Classical Values :: Protection from helplessness?

June 20, 2005

Protection from helplessness?

One of the things which most disappoints me about people is their frequent inability to think. Perhaps even there I'm being charitable; inability is more excusable than unwillingness, because mental slowness cannot be helped, and what annoys me cannot fairly be attributed to organic mental deficits. I'm not arguing that there aren't stupid people wholly incapable of independent thought. Nor am I arguing that there aren't people who want to be led.

What torments me almost to madness is the existence of people whose existence seems to scream "SOMEONE PLEASE LEAD ME!" A perfect example is this owner of a pit bull which recently killed her son Nicky in San Francisco:

"It's Nicky's time to go," she said. "When you're born you're destined to go and this was his time."

What kind of person would say such a thing about the death of her son? Such helpless, uncomprehending stupidity almost invites public scrutiny of something completely external to her (in this case, pit bulls as a breed) to avoid looking at her own incompetence as a mother.

Here are more details about how and why the mom barricaded her son in the basement (if you can stand it):

Before she left the house, Faibish sent her 9-year-old son to the store to buy Nicholas a soda, bagel and chips. He also had video games to keep him busy.

"Nicky was happy down there," she said.

Faibish declined to say what triggered such concern that she insisted her son stay in the basement, away from the dogs.

"I don't want to go into any of that detail," she said. "That's between me and the detectives."

Right there, I'm suspicious. I think she knew that there was trouble between the dog and her son. Either the dog hated the boy, or vice versa. Something was wrong, and she knew it, but her incompetence prevented her from doing what any competent mother would have done. (Like, doh! Get rid of the dog, perhaps?)

In my view, the real tragedy tragedy here is the failure -- by anyone -- to acknowledge that this woman was stupid.

Not that anyone can stand reading it, but the ghastly narrative continues, subjecting readers to Mrs. Faibish's "thoughts" -- about what she might have done differently, as well as her political ruminations about Gavin Newsom:

Deeply remorseful, Faibish says she continues to think of what she might have done differently. For one, she wishes she'd persuaded Nicholas to go to a picnic with his younger sister, Ashley.

But she insists, "I have no regrets about that day," Faibish said.

She's also fed up with the second-guessing from public figures who, she feels, do not understand the situation. She says San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who made strong comments about restricting pit bulls, got an earful when he called.

"Just for the record, I yelled at Gavin Newsom,'' she said. "I told him off. How dare him say anything about my family?"

Newsom spokesman Peter Ragone said Saturday the mayor is deeply remorseful over her loss.

"Certainly, she's going through a very difficult time, and we extend our deepest sympathy to her for her loss," said Ragone.

Ragone said the mayor must also consider what policies should be taken regarding the wider issue of public safety.

"There's no question about the fact that the mayor, like most in the city, believe actions must be taken to prevent tragedies like this from occurring in the future," Ragone said.

More here, including a picture of the mother, and here, in a discussion over whether to file criminal charges against the mother.

Criminal stupidity, perhaps? I doubt it. More likely, she'll be portrayed as a victim in need of government "help."

In a somewhat more objective discussion, an animal control officer likened pit bulls to firearms:

Smith likened pit bulls to firearms. You can keep a loaded gun in the house. If you take care of it, respect it and use it properly, everything is fine. If it is misused or mistreated, bad things can happen. People can die.

Whether it's dogs or guns, stupid people almost scream to be led.

And unfortunately there are plenty of people who can't wait to lead them. What that means, tragically, is two ever-growing classes: the leaders and the led.

There's a scary common denominator (scary to me, at least).

Something that used to be called serfdom.

I hate to say this, but some people are and will always remain serfs. (Fortunately, they are not in the majority.) I dislike intolerance of any sort, so my natural inclination is to leave them alone, and allow them to be serfs. What worries me is when those who want to be their lords and masters try to put the rest of us in the same category as their serfs.

Freedom is an easy thing to offer in theory (or in a blog), but there are always people who either don't appreciate it when they have it, don't understand the risks involved, or actually don't want it.

I'll say this for Mrs. Faibish: pathetic as she is, at least she isn't calling for laws protecting her from pit bulls. Years ago, when the AIDS epidemic was relatively new, there was a hue and cry to close down San Francisco's bathhouses. Obviously, anonymous promiscuous sexual intercourse is a great way to contract the disease, and the bathhouses certainly made that easier. Intelligent and rational gay men simply stopped going to the baths, or if they did go they no longer engaged in risky behaviors. I was as much a libertarian then as I am now, and I was against bathhouse closure for the same reasons that I am now -- and for the same reasons I'm against banning guns or breeds of dogs. Governments should not limit personal freedom because some people abuse it.

But what I'll never forget is one particularly helpless patron interviewed on television as he was entering a San Francisco gay bathhouse establishment. After admitting to being a regular, he stated emphatically that the government should shut the place down -- because he couldn't help going there! That scared me then, and it scares me now.

Sean Kinsell offers more on this mindset of helplessness, and links to this Village Voice piece by gay activist Patrick Moore. Among other things, Moore believes gay drug addiction is caused by heterosexuals:

Some of our problems are self-inflicted but others are a direct result of America oppressing, demonizing, and isolating gay people. The very serious effects of oppression on gay people have been long apparent—those of us living on the West Coast know that crystal meth has been steadily killing gay men for years. Historically, gay people have had significantly higher addiction rates than those found in the straight world. In short, too many of us have been torching our lives for decades now with coke, Special K, GHB, poppers, and even good old alcohol. But the real story is not told in the media, because that would require straight people to take responsibility for the harm they have caused us.

No one is responsible for an individual's drug addiction but that individual. Only he can help himself. Blaming others -- especially the "heterosexist power structure" (or the "white power structure") only further degrades freedom.

Freedom includes many risks -- including the risk of drug addiction and death. But as Sean recognizes, such risks are often ignored or denied by the "rudderless" who seem to cry out for guidance:

...sooner or later, anyone in a position to give spiritual and moral guidance to rudderless gay guys is going to have to address a few facts: exposing yourself to the mucous membranes of multiple partners a week is hell on the immune system.

And further:

there is ample evidence that screwing around all the time almost always leads to a sickly, short, destructive, miserable life.

Yes, there is. And much as I favor supplying honest help for people honest enough to want to help themselves, I don't want to be lectured or have my freedom taken away by those who want to supply the rudderless with someone else's rudder. I'm less afraid of having methamphetamine for sale -- in the corner drugstore, even without prescription -- than I am of its "helpless" victims, or their craven "helpers."

I don't know who scare me more; those who'd lead fools, or the fools who'd be led. But I worry that they're multiplying.

MORE: Those who abuse freedom do not limit themselves to guns, sex, or pit bulls. Some people abuse free speech in such a way that seems to invite restrictions on it:

The asshats coming to protest today at the funeral of Cpl. Carrie French say that God killed her, and will continue killing American soldiers. Since those who killed her also think that God is on their side, it seems to me that the protesters share beliefs and goals with the terrorists in Iraq.

Now, I won't treat these enemies of America the same way I'd treat our terrorist enemies; these people are too wacko to take seriously... at least for now. I'm off to join whatever counterprotest there is at the funeral site today, and hope to have pictures and a report later. (Rumors on the street are that we might have some visitors from Mountain Home AFB.) I've never been to a demonstration, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do; normally, I'd mock and belittle them (or as my liberal friends might say, "stifle their dissent") but I don't think that would necessarily be appropriate at a hero's funeral.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

What's up with Phelps? Asshat? Agent provocateur? Maybe both? Clayton Cramer supplies some intriguing background, and concludes he's a "nutcase."

Nutcase or not, Phelps is doing a fine job of helping people who'd love to take away freedom.

UPDATE: Lost in the clamor over protecting people from pit bulls is the story of what happened to this dog, "Princess":

Here's the accompanying story:

Cory Williamson, 17, is in jail accused of raping his neighbor's dog; and is awaiting trial on charges of molesting a 3-year-old girl and the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl.

Princess was raped by Cory Williamson, 17, two weeks ago. Now the dog has died and charges against Williamson have been upgraded.

Princess, who looks very much like a pit bull, apparently failed to fight back.

Had she done so in the absence of witnesses, it would most likely have been reported as another vicious "pit bull attack."

UPDATE (06/21/05): The language in the story about Princess has been changed -- and the word "allegedly" has been added:

Princess was allegedly raped by Cory Williamson, 17, two weeks ago. Now the dog has died and charges against Williamson have been upgraded.

I thought this would happen, so I saved a screenshot. If the vet didn't take a sample of the DNA material from Princess, would that be malpractice? Or obstruction of justice?

MORE (06/21/05): Rand Simberg opines that the word "rape" might be inapplicable:

....the word "rape" has connotations that don't, or at least shouldn't, apply. To me, the word rape means non-consensual penetration (of either gender), but can there be any other kind of penetration of an (non-human) animal? It seems like a category error to me.

How does a dog issue consent? I don't have any personal experience, but I'm given to understand that this is not an uncommon activity on farms, and that the animals don't always necessarily fight back or complain (and generally aren't even injured), but that's not the same thing as granting permission.

Now clearly, this was a brutal crime, but it seems to me that the crime is animal cruelty, not rape. The fact that the instrument of torture and injury was the young man's male member doesn't change that.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Good point. Had the young man killed the dog as well, it wouldn't be murder, but animal cruelty. (I still think DNA evidence is highly relevant.)

In some states, of course, sex of any kind with animals is a crime separate from animal cruelty.

At the risk of getting off-topic, it's probably also worth noting that one Neal Horsley (who appears to fancy himself as a sort of self-appointed spokesman for religious conservatives) has stated that sex with farm animals is all part of "domestic life on the farm." (More here.)

MORE: My thanks to Clayton Cramer not only for linking this post, but for letting me know that I didn't make myself particularly clear:

Another point that Scheie makes, however, I have to disagree with, after linking to my piece about Rev. Fred Phelps rather bizarre and interesting history as a liberal lawyer:
Nutcase or not, Phelps is doing a fine job of helping people who'd love to take away freedom.
He is? I don't think there's a social conservative of any prominence who thinks that Phelps is doing them any good at all. If anything, Phelps is an embarrassment--a man so filled with hatred and with such astonishingly poor instincts for how his act plays, that he certainly helps the ACLU raise money. Even those who would like homosexuality illegal, or at least pushed back into the closet, roll their eyes in amazement and disgust at his frothing hatred.

That was not what I meant by "people who'd love to take away freedom."

I think Phelps -- a man I've long suspected of being an agent provocateur -- is helping the left in general, but more especially he's encouraging those who clamor for restrictions on speech (not all of whom are on the left.)

posted by Eric on 06.20.05 at 09:27 AM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2467

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Protection from helplessness?:

» "What torments me almost to madness ..." from Right Side of the Rainbow
... [Read More] Tracked on June 21, 2005 05:46 PM

Comments

Absolutely true. Individual freedom is inseparable from individual responsibility. If we act like helpless children, we'll be treated like helpless children -- and get our faces stomped by Big Brother's boot.

This Patrick Moore sounds like he wants to be the (male) homosexuals' Jesse Jackson. Contemptible. Fortunately for the Jews, they never sucumbed to such demagogues. They survived and prevailed in the face of centuries of persecution (including the Holocaust) through their own efforts and abilities. Up till now, homosexuals, male and female, have done the same, and I have always admired them for being so much like the Jews. American Negroes did the same until too many of them began to follow the Jesse Jacksons, H. Rap Browns, etc.. Now, after decades of government "help" in the form of welfare, quotas, etc., many of them still wallow in the slums, and blame it on the "the man". I say to them: Stop blaming "the man" and be a man!

I'm going to be harsh, and probably "homophobic" (I'm already "sexist", "racist", etc.). I feel no kindness, no pity, for any man, homosexual or heterosexual, who refuses to take proper precautions to avoid sexually-transmitted diseases. One main transmitter of such diseases is promiscuity. I have long ago concluded that, spiritually, monogamy is superior to promiscuity, which is why I'm for homosexual marriage. I've also concluded that men tend, on the whole to be more promiscuous than women, so it does require some additional effort. It's not a homosexual thing primarily, it's a male thing. Promiscuous heterosexual men (Don Juan, Casanova, Lothario, some of our Presidents, etc.) are legendary, as are some promiscuous women (Messelina, Queen Catherine the Great, etc.). (I've always been against the double standard by which a promiscuous man is called a "stud" while a promiscuous woman is called a "slut.) But men more so, and without the female influence, perhaps men's men most of all from what I hear. (On the other side, Lesbians tend, on the whole, to be more monogamous than heterosexual women from what I hear).

But, anyway, if you can't bring yourself to be monogamous, then for God's sake (or your own) at least have the brains to use a condom! And I say that any man who deliberately infects not only himself but others with deadly disease is not only a fool but a criminal, and should be treated as such.

More generally, if there's one thing I despise, it's willful stupidity, the refusal to think, to follow an argument, to grasp even the simplest concept or the most obvious fact. Ayn Rand identified that as "the loathsomely evil root of all evil". In the famous list of the Seven Capital Sins compiled by Pope Gregory I, it would come under the head of Sloth. I'm stupid enough as it is, I despise somebody even stupider than myself, particularly if so by choice.

My brother once remarked that, today, we have all this marvellous technology -- and people stupider than ever before. I often think that Richard Weaver was right, that this decline of thought began with the triumph of nominalism over Platonic realism in the 14th century. Or with Akhenaton....? Hmmm.... Interesting questions about it all....

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 20, 2005 11:10 AM

Just a side note: are we really "stupider than ever before?" Or do they just seem that way because we have higher expectations, or because the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence?

Let's not let ourselves get stuck in a "golden age" mentality.

Raging Bee · June 20, 2005 04:10 PM

Quite a post. Since you're drilling down into the bedrock of the human condition, might I suggest (in my capacity as Marketing Guy) that you edit it, break it up into more bite-sized pieces (each dealing with some aspect of this theme), and create a series of posts. I do this myself when my posts get too long, as they too often do. This is heavy stuff, with many facets, and probably too much for the average blog reader (who looks for short subjects while, probably, at work) to deal with. I think you'd get more satisfaction doing the series thing.

Also, it would be easier for folks to Trackback or comment if the post were broken up into pieces, each carrying just a fragment of the spectra you're trying to paint. I'd like to comment, link or expand on parts of the post.

Just one blogger's opinion, FWIW.

Mr. Snitch! · June 20, 2005 04:16 PM

Thanks all. Everyone's harsh, but that's OK as long as I don't feel obligated to reply.

I know my posts are too long winded, and they've been that way for years. I've done occasional series type posts ("The Fall" in 3 parts stands out), but no one really seemed to care one way or another. The other thing about writing in pieces is that it not only interrupts my flow (the only way I can write) but the top-to-bottom sequence doesn't seem right to me. It's tough to write anyway, as I'm stretched way out as it is, and I often force myself. Imposing more rules would make it harder than it is. I realize that I don't blog the same way most people do, and I'm probably violating the rules, but seeing these posts as essays is the only way I can manage to do it on a daily basis. Trust me, it drives me nuts much of the time, and if I imposed more rules I'd likely explode.

BTW, Mr. Snitch, your stuff is good. Hoboken needs a voice!

Eric Scheie · June 20, 2005 09:45 PM

Raging Bee wrote:
"Let's not let ourselves get stuck in a "golden age" mentality."

Why not? Better than believing in the lie of "Progress". Our age has not yet produced one writer (not even Ayn Rand or G. K. Chesterton!) equal to or even close to Shakespeare, Homer, or the author of the Book of Job, nor one composer equal to or even close to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven. I'm a reactionary -- proudly. I believe in the Fall and in the Crucifixion -- and, therefore, in Resurrection and in the Redemption.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 20, 2005 10:00 PM

I don't want to start a tennis match here, but for the record, Eric, I like the way your longueurs find continuity in a lot of things that would otherwise have seemed disconnected to most of us. I mean, even when I don't get a link out of the deal. (Thanks as always, BTW.) : ) I can see how shorter, tauter pieces would be easier to breeze through, but I think something would get lost in the process of spooning things out to people in smaller morsels.

Sean Kinsell · June 20, 2005 10:46 PM

As an Orthodox Jew - thanks to the poster who spoke about how we have made our own way in the world. But... that way also involves a lot of empathy, mercy, and support of the weak and those who have fallen off life's horse due to bad choices. The Jews have recovered and thrived largely due to a level of social obligation and restriction of "freedom" that most posters here would chafe and bristle under.

The "let the idiots kill themselves" approach outlined here is most definitely "Classical" - in that fine tradition of gladiatorial entertainments that involved the "weak" or "foolish" being mauled to the delight of the crowd.

None of you would REALLY want to live in such a world. It's nice to spout the libertarian line when you're living a life made comfortable and humanly furnished by Jewish notions of empathy and fraternity - which sometimes unavoidabley translate into intrusive restrictions on personal freedom.

Yes, we all laugh at those caught in terminal ditsy victimhood in the midst of America's freedom and plenty - but life DOES contain many opportunities to stumble, and society must include some resilience and support for those who have stumbled and need help to recover.

Ben-David · June 21, 2005 06:46 AM

I agree about providing resilience and support for those who've stumbled, and it's called compassion. (I've taken in homeless people myself, and I've also been known to stumble!) But there is a distinction between helping those who want (and seek) help, and those who don't. I'd be the first to help anyone who wanted help, but the last to force help on someone who didn't. Nor do I appreciate having money taken from me by threat of government force, only to be redistributed to people who have earned no right to it. People who refuse to help themselves are not in a position be helped by others.

Charity, like volunteerism, must come from within the heart of the person being charitable, or else it is not charity.

I fail to see the relevance of gladiatorial entertainment -- which was opposed by many thinking Romans at the time. (Pliny, Seneca, Cicero -- to name three -- all complained.) Throwing innocent people into an arena for entertainment is indefensible by any moral standard that I know of, classical or modern. But even granting for the sake of argument that the Romans were all a bunch of bloodthirsty and sadistic bastards, how does that indict the libertarian view of leaving people alone?

Eric Scheie · June 21, 2005 08:21 AM

SMA: I wouldn't fret too much about the talent of today. As your own examples prove, the eternal greats are rare, and though Mozarts are few and far between, Salieris (who strive for excellence even if they do not achieve it) are still around.

Besides, we may not have Shakespeare, but we have Whittle and Lileks for fun...

B. Durbin · June 21, 2005 10:57 AM

Some ages produce great art, some don't. Some great artists are recognized in their lifetimes, many aren't. Pining for a lost (and probably ficticious) "Golden Age" isn't necesarily the best way to nurture new talent or ideas.

Raging Bee · June 21, 2005 11:48 AM

Neal Horsley no doubt knows all about that subject. He and Santorum should get together.

B. Durbin:

We also have Eric Scheie writing here for us.

Raging Bee:

True indeed that Beethovens and Shakespeares may be gestating at this moment invisible to our eyes. If so, then they are totally unknown, and not what is lionized today as popular "culture".

Ancient mythologies have always spoken of a Golden Age followed by lesser ages. The Greeks and the Romans believed in this, as did the Hindus. The Bible speaks of Eden and the Fall, and the ancient Egyptians looked back to the reign of Osiris (the first Christ). My own Norse ancestors foresaw the coming of the Ragnarok.

I would rather idealize the great men and women of the past than idealize the mediocrities ("celebrities") of the present. I can't idealize the future because, by defintion, it hasn't happened yet. As G. K. Chesterton pointed out, modern man idealizes the future because it is nought but a blank slate onto which he can project whatever fantasies come into his head. But modern man turns away from the past because he knows he cannot equal it.

Materially, we are far better off than any previous generation, certainly here in the United States of America. I myself have been classified as "very low income" by bureaucrats, yet I live better, have more luxuries, than any Phraroh of Egypt. But, spiritually, I deny that we are one bit better than those who came before us.

History is not a linear "Progress". That notion was invented in the 19th century by materialistic blockheads whose false philosophies gave birth to what we saw in the 20th century. History is, as Oswald Spengler showed us, a record of the rises and falls of one high culture after another. We may go up or down as we choose.

"....They would be much wiser to prove that there has not been much improvement in the past if they wish to startle one into improving in the future. Progress yesterday is really the enemy of progress tomorrow. Indeed in one sense the whole theory of progress is the chief obstacle to our progressing. It does not stir people into any very bustling activity on the staircase to tell them it is a moving staircase."
-G. K. Chesterton (Illustrated London News, June 27, 1925)

We must not give in either to complacency or to despair. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · June 21, 2005 12:50 PM

I refer y'all to the Onion.

Alex · June 21, 2005 01:17 PM

Tongue - In - Cheek Blog Commentaries. We "out" the Idiots!Check our Wanker Of The Month Award.http://www.ofuck.net/ Tongue - in - cheek Blog Commentaries

Blog Commentaries · July 4, 2005 02:21 PM