It's a depressing three-parter:
- Someone in America guns down a number of innocent civilians.
- The media starts with sirens and statistics on how many dead, how many wounded.
- As time goes on an 'angle' emerges as to what led to the person doing this, usually music, films, computer games, but also political/religious ideology.
- At some point someone will mention something about how, maybe not having guns readily available might help prevent this sort of thing.
Except this time the media coverage seems to have blundered over steps two and three at a single bound. Presumably because editors the world over have gone 'actually, even I'm not going to suggest one of the summer blockbusters is subversive and dangerous' and instead we've short-circuited to actually talking about the real issue.
I would be grateful for this except that certain elements of the media (perhaps in an attempt to find a different 'angle' or perhaps just due to some perverse interpretation of 'plurality of opinion') have started pointing fingers at anyone who, in the wake of a killing spree perpetrated by an individual who bought 3,000 rounds of ammunition and all the weapons he used entirely legally, dares to suggest that maybe making weapons less readily available might help stop this sort of thing in the future?
An example of this was published in the normally left-leaning Guardian
A detailed puncturing of the simplistic and deeply flawed arguments can wait for another day, for now I want to focus on one line:
"Americans were once again unable to grieve without being pounced on by
politicians and liberals seeking to politicise the tragedy for their own
political gain"
This, in a nutshell, displays the blinkered view of the American right. It seems to conclude that tighter gun control is a completely unrelated sinister political agenda, that Liberals will try and force on an unsuspecting people. It can't seem to draw a line between someone having a gun, and people getting shot.
In the UK someone suggesting we stop people having guns isn't seen as a political move, or if it is it's not seen as being that partisan. After all, following the Dunblane massacre the conservatives passed the 'Firearms (Amendment) act' and Labour followed up with the 'Firearms (Amendment) (No 2) Act' later the same year.
Suggesting, in the aftermath of a mass shooting, that tighter gun control is a good idea isn't political knee-jerking, it's a ninja-kick of common sense into the balls of stupidity.
Monday, 23 July 2012
Monday, 16 July 2012
Olympic Spirit
One sentence has been springing from my lips this week:
"But, even china managed to avoid having uniformed soldiers on the gates!"
Over the last week or so I've come to the conclusion that, far from being an aberration, this is just a natural extension of the Olympic spirit as it currently stands.
Firstly there's the tickets:
Even setting aside the horrendously miss-managed ticket selling procedure (that left many so disillusioned they never tried in the second and third rounds where thousands of tickets were available) the sheer cost of the tickets made it impossible for many of the people living in the socially deprived areas of East London that the games is supposed to be helping.
But what about the torch relay?
OK, fine, theoretically one can spend a day huddled by the roadside to catch a fleeting glimpse of the self-extinguishing flame. But the effort to reward ration is a bit scant, not to mention that if you do anything but cheer and wave politely you're likely to be hurled to the ground by one of the Metropolitan Police's Torch Security Team or just arrested if it looks like you're going to take part in some form of non-violent protest.
But we can still see it on the TV right?
Yes, just the same way you were able to watch the 2008 games. Except this time you get to watch it safe in the knowledge that it's all being paid for by the humble tax-payer. If you actually live in the capital it gets even better as you can sit in the official Olympic traffic jams, or commute in Olympically congested trains and know that you've been paying extra for the privilege for the last few years from your council tax.
Soldiers on the gates is just another symptom of an Olympics that has become: "Look but don't touch." "Support but don't experience," and ultimately: "Buy, but don't criticise."
"But, even china managed to avoid having uniformed soldiers on the gates!"
Over the last week or so I've come to the conclusion that, far from being an aberration, this is just a natural extension of the Olympic spirit as it currently stands.
Firstly there's the tickets:
Even setting aside the horrendously miss-managed ticket selling procedure (that left many so disillusioned they never tried in the second and third rounds where thousands of tickets were available) the sheer cost of the tickets made it impossible for many of the people living in the socially deprived areas of East London that the games is supposed to be helping.
But what about the torch relay?
OK, fine, theoretically one can spend a day huddled by the roadside to catch a fleeting glimpse of the self-extinguishing flame. But the effort to reward ration is a bit scant, not to mention that if you do anything but cheer and wave politely you're likely to be hurled to the ground by one of the Metropolitan Police's Torch Security Team or just arrested if it looks like you're going to take part in some form of non-violent protest.
But we can still see it on the TV right?
Yes, just the same way you were able to watch the 2008 games. Except this time you get to watch it safe in the knowledge that it's all being paid for by the humble tax-payer. If you actually live in the capital it gets even better as you can sit in the official Olympic traffic jams, or commute in Olympically congested trains and know that you've been paying extra for the privilege for the last few years from your council tax.
Soldiers on the gates is just another symptom of an Olympics that has become: "Look but don't touch." "Support but don't experience," and ultimately: "Buy, but don't criticise."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)