Here's a message from Don Porges…
On your 2:21 pm posting: you're painting with a terribly broad brush, and it follows jarringly on the heels of the Colbert posting, in particular this of Colbert's: "Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us."
I think you're expressing a cynicism (that isn't typical of you, from what else I've read) that all political debate is just opportunism, and that it is inappropriate to take the bloodiest school shooting in history and use it to talk about those elements of gun policy that someone sincerely believes contributed to it. I disagree, presuming that we're talking about people arguing in good faith. I can certainly understand you not wanting to invite a swarm of gun control emails, and perhaps your sarcastic both-sides-be-damned approach seemed like a way of avoiding that.
Nevertheless, "referring" to both sides at once, by abstracting away any actual position and turning to phrases like "whatever you believe," comes across as spitting on the concept of having a position, or believing that it matters. You also seem to show contempt for the idea that one side might actually be right, even though both sides continue to behave in the "same" manner by persisting in arguing for their side.
The point of the discussion that I'm sure is playing out on blogs and on TV is not to "honor the memory" of those who died. Their survivors will not be spending the next several days hitting refresh on their RSS readers to follow the discussion, or watching cable news. If I strongly believe that implementing my position would save 32 more lives in another event, the time to argue for it is now, not later, and I think that can be done without disrespecting the dead.
Finally, that bit about "you may even be glad all those people were shot": that's another thing that's worse, not better, from naming no names, or sides of the issue. Maybe you've been watching cable news all day, and someone you've seen deserves it, but from out here, it's just a terrible accusation looking for a target.
I think you're reading a lot into my remarks that I didn't say and don't believe, starting with any criticism of having a position or believing that it matters. Obviously, the deadliest shooting spree in our nation's history matters. How could anyone think it didn't matter? Having a position therefore matters.
You disagree with me "presuming that we're talking about people arguing in good faith." There's the problem right there. The kind of thing I was talking about — pouncing on the issue to further one's view of gun control, particularly under the guise of honoring the dead — does not strike me as arguing in good faith. It strikes me as opportunism…exploiting the tragedy while it's hot, while people can still be manipulated by their emotions. If there is a reasoned argument to be made here, it will be valid when there aren't fresh bodies to use as selling points. And the time to make it is all the time…because this problem will always be with us until we do something about it. Which is not going to happen.
I wasn't really saying anything beyond that but since you've got me going here, I will: I don't think the solution is anywhere in all the Internet postings I read this afternoon in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. They all fell into the predictable, extreme positions of "we need less guns" versus "we need more guns." As long as the debate ping-pongs between those positions and those people control the issue, nothing will change.
I don't believe that in every issue, both sides are always wrong. Often, one side is right. In the quite-serious matter of the Iraq War, one side sure seems to me to be right and getting righter. But in this particular matter — the ongoing, constant issue of guns in America — I think neither side is right; not in the sense of doing anything to lessen the chance of more incidents like today's. They've effectively paralyzed this issue to the point where each new bloody massacre is an occasion for a lot of yelling and posturing and donation-collecting, much of it justified in the memory of the victims…but no meaningful changes.
Those would have to come from the middle…but the middle doesn't have a voice in this discussion. It never has, and as each mass murder further empowers the extremes, the chance of that voice ever being heard goes increasingly from slim towards none. Whenever the next "deadliest shooting spree in our nation's history" occurs, it will occur under the exact same set of gun laws we have today.
I know that sounds like cynicism. If you'd like to convince me it's not realistic, then tell me what changed after the last "deadliest shooting spree in our nation's history." Or the one before.