If you have never seen what a weapon of war does to a human body, consider yourself lucky to have one less recurring nightmare. But short of seeing this carnage up close and personal, images of it are unlikely to change the political minds that matter, or more importantly, have the desired effect in our violence-spattered society. That the bodies were once living human beings, not actors, and the blood is the real thing, not corn syrup, dishwashing liquid and food coloring made to look like it --- is too easily confounded. We have become shamefully inured. Having said that, it is (IMO) in the highest ideals of journalism to constantly remind society of the clear and present dangers to it --- whether it be the present insanity of our gun safety laws (or more apropos, the lack of rational ones) or a would-be second rate tin-pot dictator. There is no equivalence or so-called "balance" (again IMO) in reporting or editorially considering such matters, there is only glaring objectivity, if not necessarily in the best financial interests of general circulation media in this day and age. Statistics and thoughts and prayers are no match for zealotry and paid subservience. Only the ballot is strong enough to eventually counteract the insanity. I often ask how many lives saved in a year would be enough to support even the most common sense gun safety laws --- laws that even responsible gun owners would get behind --- 10 ? 100? 200? Or, would no number of lives saved be enough ? I usually get no answer (although the silence speaks volumes) or some angry retort about an imaginary inalienable right. The Second Amendment, even conveniently misinterpreted and monetized, is no more absolute than any other. And the hideous murders of hundreds of innocents can no longer be allowed to be simply written off as collateral damage in support of a delusion.
Evidence commonly cited suggests that the gun owners actually are prepared to accept teeny tiny modest safety laws. The problem is the gun sellers, who accurately see that once a reasonable restriction can be seen to promote safety without significantly irritating the "responsible" gun owners, then it is likely that further restrictions would be enacted. And they don't want to risk that.
If you would, allow me a moment of refection with the word now that Rosalynn Carter has died. Although I suppose, not unexpected when she entered home hospice care with Jimmy --- her passing
strikes me as especially sad. Not so much because this great love story has ended at least its temporal existence, but because we can ill-afford in this day and age to lose two advocates for caring and compassion --- and moreover, who advocated by example. So, I was especially moved on hearing the words of Emily Dickinson (first verse) and William Blake (second verse) on compassion, set to music by the supremely talented Canadian composer and musician, Bill Douglas. The beautiful "I Shall Not live in Vain" performed here by Douglas and the Ars Nova Singers from Boulder, CO may also strike a responsive chord. The poem by Dickinson and the portion of Blake's used in the piece follow the YouTube link to the recording.
Dude. You cannot quote that one stanza from Blake! You need to quote the other two. The poem is actually quite cynical. I long ago committed it to memory.
So sang a little clod of clay/ trodden with the cattle's feet. / But a pebble of the brook / Warbled out these metres mete: /.Love seeketh only self to please / To bind another to its delight /. Joys in another's loss of ease / And builds a hell in heaven's despite.
Take it up with the composer. I merely quoted the stanza he used which suits his purpose. And, if I may be so bold, the poem actually shows the often contrariness of the emotion. Cynical per se ? I get more of a wistful vibe, but at a stretch I suppose you could say so (especially seeing as how this is your blog). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My reading of the entire poem leads me to conclude that the Douglas removed the stanza from its context to suit his compositional needs. I don't need to take it up with him. Ignoring his song is sufficient for me.
OK, I thought the poll was did the Post make a mistake publishing the apology, in which case I answered yes. IF it was a mistake in publishing the aftermath images, then, no, so you could remove one yes vote.
I found the images much less appalling than if they had actually contained dead bodies. Aside from the body bags in the corridor and a few maybe bodies (or maybe just clothing) at a distance in the field at the Route 91 Harvest Festival, there were none.
I saw the cartoon on my local paper's website. I didn't even notice the caricature aspect, just the image of the children. I thought it was spot on..
If you have never seen what a weapon of war does to a human body, consider yourself lucky to have one less recurring nightmare. But short of seeing this carnage up close and personal, images of it are unlikely to change the political minds that matter, or more importantly, have the desired effect in our violence-spattered society. That the bodies were once living human beings, not actors, and the blood is the real thing, not corn syrup, dishwashing liquid and food coloring made to look like it --- is too easily confounded. We have become shamefully inured. Having said that, it is (IMO) in the highest ideals of journalism to constantly remind society of the clear and present dangers to it --- whether it be the present insanity of our gun safety laws (or more apropos, the lack of rational ones) or a would-be second rate tin-pot dictator. There is no equivalence or so-called "balance" (again IMO) in reporting or editorially considering such matters, there is only glaring objectivity, if not necessarily in the best financial interests of general circulation media in this day and age. Statistics and thoughts and prayers are no match for zealotry and paid subservience. Only the ballot is strong enough to eventually counteract the insanity. I often ask how many lives saved in a year would be enough to support even the most common sense gun safety laws --- laws that even responsible gun owners would get behind --- 10 ? 100? 200? Or, would no number of lives saved be enough ? I usually get no answer (although the silence speaks volumes) or some angry retort about an imaginary inalienable right. The Second Amendment, even conveniently misinterpreted and monetized, is no more absolute than any other. And the hideous murders of hundreds of innocents can no longer be allowed to be simply written off as collateral damage in support of a delusion.
Evidence commonly cited suggests that the gun owners actually are prepared to accept teeny tiny modest safety laws. The problem is the gun sellers, who accurately see that once a reasonable restriction can be seen to promote safety without significantly irritating the "responsible" gun owners, then it is likely that further restrictions would be enacted. And they don't want to risk that.
For an insider's account of how the gun industry works, pick up the book "Gunfight," by Ryan Busse.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/22/1056871881/gunfight-author-ryan-busse
If you would, allow me a moment of refection with the word now that Rosalynn Carter has died. Although I suppose, not unexpected when she entered home hospice care with Jimmy --- her passing
strikes me as especially sad. Not so much because this great love story has ended at least its temporal existence, but because we can ill-afford in this day and age to lose two advocates for caring and compassion --- and moreover, who advocated by example. So, I was especially moved on hearing the words of Emily Dickinson (first verse) and William Blake (second verse) on compassion, set to music by the supremely talented Canadian composer and musician, Bill Douglas. The beautiful "I Shall Not live in Vain" performed here by Douglas and the Ars Nova Singers from Boulder, CO may also strike a responsive chord. The poem by Dickinson and the portion of Blake's used in the piece follow the YouTube link to the recording.
https://youtu.be/Hhm7tErIHDg
If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.
--- Emily Dickinson (# 119), "If I can stop one heart from breaking," about 1864 and published in 1929 in Further Poems of Emily Dickinson
Love seeketh not itself to please,
Nor for itself has any care,
But for another gives its ease,
And builds a Heaven in Hell’s despair.
--- William Blake from "The Clod and the Pebble," (1794)
Dude. You cannot quote that one stanza from Blake! You need to quote the other two. The poem is actually quite cynical. I long ago committed it to memory.
So sang a little clod of clay/ trodden with the cattle's feet. / But a pebble of the brook / Warbled out these metres mete: /.Love seeketh only self to please / To bind another to its delight /. Joys in another's loss of ease / And builds a hell in heaven's despite.
Take it up with the composer. I merely quoted the stanza he used which suits his purpose. And, if I may be so bold, the poem actually shows the often contrariness of the emotion. Cynical per se ? I get more of a wistful vibe, but at a stretch I suppose you could say so (especially seeing as how this is your blog). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
My reading of the entire poem leads me to conclude that the Douglas removed the stanza from its context to suit his compositional needs. I don't need to take it up with him. Ignoring his song is sufficient for me.
OK, I thought the poll was did the Post make a mistake publishing the apology, in which case I answered yes. IF it was a mistake in publishing the aftermath images, then, no, so you could remove one yes vote.
Does anyone else find it cruelly ironic that the caution posted at the top of the article is known as a trigger warning?
I found the images much less appalling than if they had actually contained dead bodies. Aside from the body bags in the corridor and a few maybe bodies (or maybe just clothing) at a distance in the field at the Route 91 Harvest Festival, there were none.