Folks have been writing in, ever since I posted the latest version of my "Names of Infamy" essay. In fact, during just the last few days there has been a noticeable media swell - - a growing movement not to mention the name of the Aurora/Batman shooter.
As reported by Molly Hennesy-Fiske of the Los Angeles Times: "Jordan
Ghawi, 26, of San Antonio became frustrated by how much of news
coverage focused on the 24-year-old Holmes. 'Let us remember the names
of the victims and not the name of the coward who committed this act,'
Ghawi tweeted Friday afternoon. The tweet went viral. When some Twitter
followers noticed Holmes' name trending on Twitter - something Ghawi
said bothered his mother - they started a campaign to promote (a
victim's) name instead."
On Sunday, Mr. Ghawi made his pitch
directly to President Obama, who chose not to mention the shooter by
name, in his public remarks.
Not a new idea, this worthy notion goes back to the last century, even long before I proposed it publicly in Salon Magazine
(1999), describing the "Herostratos Effect" in which ancient peoples
would sometimes expunge the names of those committing heinous crimes.
pros and cons and means of doing this in a modern context, while
preserving full memory, accountability and freedom of speech, lead to
some interesting possibilities.
Although my most recent posted version
of the Herostratos essay led to some radio time, I imagine Mr. Ghawi
and the others thought of this notion independently -- and more power to
them! Good ideas sometimes take time, before finally gaining traction.
the intellectual/historical side of things may be of interest, if this
idea is to build momentum and become a factor in solving a terrible
=== The absurd nostrums on "gun control" ==
My "names of infamy" proposal is actually quite separate from another matter -- the endless tussle over gun control.
yet, the two topics inevitably get conflated at a time like this. At
least, they were in a flood of emails, comments and assertions on
facebook, twitter and this web log, proclaiming that "this sort of thing
brings out hordes of liberals campaigning to eliminate the Second
Amendment and gun owner rights."
Speaking as a Smithian
libertarian, but one who finds liberals worthy to talk-to, may I respond
with a simple request? Will someone please show me this
campaign? Point to specific bills, or sustained efforts, even solidly
backed proposals with even a slight chance of enactment.
They don't exist. And this simple little cartoon from Tom Tomorrow sums it up neatly.
one serious gun control notion is getting even tepid mention: to
restore the requirement that people get checked out and licensed before
blithely purchasing full-on assault rifles with mega-sized magazines.
The very law that would have prevented the Aurora shooter-nut from
easily acquiring his means to spray mass death.
That rule was passed, way back in the sane 20th Century, by an old thing called negotiated consensus
between sober democratic and republican leaders... a pragmatic measure
that led to no "slippery slope," nor any decay in reasonable gun-owner
rights. Alas, it was flushed away by the later, crazier breed
controlling Congress in 2005.
Now before you call me a lefty nut,
please pause for perspective: those who denounced the assault gun
licensing requirement -- and who howl now against its restoration --
seem to have no problem with the ongoing, 70 year old rule against
private ownership of full-scale machine guns. So then, it's just a matter of where you choose to draw lines, right?
(See my essay, The Jefferson Rifle.)
Raising this question: when
one whacko can kill or wound 72 people in a couple of minutes, so
quickly that no brave bystander gets a chance to tackle him, isn't that a
"machine gun" style situation? Can you contemplate that maybe - just
maybe - your line-in-the-sand may have been drawn just a tad too far? Is
it possible to rediscover the sane art of pragmatic compromise, without
fainting away or screeching in dread of a Slippery Slope?
I have shown a possible national compromise that would be a win-win... actually strengthening
the constitutional guarantees of basic, essential gun ownership, while
at the same time allowing pragmatic measures to be taken that reduce
some of the worst calamities... all without a slippery slope. (That
is, I have shown it to the half dozen people who still have both
curiosity and the patience to read careful arguments. If you choose not
to actually read that proposal, please don't gush forth generalized
comments here, about what you presume it to be.)
Anyway, it's all much, much simpler than that.
The Slippery Slope does not exist. Not anymore. It's a fantasy. And I can prove it.
fact is - and, again let me remind you that I say this not as a
"liberal" but as a Heinleinian-Smithian Libertarian - the right seems
completely unaware of a seismic shift that happened under G.W. Bush --
-- when many liberals started arming themselves.
Yes, they are. As is their perfect right.
Now tell that to your crazy uncle and watch multiple expressions pass across his face, as it sinks in.