I remain convinced that the witch hunt that claimed Brandon Eich is a big deal but I don’t really have anything new to say. So some links:
- Angriest response, perhaps, goes to Thomas L. McDonald.
- Rod Dreher certainly isn’t letting it go yet, but finds a glimmer of silver lining.
- Andrew Sullivan, who has earned the right to dissent, dissents.
- Elizabeth Scalia challenges some gay CEO to hire Eich, getting uncharacteristically and unapologetically scatalogical about it.
- Robert P. George is pretty predictable.
Actually, I guess I do have something new to say. But after writing it, I’ve concluded I’d better not publish it lest I be hounded into early retirement. Maybe later.
Conor Friedersdorf, though, adds a perspective that I’ve also noted:
Discussing the issue with such frequency, in public and private, as far back as 2003 or 2004, I’ve had many occasions to observe that an individual’s position on the policy question turns out to be a flawed proxy for his or her attitude toward gays and lesbians. Gay-marriage supporters may have been more likely to be tolerant of gays. But I encountered people who’d say things like, “Look, I don’t want gays looking at me in the shower at the gym, but why should I care if they want to marry each other?” And I also encountered gay-marriage opponents who were, apart from opposing marriage equality, model parents to gay sons or daughters, exceptionally supportive to gay friends, and wonderful bosses to gay subordinates.
Those last two categories don’t get nearly enough mention. I like to think I’m in that last category, as seemingly was Mr. Eich. But I sure know people in the second category.
If “homophobia” isn’t a mindless epithet, why does the third group get labeled homophobic while the second group – the “I don’t care what they do so long as they stay the hell away from me” folks – get a free pass?
Since we in Greater Lafayette share a bridge named for him, it just might be of special interest that the conventional explanation of his death just one month into his Presidency might be wrong. It just might have been enteric fever rather than pneumonia that got him.
Authorities supposedly are puzzling over the problem of shootings on military bases after this week’s shooting at Fort Hood. You have a collection of people trained in how to kill other people with guns. They routinely work at the base without guns, however.
So if someone brings a gun against the rules, he’s holding high trump.
But if you let everyone who’s trained in weapon use carry their weapons, some of them sometimes will go haywire, or routine arguments will escalate.
It seems to me you cannot keep people from shooting people. Am I missing something?
In other words, we’re back to my old favorite:
This isn’t some wry academic point. Trying to find a solution for this non-problem can itself lead to the problem – or is it an evil instead – of “Police State.”
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)