Point, counterpoint

I'm wondering about kindness and courtesy to strangers elsewhere. Note that I am EXTREMELY poorly traveled, and I know darn little of the day-to-day customs of other parts of the country, let alone the world. How do strangers treat one another where you are? Last evening, my mother went with neighbors to dinner (without me, which is GOOD because I can't become some sort of brooding omnipresence in her life, that would be bad for her) and as they were coming out of the restaurant, she and her 91 year old neighbor had to descend a couple of steps. She said that a big, hairy, tattooed guy came up to them and offered to "help you ladies down the steps," and did so. Is that common everywhere? Generally speaking, you hear a lot of "hello," "sir," "ma'am," "miss," "buddy," and so forth here. I met a lawyer informally in Baltimore last week, on a Sunday afternoon at a big office, and he chuckled when I called him "sir." I look at this as casting bread upon the waters or as showing the respect that any human being deserves, always have. I'm just curious if this is universal -- if it is, my opinion of humanity needs an update.

A minor theme related is calling others by more familiar names or without formalisms. This is something that I'm observing in myself as I age. I've seen harried fathers of young children at times, and nowadays I'm likely to say, "Spend time with them now, dad, they grow up soooo fast." Is that rude? Presumptuous? Lots of guys I call "buddy" (and I think I "inherited" that from my late friend, Fred) unless they are Masons, in which case it's "Brother." I avoid calling wait staff "honey," or something of the sort, because that's disrespectful -- but when I'm in a courthouse dealing with ladies I know well, I often use endearments, honey, darling, sweetie, etc. I must one day get smart enough to write a comprehensive work on the dimensions of human relationships. I feel like I know most of the rules, but there are too many dimensions to picture a representation of them in a physical form. What do you do?

The latest school shootings are renewing the same tired argument about firearms, where neither "side" recognizes that their pure solution won't work over the near or medium term without serious glitches. On the one side, disarm "everyone." The hoods won't be lining up to go into the police stations to turn in their guns, so for a time, the criminal/violent element will be even more disproportionately armed than the public. As it is, drug guys make enough money to have the option of something better than the old-fashioned "Saturday Night Special," a derogatory term for a cheap handgun. "Something better" these days consists of semi-auto or illegal full-auto weapons, large capacity magazines and specialized ammunition. One kind of ammo that I was referred to recently will never go "through & through" a body, but will create such unspeakable injury that the "laws of war" forbid it. (Having laws of war forbidding certain kinds of ammunition but sanctioning killing with bombs seems hypocritical to me.) Other ammunition now available can defeat lower classes of ballistic material (inaccurately named "bulletproof" material.) In a crisis of personal confrontation, calling 911 is a responsible thing for citizens to do, but very seldom do the police have the ability to respond so quickly that they can intervene in a violent confrontation. Throwing more money at police and jails hasn't really improved the point of the spear, where the services are delivered. The other side says, arm everyone (except felons, drunks, druggies and crazies.) In the pure sense of stopping or reducing the number of victims in some of these mass killings, that would work. But I don't know a hell of a lot of people with judgment that I'd feel comfortable with concerning when to introduce a gun into the mix. Sometimes, it is far better judgment to take an ass-whuppin', rather than pull a gun. After the gun laws were drastically changed in West Virginia (I represented the NRA in the case that scrapped the old ones), licensure became relatively easy. And some of the goofiest, most irresponsible (and in some cases, unconvicted criminal) people now may carry a concealed weapon. Here, one of these is a known nut who built a bomb to try to kill a prosecutor, but he was incompetent in bomb-building and the police made a pig's breakfast of the search, so conclusive forensic evidence was thrown out and the case was dismissed. Thoughtful discussion about crime, violence and guns is very difficult, perhaps as much so as with abortion, because people are wedded to extremes. (I know a good bit about weapons law. However, I'm no more than ordinary in skill with the use of weapons. In my 4 person household, I'm a SOLID 4th in marksmanship. That's OK re Son Tim, because his eye-hand coordination is positively spooky, and he could aspire to being in the class of Brother Dave in the future. But the fact that both LaElu and my mother have always been better shots than I am has to violate some sort of macho ethic.) How can we satisfy a "Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment," which is quite liberal in West Virginia, without arming those who reasonable people wouldn't want armed? Guns cannot be quickly drawn out of circulation, because they work for years and years and there is a remarkably robust underground economy in them. Beating one's breast about the violence and sad state of affairs isn't very helpful. I very, very reluctantly believe that some level of armed citizenry is the best alternative right now, but in implementing such a policy (which we have), people are going to get killed and wounded. A gunshot wound is not a pretty thing, and there is seldom such a thing as a "flesh wound." The hero doesn't manfully ignore the bits of blood and the sting of pain, get a band-aid and fight on. In some instances, the hero is going to be in a wheelchair or in a nursing home.

What the hell is the matter with me? I've started listening to Country music. Dammit, it tells a story and often is a good bit more morally uplifting than other genres. Why am I looking for moral uplift? Why do I seem to need it? In my mind, it is a counterpoint to the morass of moral swill that is so prevalent elsewhere.

I have work that has to be done tomorrow, but there is a block of time that is sacrosanct. No, not church, even though I'm going. Tomorrow is the Daytona 500 Nascar race. If you are a fan, I needn't explain the attraction. If you are not, I wouldn't bother.

I just finished The Appeal, by John Grisham. I'll review it anon in the canon. The first 33 chapters were gripping and so skillfully written that I can only admire the guy with the envy that the merely competent hold for the truly gifted. The last 4 chapters sucked, and I'll never, never read another Grisham.

Pippa passes.

R