Analyzing a Pantagraph Letter: Criminals have a Terminal Illness?

This may become a regular feature on my blog. I try to not read letters to the editor, but somehow they keep coming to my attention. So another Pantagraph letter deconstructed...

This one caught my attention because of the title: Bus ride with ex-inmates triggers thoughts on guns. This instantly caused me to ask myself "are ex-con labeled when riding the bus or do they have an innate ability to make guns pop into the minds of those who enter there general area?" The author of this letter, apparently has a sixth sense about where people come from (or only ex-cons ride the bus from Danville to Bloomington).

My real interest in this letter is not the conceal and carry message that the author is trying to get across. I really have no interest in deconstructing THAT debate, but rather the rhetorical strategy used to support concealed firearms. The letter starts:

Ironic, Lou Gehrig died of Lou Gehrig disease. What are the odds?

Let's ponder this for a minute. Lou Gehrig was not a criminal and he actually died of ALS, a degenerative disease that affects the nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord.

Why then would someone use this analogy? Does Denny intend to imply that Lou Gehrig caused his own death, like he assumes "innocent" people in Illinois are doing because they have failed to "demand" a concealed weapons law? If so, that's offensive. Maybe he's trying to use the analogy to say that criminals will "cripple" society and thinks that Lou Gehrig somehow makes sense in this analogy. Maybe I am too sensitive to people using metaphors of illness to talk about other people's choices. I'm pretty sure ALS wasn't even called Lou Gehrig's disease when Lou Gehrig died from it.

The wierdest part of this letter...the comment section is full of things like "great letter." Did I miss the point or the logic here, and if so would someone please explain it to me.

Censorship is Not Your Friend

Shortly after writing my post admitting that I read Pantagraph comments despite the fact that I know they will anger me, I went to the Pantagraph site. The headline was: Patron complains that DVD at Bloomington library is pornographic Good News; all 8 comments so far say something along the lines of "is you don't like it don't check it out." I was worried, but people can really think for themselves sometimes. Yay!

BTW...If you are curious the film in question is Short Bus. I haven't seen it, but I may have to go check it out from the Bloomington Public Library now :)

Analyzing a Pantagraph Letter

I'm not quite sure why I continue to read the comments section of the Pantagraph, but I keep finding myself periodically clicking "most commented" just to see what the latest scandal is. Right now, there is letter to the editor title "Insurance Companies Encroaching on Freedoms." Since State Farm bashing seems to be a favorite topic of the commentors, I clicked on the article to see what the issue was and because I generally can't resist a letter to the editor that has freedom or right in the title.

The letter starts like this:

I have to take time out of my schedule next Wednesday to attend mandatory traffic court. What is my horrendous crime you may ask? I did not have the most recent piece of paper in my car verifying that I was covered by auto insurance.

How did we get to this point in our society? I was originally stopped by the police because my passenger was not wearing her seatbelt. Oh no!! Thank goodness another criminal has been convicted and properly punished.

I like how she buried that she was actually pulled over for a seatbelt violation in the second paragraph, but at this point I was trying to figure out how this was an insurance company's fault. Maybe they misprinted her cards, maybe they failed to send them in time. But no, she follows with logical acrobatics that are impressive even for a small local newspaper.

Who is responsible for these laws anyway? The insurance companies. Their lobbyists have convinced our lawmakers to punish people whom they have judged make their profits go down.

Uninsured drivers must be gold mine that can't be tapped without the creation of some laws. So in order to force these people to get insurance, we developed seat belt laws? Clearly, no one but insurance companies thinks that seat belts are a good idea and everyone knows that the easiest violation to spot while driving your own vehicle is the use of a seat belt. I knew that there was a seat belt conspiracy.

I am still trying to figure out what this has to do with freedom, since last time I check the constitution didn't protect the right to drive, nor did it call traffic court a cruel or unusual punishment. I'm pretty sure driving would be classified as a privilege, but then a helpful commenter explained everything:

FollowTheConsitution wrote on Jun 26, 2008 1:07 PM:

" Catching Wild Pigs

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity. ....continued... "

At first I thought maybe the poster was trying to use the derogatory pigs/cops reference, but that wouldn't make sense. Unless he/she is drawing an analogy that cops are being domesticated by insurance companies, but didn't police forces develop first. I understand that he is describing the gradual reduction in freedoms, but of all of the issues to pick--seatbelts, really?

Clearly all of the talk about the war, the economy, the enviornment, etc, has been misguided. I leave you with the "wisdom" of the end of the letter:

Land of the free? Hardly! We have lost our ability to make choices for ourselves and our families because businesses like State Farm and Country Companies aren’t making enough money to suit them.

The Great Seat Belt Conspiracy of 08 must be exposed!