« Yellowstone’s climate has changed significantly during the last century | Main | Wildness does not always paint such a pretty picture (with pictures). »
It’s an election year. Guns in the parks don’t really matter.
By Mike Tercek | January 21, 2008
A recently overheard conversation. . .
James: It’s an election year and the world is facing tough challenges. There are wars, a sluggish economy, looming environmental disasters, genocide, corrupt governments, and entire countries on the brink of water shortages or starvation. So you can count on our politicians to manufacture a non-issue that will sway voters.
Patty: What do you mean?
James: Forty-seven of our senators want to repeal the law that bans guns in the national parks.
Patty: I know, but the current law doesn’t really ban guns. You just aren’t allowed to have a LOADED gun that is easily accessible in your car or on your belt.
James: Exactly, those 47 senators just want to make sure that people in Yellowstone can squeeze off a few shots at a moment’s notice.
Patty: Honestly, I’m too tired to discuss it. Can’t we just take drugs or sit in a sensory deprivation tank for a few hours? It’s too stupid to even think about.
James: I know. . .We ALL know that this has nothing to do with self-defense. The chances of getting robbed or mugged in a national park are virtually zero, and . . .
Patty: But what about those women that were murdered in Yosemite a few years ago?
James: They were actually kidnapped outside the park –near the park – but in a place where they could’ve carried guns. But that’s not my point. There’s basically no crime in most national parks, and it’s well established that pepper spray is more effective against a grizzly bear. Some outdoor groups actually advocate requiring hunters to carry bear spray because it works so much better than a gun during a bear attack.
Patty: Hey! I’m going into the bedroom. Want to come?
James: Hold on a minute. Allowing people to carry guns will just make it harder for the park rangers to prove that someone is poaching. After all, that guy creeping along the park boundary in camouflage with twigs in his hair is just exercising his second amendment rights. ‘Nice thirty-aught-six you’ve got there, sir. Have a nice day!’ Hah! But, y’know, eliminating this law will also lead to a lot of dead bears. I used to work for an outfitter, as a guide on pack trips, and practically every week one of the clients would complain that he couldn’t carry a gun with him while he was fishing. ‘I guess I’ll just kiss my ass goodbye,” they’d say. People are really terrified of bears, and if you give them the chance, they’re going to shoot first and ask questions later. Visiting a national park should be a LEARNING experience, and I think one very valuable lesson would be how to walk through the woods in a respectful, safe way that doesn’t involve killing everything you see.
Patty: STOP IT. I thought you said this is a non-issue. The world is facing tough problems, right? We should worry about the big issues.
James: You’re right. Those 47 senators aren’t stupid. They just want to placate the NRA so they can get re-elected in November. None of them give a damn about the second amendment or the effect that this will have on the national parks. This issue is just as dumb as the debate over gay marriage. Nobody really cares what consenting adults do in the context of their own personal lives. Nobody, that is, except for the ignorant Republican base. The rest of us are forced to put up with their paranoid whining over the decay of morals and preservation of the American Way. Oh my God! I should have the right to defend myself against all those imagined evils . . . all those hordes of evil killers that are lurking in Yellowstone and the terrible gay people that want to not bother me at all as they go about minding their own business.
Patty: So what’s the solution, smarty pants? You seem to know everything.
James: I DO know a lot, and I think there should be a knowledge test that every voter should pass before they are allowed in the polling booth. If you don’t know a few basic facts then you aren’t allowed to mess up our world with your deluded fantasies. Here’s a good question, for example: Can you name one pieces of evidence that supports the theory of evolution? Or: Do you “believe” in evolution? Hah! As if evolution is really up for debate. How about this? Do you believe in Gravity or Thermodynamics? It scares the hell out of me that Huckabee won a plurality in Iowa. Can you imagine how stupid we’d look –and how screwed we’d be – if that guy made it to the White House?
Patty: You can’t really believe that we need a knowledge test. A test like that would just be exploited to exclude voters who won’t vote for the status quo. Just imagine if a religious fundamentalist got elected. He could write a test that required a detailed knowledge of Bible passages and guarantee his re-election. This is exactly why they got rid of the literacy tests in the southern US. They had an explicitly racist purpose. Those tests were designed to prevent black people from voting out the whites, who were a minority in many districts.
James: Well, we already have a religious fundamentalist in the oval office and look how well that’s been working out for us. And what do you think happened in Florida during the 2000 election? But I guess I see your point.
Patty: You’re actually admitting that I’m right?
James: Yes, but it just raises more questions.
Patty: Swell.
James: Thinking about Florida just makes me mad.
Patty: You’re angry? How surprising.
James: I can accept the fact that our electoral system is an arcane mess, but it really hacks me off me to think that the country was so evenly split to begin with. Imagine someone looking at George W. Bush –a non-verbal nitwit and an obvious puppet for corporate hegemony if there ever was one – and then . . .THEN they look at Al Gore, who has written several books and had a distinguished career in the senate. So you look at those two guys and you say . . .‘Gee, I just don’t know.’
You can’t tell them apart? They’re just two politicians, right? But look at how history has borne out the contrast. One of them won the Nobel Peace Prize while the other . . .Well, look at the newspaper on any random day.
Patty: There were a few undecided voters, sure, but they were in the minority. The country was very polarized in 2000. There were two very different, strongly supported points of view struggling for dominance.
James: That’s what the talking heads on TV say. But if you look at polls that enumerate voter concerns you see nothing but dismal self-interest. People aren’t undecided about the issues. They’re just trying to figure out which candidate will best serve their selfish goals. We’ve got 600 of the world’s top scientists practically screaming at us in the IPCC report, telling us that climate change is a looming disaster. But if you look at these polls, the environment isn’t even in the top ten list of voter concerns. It makes me wonder why the presidential candidates bother flying to every little town hall to make a canned stump speech and then listen to the same old questions. Wouldn’t it be better to have voters submit their questions anonymously over the internet? We could save the jet fuel, and since the voters wouldn’t be forced to stand up in public, they could be perfectly honest. They’d really ask about their deepest concerns. They’d ask things like:
How much money will you save me in taxes?
How much money will you save me in health care?
What other free stuff will I get by voting for you?
People don’t seem to care about the long-term or the general interests of the country. What ever happened to “Ask not what your country can do for you . . .?”
Patty: I think you need to stop now. You sound incredibly bitter and cynical.
James: You’re right. Homeland security is probably monitoring this conversation. If we aren’t careful, a transcript of it might end up on the internet.
Topics: General, Mike Tercek, Yellowstone News |
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.