They Just Don't Get It

Firefighters know what's up: Water puts out fire, so when they respond to fires, they bring lots of water. Incidentally, they are very good at what they do, as this understanding and procedure is perfectly suited to the task. They, as it were, "Get it."

Other folks aren't so bright, and like the buffalo herd, we can only move as fast as the slowest among us. In my merciless (often scurrilous) attacks on those who drag our herd down, I present the case of "People Who Just Don't Get It." Today, we look at folks who fight fires with waffle irons and end up in the headlines. Their taint in our gene pool is frightening indeed.

To whit...

I present the case of a seriously elderly man on a Hawaiian Air flight from San Diego, who attempted to go to the bathroom by opening the fuselage door. Now anyone who puts up with nine decades of life in this foul world should be entitled to do essentially whatever the hell they want, but opening the fuselage door of an in-flight aircraft is a bit excessive. The poor bugger probably didn't have a clue what he was doing, and who can fault him for desperate measures when he really had to pee and the chubby housewife just wouldn't leave the mini-bathroom. My issue lies, rather, with another passenger, Daniel De Carlo, who is either a scientific genius or a failure at communication.

"...I know what could happen if the doors open at that altitude," he said.

Now that's impressive. I have an idea of what could happen, and it isn't pretty, but he knows and told the world as much...until his next sentence:

"Who knows what could have been sucked out of there?...Who knows if those seat belts would have held us?"

I thought you knew, Daniel. You rose to the fore then discredited yourself, and I, for one, feel mislead.

In other news, schools in Arizona are offering a new elective class: kids can learn all about gun safety and responsible shooting in a firearm-related class taught by certified instructors. Said Dr. Mary Rimsza,

"I'm afraid these programs are really geared more toward increasing peoples [sic] interest in guns rather than safety."

And "Health" class doesn't increase teenagers' interest in sex. Mind you, STDs (of which AIDS is arguably the most deadly) kill more folks than firearm-related accidents yearly. And like sex, Arizona is also full of firearms; might as well teach kids how to be safe with both types of gun, since they're around ‘em anyway.

Besides, it's an elective class: girls can take it. Boys can take it. Other classes are offered as alternatives. Why get up in arms?

Speaking of parents getting riled up about firearms, I surfed the related links and found this inspiration. It seems that Kyle Barroso is a fifth grade student who, tired of reading books about nature and cars, picked up a book on the history of firearms. Kyle's mom, Robin Barroso, flipped out when she saw the book, and is refusing to give it back to the school's library; she talked with the Daily Record about school shootings and violence with the background of a mind educated on sensationalist headlines, dropping such pearls of fear-response and paranoia as

"I know my son's not going to do it, but I don't know that somebody else's son is not."

Not since the Little Red Book has a published volume incited so much fervent paranoia on sight. It would be amusing, if the overreaction wasn't so frightening. Pay attention, though, to her response here:

"When asked if other parents should be responsible for allowing their children to read the book, Barroso responded, 'not if they (other children) get the gun and my kid is in the class and gets shot."

What gun? She was asked about the responsibility of parents monitoring their children's reading material. Robin Barroso is talking about kids getting not just any gun, but "the gun" (no gun has been mentioned...a book has, though), and then using "the gun" violently.

I thought we were talking about a book here?

A book is exactly what the school administrators are talking about. Principal Michael Derczo made several other comments pertaining to the matter at hand: the book. He also commented on the educational value of historical volumes that may address such things as the role of weapons in history. Need we forget, mind you, that our history - for good, and often ill - is littered with violence and the tools of violent parties.

The lesson here isn't one of which side is right - censorship vs. freedom of information, pro-gun vs. anti-gun, policy vs. opposition - but rather the clouding effect of passion, anger, and zeal. Even when the questions addressed specific points, the enraged party was unable to let go of paranoia. This is why logic and facts, regardless of "right" or "wrong" qualities, will never win when pitted against moxie and emotion. Likewise, feelings can't topple facts. Instead the trains miss each other in the night, and both parties go away angry and without much understanding of their opponent.

This happens all the time when folks aren't together on the same page...and then there are those poor dumb bastards who just don't get it.