Skip to main content

Thinking about Boston ... and us

Not that it matters, but I have been consciously resisting the urge to write or comment on the Boston Marathon bombing.  Even when the subject came up in my classes, I fell back on letting students ask questions and express opinions without much input from me, and I avoided this question like the plague:   "Who do you think did it?"

Part of my reticence stems from the fact that I don't have anything particularly profound or challenging to say.  I cringe as some of my liberal friends make the heroism of an undocumented worker into an implicit condemnation of our immigration laws, and I flinch even harder when conspiracy theorists (many of whom are libertarians) tie the bombing to the government's plan to disarm the population.

I shake my head at the News Journal applauding the excess of surveillance in this country as being one of the redeeming features of the incident, and I disagree with Rob Tomoe's well-intentioned political cartoon suggesting this will bring us together.  I cringe when David Sirota pens a column in Salon entitled, "Let's Hope the Boston Marathon Bomber is a White American."

I don't want to write cautionary essays about the government not being allowed to use this incident as precedent for an even greater police state, or raise trite equivalencies about the dead and wounded in Boston as compared to the dead and wounded in US drone attacks in Pakistan or Yemen.

I can't look at the photo of the youngster who died without wanting to hold my grandson close, but I don't want to write about that, either, because--no--I really don't understand that family's pain.

So what in the hell DO I want to write about?

How about this:  Boston reminds us of the potential cost of living in a generally free, generally open society.  There will be more Bostons down the road, as there have been Bostons in the past, and--as terror strikes by individuals and small groups even in the most repressive totalitarian regimes prove--we will never eliminate them completely, even if we give up all our civil liberties in a vain pursuit of complete security.

Nope, that's trite and borders on politicizing a tragic act of terrorism.

How about this, then:  Boston should bring us to the realization that we have so politicized everything in this country that it is virtually impossible to write meaningful prose about the bombing without trivializing it or making those words into a political weapon.  We no longer have an engrained, near unified reaction as "an American people."

We have poll results and partisan politics.  We no longer have a shared definition of what it is to be "an American," and we're not likely to have one any time soon.  Unlike most of my friends on both right and left, I am not yet precisely sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing,

Or maybe this:  Whatever happened (before the 24/7/365 news cycle) we now allow our pundits or regular citizens any time for reflection before comment.

Which, in itself, quietly, is something of tragedy.


Comments

Anonymous said…
I've thought about this along the same lines. We have no one to blame but ourselves. Our society is a me, not we society. It's a self centered society focused on my beliefs, feelings and wants. We idolize those who provide no benefit to anyone but their own self idolization. We have a generation who are now in their early 20s who have never lost. They've never kept score and have no idea how to functionally deal with emotions. If there is a problem we have a pill to cover it up. No one has pride in hard work. There is no us in our society. We've never learned self control and self effacing consideration. Because of that we not only act in terrible and tragic ways but we use those incidents as a spring board to our individual soap boxes. These shooting, bombings, stabbings, etc are our own fault. Our society has produced this. We are all culpable.
tom said…
In Steve's lengthy piece about not knowing quite what to write, at least he didn't take the time-honored tack of blaming the young.

Go ahead Anonymous Coward, wring your hands and lament the greed, apathy, narcissism, and lack of a decent work ethic of today's youth.

That will fix everything --

Just like it has in every past generation all the way back to the dawn of civilization.
Delaware Watch said…
How is targeting weddings and homes where it is known children are present for drone attacks tritely equivalent to bombing people at a public event like the Boston Marathon? Both are terrorist acts (one performed by a state and the other by an individual or individuals) and both are equally deplorable.
kavips said…
I'm more worried about missing fertilizer in Waco than I am about pressure cookers in Boston.

I'm not making light of Boston, just wonder if someone is using the new Waco to play us over the old Waco?

In a philosophical way, it shows us we will never be safe. We have no foreign challenges to our power, so we suffer domestic ones, by lone wolfs, people who go bats at a moments notice. When we're at war, the crazies never come out of the woodwork....

I enjoyed your piece. I too can't find the energy to talk about it, probably because of those who have spoken so wrongly of it already....

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...