. Speaking of hypocritical, Mike Huckabee and others have been quite properly criticized (by me, for example) by claiming that since the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is “wrong,” it shouldn’t be followed. Yet the most vociferous defenders of that SCOTUS decision simultaneously advocate anti-gun measures that are forbidden by the Court’s decisions interpreting the Second Amendment….because, you see, “it’s wrong.” Continue reading

Ethics Quote Of The Week: Ron Fournier

“In the 18 months since I began writing columns focused on the presidency, virtually every post critical of Obama has originated from conversations with Democrats. Members of Congress, consultants, pollsters, lobbyists, and executives at think tanks, these Democrats are my Obama-whispers. They respect and admire Obama but believe that his presidency has been damaged by his shortcomings as a leader; his inattention to details of governing; his disengagement from the political process and from the public; his unwillingness to learn on the job; and his failure to surround himself with top-shelf advisers who are willing to challenge their boss as well as their own preconceived notions.”

—–National Journal reporter Ron Fournier, in a post titled “‘I’ve Had Enough’: When Democrats Quit on Obama”

That's all right, Curley; we respect and admire you.

That’s all right, Curley; we respect and admire you.

What? They respect and admire a leader who displays “shortcomings as a leader” and  “inattention to details of governing”; who is disengaged  “from the political process and from the public;” is unwilling “to learn on the job;” and fails “to surround himself with top-shelf advisers who are willing to challenge their boss as well as their own preconceived notions”? That’s irresponsible and destructive. Good heavens, who else do these people “respect and admire”?

We ought to respect leaders who recognize the difficulty of the job they have accepted the challenge of performing on behalf of the entire nation, not just their supporters, and who don’t allow arrogance and ego to interfere with their acquiring the skills and expertise necessary to meet that challenge. We should respect leaders who have the courage to sacrifice and compromise to solve problems rather than make excuses and blame others because they are ideologically rigid and more adept at political maneuvering than governing. Continue reading