Good job, American political culture! You've broken the metaphor.

I thought this was just a fluke--one of the silly, hyperbolic things that Chris Matthews tends to say when he's worked up about something.  In discussing Ted Cruz, the current object of Matthews' well deserved disgust, Matthews compared Cruz to Joe MacCarthy and insisted that Cruz is a kind of political terrorist. What struck me was not the comparison to MacCarthy, nor the hyperbole (one should expect that from Matthews, and it is, to a certain degree, part of his shtick--like Colbert's pretended O'Reilly-ism). It was the reason for the comparison that was so bizarre--Matthews insisted that Cruz has the same sneering attitude and moral condescension, and that he even looks like MacCarthy. These may be true, but the comparison seems incredibly disingenuous. It would be like comparing someone to Hitler because he is short, or to Stalin because he has a big mustache. The comparison may not be false, but it is meaningless, since neither figure is considered the model of shortness or of mustachioedness.  This same phenomenon--the complete misuse of metaphor--occurred twice more this week.  First, during Cruz' own so-called filibuster, the Texan compared those who would support ACA to those who supported the Nazi's.  Yes, those who support ACA may be supporting a bad idea, and Nazism was a bad idea--but is that the full extent of our understanding and estimation of Nazism? Cruz' ideological compatriot, Mike Lee, made a similar claim, only Lee used the Revolutionary War rather than WWII.  So, instead of being Nazi sympathizers, those who would support ACA are British soldiers, and Lee and Cruz are American patriots.  I am not opposed to an informed and intelligent debate about Obamacare--it is too big, too important, and too costly not to debate the issue. But this is not a debate. At least they haven't broken logic (yet).

Gun-control continued.

There are a number of arguments which continue to appear in interviews and internet memes that seem, prima facie, relevant and conclusive, but that are easily seen to be void when one looks behind the curtain.  (N.B.: Once again, I am not arguing here in favor of gun-control, nor against gun-control--I am in favor of a reasonable conversation.)  The first comes from Ted Cruz, newly elected senator from Texas.  Cruz appeared on Fox News Sunday to declare that gun-control is unconstitutional.

To be fair, I have not been able to watch the entire interview, so I cannot say whether or not Cruz explained his meaning in more depth.  Nevertheless, Cruz's position cannot be supported either on philosophic grounds nor on historical grounds.  First, while the constitution guarantees certain rights, those rights belong to individuals, whose interest are sometimes in conflict.  Thus, freedom of speech is limited--the age-old example is that you cannot scream fire in a crowded movie theater knowing there is no fire.  Certain kinds of speech are restricted, indeed, to protect people from the abuse of the freedom of speech itself.  Further, the supreme court (whose job it is to interpret the constitution) have decided several cases which allow for the regulation and restriction of gun possession.

The second argument which is floating around on Facebook is a thoughtless meme:

This meme suggests that new gun regulations will not deter criminals from possessing and using guns.  The reason it seems convincing is because it is true--laws don't prevent crime.  Indeed, the simplest way to prevent crime (from this perspective) is to annul all laws (if nothing is deemed criminal, there are no crimes to be committed, no criminals to send to jail).  The meme, unfortunately, fails to recognize the distinction between legislation and enforcement.  It may prove to be impossible to enforce new gun-control legislation, but then that is the argument that should be made here (though it would not look as funny on an e-card).