<< STILL BUSY ~ MAIN ~ RIGHTS VIOLATED >>
NEWS BRIEFLETS
I’m back, having abandoned all other responsibilities. Now let’s get these brieflets moving:
• Jim Treacher disagrees with Mark Steyn’s “corrosive passivity” call over Virginia Tech; Damian Penny rounds up the massacre’s non-Cho causes.
• Nicolas Sarkozy leads in polls prior to the French election.
• Tim Lambert: quote doctor!
• This 1984 Ford F150 costs $100 less than a John Edwards haircut.
• James Lileks: “I’m convinced that label design is the single greatest factor in impulse wine sales.” Agreed; although websites might also be a factor.
• Brian Lara retires.
• Via Slatts, this is remarkable.
• Jules Crittenden picks a previous winner as his Miss America 2007.
• Colby Cosh invents a word.
• The Age reports: “Bad news for those worried that the internet’s population seems a little self-obsessed: the top blog on a list of Australia’s top 100 blogs is a blog about blogging.” An unusual means of assessment was involved.
• A warning from al-Qaeda: do not place tomatoes next to cucumbers.
• Chinese scientists have duplicated the Gore Effect.
I’ve noticed that Sarkozy in never described in the British TV media as just “French Presidential candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy”. Of course, Royal is described in that manner. Sarkozy is constantly described as “Right Wing French Presidential candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy” or “Contraversial French Presidential candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy” or “Contraversial Right Wing French Presidential candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy”.
Commo Tossers.
That Ford is also conederably cheaper than a Toyota Pius
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 04 22 at 09:25 AM • permalinkHow could Mohammad have anything to say about tonmatoes as he had never seen one?
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 04 22 at 09:29 AM • permalinkOn second thoughts, maybe cucumbers are masculine and tomatoes femanine because of what the brave islamic fighters do with them :^)
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 04 22 at 09:30 AM • permalinkAhhh, thanks Ric. My outstanding knowledge of cars is shining through, isn’t it?
My cars are both in perfect working order, so I don’t share your pain of your car falling apart. Then again, that could be because I bought one this year, and the other three years ago.
Is there anything better to drive for the environment than a 4WD?
A warning from al-Qaeda: do not place tomatoes next to cucumbers.
I fail to see how cucumbers next to tomatoes could excite anyone’s libido. I mean, come on. That slim, sleek shape, long and firm and glistening in the sun, lying next to round, red, deliciously gleaming… er…
I think I’ll go make myself a salad now.
I never thought that I could be disgusted at an article by Steyn. He overlooked a number of examples of heroism. Google any of the following names: Zach Petkewicz, Liviu Librescu, Ryan Clark, Waleed Shaalan, Zhang Ruqi, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan, Katelyn Carney, Derek O’Dell, etc.
No doubt more examples will be discovered with time.
To ignore all of these acts of heroism is either grossly negligent or wilfully ignorant.
Posted by lewisinnyc on 2007 04 22 at 11:33 AM • permalinkA warning from al-Qaeda: do not place tomatoes next to cucumbers. Or you’ll make a dick of yourself.
Posted by andycanuck on 2007 04 22 at 11:38 AM • permalinkBlair, the VW people are pissed off. They say the Crafter you returned was full of Budweiser cans. (Tins for you furrners.)
Budweiser?
Cans?
Not to mention they said the body work looked you drove past a whole line of sleeping Vegas transients…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 04 22 at 11:41 AM • permalinklewisinnyc
Mr Steyn’s point might be that, while there were several instances of individual heroism, the general response was to run or hide. In Professor Librescu’s case, he sacrificed his life to save his students, but none of them chose to stand with him. Likewise with Professor Granata.Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2007 04 22 at 12:06 PM • permalinkI’ve had some mail in recent days from people who claimed I’d insulted the dead of Virginia Tech. Obviously, I regret I didn’t show the exquisite taste and sensitivity of Sen. Obama and compare getting shot in the head to an Imus one-liner. Does he mean it? I doubt whether even he knows. When something savage and unexpected happens, it’s easiest to retreat to our tropes and bugbears or, in the senator’s case, a speech on the previous week’s “big news.” Perhaps I’m guilty of the same. But then Yale University, one of the most prestigious institutes of learning on the planet, announces that it’s no longer safe to expose twentysomething men and women to ‘‘Henry V’’ unless you cry God for Harry, England and St. George while brandishing a bright pink and purple plastic sword from the local kindergarten. Except, of course, that the local kindergarten long since banned plastic swords under its own “zero tolerance” policy.
[hat tip to Kathy Shaidle whose Relapsed Catholic blog takes Steyn’s part and is worth a visit and who has, I believe, been active in Treacher’s comments’ debate.]Posted by andycanuck on 2007 04 22 at 12:19 PM • permalinkMr Steyn’s point might be that, while there were several instances of individual heroism, the general response was to run or hide.
Which is a stupid point, unless he thinks they’re from Krypton.
Welcome back, Tim!
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 22 at 01:07 PM • permalinklewisinnyc—Yeah, but you had to google them. How many of them had their video manifestos broadcast on national television…?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 04 22 at 01:11 PM • permalinkMan, I’m disappointed in Steyn. Does he have some knowledge of the situation that I don’t? Does he know how much open space was between the killer and the students that would have to be covered while under direct fire? Does he know whether there were desks and chairs between them that would have to be climbed over to get to him?
Generally, the proper response to being under fire when one is unarmed is to get the hell out of there. Because he has a gun and you don’t.
I guess women who get raped by 250-pound-gorillas are just too passive to fight back. I guess those Jews in Europe were enervated by a culture of passivity when they didn’t rush those Nazi stormtroopers and kick the Mausers out of their hands. Sheesh.
I had one of these Monday-morning-Rambos giving me the why,-I-woulda’s at work last week. He’s not a bright guy. What’s Steyn’s excuse?
[quote[Jim
“Birkenhead Dril”Meaning what? All the male students were supposed to throw themselves at the bullets? That’s what you would’ve done, I suppose.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 22 at 09:32 PM • permalinkWell, Dave S. and others, you can go ahead and be disappointed in me as well. I happen to agree with Steyn. I could understand the passive fear-collapsing if this had happened before Columbine and 9/11, but after? And aren’t we kind of at war now, or is that just a little “adventure” for Republicans, nothing the entire nation has to deal with on any level. Seriously, were there “gun free” campuses during World War 2?
Of course, all the dead and wounded students have been elevated to sainthood (the dead ones are even getting posthumous degrees, that sure must take the sting out of their deaths for their families, and I’m sure the living students who will have to go on struggling through their classes won’t mind a bit), so we can’t even so much as discuss what might have been. Because it’s disrespectful. Welcome to the fucking United States of Oprah.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 04 22 at 10:24 PM • permalinkYeah, passive fear-collapsing. Over a little thing like a bullet! And not even a real bullet, but a .22. Or 225 of them. What a bunch of sissybabies.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 22 at 10:33 PM • permalinkAnd wait, did you actually just slam VT for giving the dead students posthumous degrees? Who does that hurt, exactly? Should we dig up their corpses and make them take the tests along with everybody else? What the fuck are you talking about?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 22 at 10:34 PM • permalinkJim, I have nothing to say to you.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 04 22 at 10:36 PM • permalinkThat much is clear. Hey, this might encourage other students to die just so they can get an easy A, huh?
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 22 at 10:37 PM • permalinkExcept this: YES goddammit, I am slamming Virginia Technical College for making the totally meaningless gesture towards the dead students, whom they set up as sitting ducks with their dumbfuck “gun free campus,” honorary degrees. If I were the parents of one of these kids I’d be insulted. If I were a student who was STILL ALIVE I’d feel cheated—and ashamed to feel cheated, because I couldn’t SAY anything about it because it would mean I was dissing my dead classmates. What a fucking LAME move by the USELESS college administration. What a bullshit make-us-look-good thing to do. SHAMEFUL.
I hope you now understand what the fuck I’m talking about. Why you are being such a dick about this I have no idea. I have lost patience with you and your hysteria. Good-bye.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 04 22 at 10:43 PM • permalinkHang on a sec, Andrea - I’m totally with you on the absurdity of the “gun free” campus. Had those students had the opportunity to be armed without having to risk expulsion and prosecution, then their foreknowledge of Cho’s instability would have obligated them to arm themselves and prepare to act.
Unfortunately, that was not the situation. It’s one thing to plan a co-ordinated rush in a confined space against people armed with boxcutters. It’s quite another to expect people to instantly, and without co-ordination, rush a man armed with a firearm in a more open space where the closing distance would probably mean getting killed before you got within five feet (have a friend stand on one side of a small room holding a banana while you start towards him from the opposite side. Have him say “Bang!” when you start to move. See if you get the banana.) I’m not going to question the moral fiber of people in that situation.
If you’re in grappling distance, go for the gun. If you’re armed, draw and fire. If neither, run. Scatter. And if you freeze? Trained soldiers freeze in combat - I’m not going to judge college kids freezing when bullets start to fly in German class.
The soldiers at Malmedy weren’t cowards. Neither were these students.
None of that matters, Dave, your “facts” and “reasoning,” because the real reason they died is that we live in a feminized society.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 22 at 11:19 PM • permalinkOops—I forgot how unnerving it is to men when a woman gets angry. It’s almost as frightening as a crazy college student with two guns! I’ll go back in the bathroom and practice smiling.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 04 22 at 11:20 PM • permalinkAndrea is right. And so is Mark Stein. The culture of accommodating crime - dangerous word, I know, but true - via the today’s harm minimisation ‘don’t-fight-back’ mantra has led to a tendency in the community to do exactly that.
RIP the departed, but the emotion wasted on the feast of post-massacre posturing and empty gesturing might be better directed towards a new culture of empowering the community to tackle crime at its roots and on the street.
If someone dear to me were under threat from a sniper I’d take a bullet to save their life. And if my child were shot by a sniper I’d tear up any stupid meaningless degree that someone tried to bestow upon me.
Dave S., I didn’t expect anyone to do anything. I’m just saying that the outcome just might have been a little better—not perfect, mind you, people would still have gotten hurt and even killed—but better, if someone had done something “foolish.” Or maybe not. Now we’ll never know. Until the next crazy killer with a gun (that he obtained despite all the magical laws passed against such things) comes along.
But you know, go ahead and yell at me and Steyn and everyone if it makes you all feel better.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 04 22 at 11:34 PM • permalinkOops—I forgot how unnerving it is to men when a woman gets angry.
Wait, I thought I was the one getting angry? Well, why not throw misogyny in there too. Makes as much sense as the rest of this.
If someone dear to me were under threat from a sniper I’d take a bullet to save their life.
1) Easier said than done, 2) Reports are now coming in of several such heroic acts, and 3) What about all the students who weren’t dear to each other? (This was a college campus, not a family reunion.)
I guess I can see the point about the posthumous degrees, although I’m still not sure why the other students would have a problem with it, considering they’re still alive. And Andrea, take out the “the fuck” I put in there if it helps you feel less “yelled at.” I thought it was okay to say it since you did, but I’ll refrain from it in the future.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 22 at 11:50 PM • permalinkOf course it’s easier said than done, Mr Treacher. That’s obvious. But believing that one would take such an action is the first step.
Laying down your life for your friend is old hat but it beats the crap out of running and hiding.
Plus I believe in the annals of heroism there have been incidents that took place outside the family bosom.
It is important to understand that this is not wholesale criticism of those who flee violent crime; rather it is a criticism of a culture that does not unflinchingly and instinctively protect its own.
Lawyers don’t help either with their nasty litigation threats on people who pro-actively attack criminals, but that’s another story. Maybe it’s not another story.
Egg, remind me to go and stand with the quiet guy in the corner next time there’s a massacre on. Because the guy with the gun could be a coward.
The ‘if-you’ve-never-been-in-the-situation’ argument is attractive but a cop-out. Plenty of heroes have never been in the situation before but put their own wellbeing in harm’s way to save others.
Peter M., no: lawyers don’t ‘get the blame’, I merely said they don’t help. (BTW, are you charging me for the invective or is that free?)
#45 ilibcc
stand with the quiet guy in the cornerImplying that the “quiet guy” is hiding in the corner during a massacre?
If so, misrepresenting my post.
Sorry, buddy, but you sound like a defensive gun-polisher.Per Texas Bob’s post:
I’ve got some experience in this area, having served 3 tours in Iraq so far. You just don’t know how you’ll act when the rounds are coming your way. Every dipstick I heard popping off ‘If I’d have been there, I’d have…’ or ‘Why didn’t those guys just…’ literally either pissed their pants or curled up in the fetal position and cried for mama while under fire. AND they were armed. You cannot judge or say what you’d do under similar circumstances. It is utterly ridiculous to think that you can.
Per a scenario at Tim’s a coupla years ago [I date way back, BTW]:
Middle of the night you wake to 3 armed youths robbing your house: what do you do? [Refer TB above].People are quick to shitcan lawyers until someone pinches their money in a business deal, the missus or hubby pisses off with the kids, the tax office is after them, the coppers charge them with something that is absolute shit, some idiot crashes into their car and they can’t work for 6 months, or the insurance company won’t pay after the house is burnt down, or worst of all someone accuses them of kiddie fiddling.
When that happens, suddenly lawyers become useful.
Having been confronted by an armed drunk many years ago, I agree with Texas Bob’s post, but I can assure ilibcc that of all the things that went throught my mind, being sued was not one of them.
Yeah, yeah, Texas Bob: I got the drift about Texas Bob already, Egg.
I didn’t say the quiet guy in the corner was hiding, I said that on balance, you’d rather be with the man with the gun in an emergency. At least then if he has an attack of the vapours like everyone in Texas Bob’s platoon at least you’ve got his gun.
Scenario: I defend and secure my wife and children, even if I put myself at risk - as I’m sure you would; which brings us back to the original point of someone putting their hand up and saying the hell with this, I’m doing something about it.
Yes, there are always plenty of panickers. Too many. That was Steyn’s whole point which I agree with and too many don’t.
There are parents of dead girls at that university who are right now trying to block out thoughts of why some more of the men didn’t try to fight back; but those thoughts aren’t going to stay blocked out for long and the poor parents are going to agonise over them for the rest of their lives even as they sit in their armchairs beneath the posthumous degree on the wall.
#50 ilibcc. You’re taking quite a bit a editing liberty with my comments from the Gut. I didn’t say everyone in my section was a coward. I said that the shit-talkers froze. Which were exactly the people I was addressing in that comment section. The “boy, I’d have given that guy a thrashing if I had been there” crowd.
My point is/was that you can not say for sure how you’ll react until you face the beast. You just can’t.
In no particular order.
1. Texas Bob is right. How an average person reacts to combat conditions tends to be unknown until it happens. The figures on the percentage of infantry in both world war I and II who refused to shoot at the enemy during their first contact is revealing. Although given TB’s observation that it was the “shit talkers” who reacted worst perhaps suggest that their “shit talking” was a sign of their fears.
2. Looking at Jim Treacher’s comments on a number of sites. I think he has grossly over reacted to Steyn’s column. Reading what Steyn actually wrote I do not find in it what JT does. In particular the phrase which apparently so offends JT to wit :
Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet.
struck me as Steyn’s usual tweaking of political correctness and not a go at either the male student population of Virginia Tech or the male victims.
JT’s reading that the piece is calling the victims cowards is just a little too PoMo and/or Andrew Sullivan for me.
3. Nonetheless JT does have a serious point to make and it may just be that Steyn is a lightning rod for a revulsion caused by armchair heroes so sure that they would have done something.
4. In short I think there are valid points being made by both sides but that there is a just a little too much emotion and name calling going on particularly amongst participants in one the best online communities around.
Posted by Just Another Bloody Lawyer on 2007 04 23 at 05:39 AM • permalinkI’d defer to Bob and the other people who’ve experienced danger like that and know what they’re talking about, but I’m hurt and angry, and lashing out at the victims for not doing more makes me feel less helpless.
But seriously, folks! Maybe you’re right, JABL, but Steyn also admiringly quoted Shaidle on how saying “I don’t know what I’d do” is making cowardice the default position, so a case can be made that he was calling those students unmanly cowards. And no, his fanboys are not helping his case.
As for name-calling, I don’t remember doing any of that.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 23 at 06:28 AM • permalinkOh, and his failure to clarify the point when he addressed it yesterday, if he in fact didn’t mean that, doesn’t help.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 23 at 06:31 AM • permalinkWhy are you hurt and angry?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 04 23 at 08:23 AM • permalinkWhy are you hurt and angry?
Because I thought you had nothing to say to me. Whew!
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 23 at 08:40 AM • permalinkNever mind. Forget I said anything. I had a momentary lapse of my usual callous, uncaring approach to life, but I’ve fixed it.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 04 23 at 10:15 AM • permalinkOkay. Well, we’re just talkin’. I’m not trying to slam you, just trying to understand.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 23 at 11:16 AM • permalinkre the degrees gesture - at first I thought “what’s the point” (ala life of brian) - then understanding it as part of the respectful way the college has honoured the victims, I guess it is not hollow - some parents / siblings may take some comfort from it. In this case, I will not denigrate the gesture, despite my misgivings.
re cowardice v bravery - we weren’t there. There are stories surfacing of many heros. the guy had 2 automatic pistols and given the high death count, certainly had good aim. It would have happened so fast, there was no chance for any group resistance. Even 4 guys rushing him can be taken down in under 1 second with that firepower.
re gun laws - I doubt they would have been allowed guns in the classroom - guns in dorms wouldn’t have helped. I’m against guns period, but respect the right of ppl to choose to have them.
ps sorry for the over-reaction re lawyers - just sick of us copping the blame for individuals going crazy. Like blaming computer games, where no evidence exists he played them.
Steyn tends to be at his most outspoken when some sort of murder or mass murder has taken place.
A similar thing happened in the aftermath of September 11, and after Nick Berg got murdered.
I agree that he goes too far. However, at least he’s offensive for the right reason - that he’s angry at what has happened.
Anyone can be angry. We need people like Steyn to be smart.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 04 26 at 02:28 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Welcome back Tim.
Geez, $400 for a haircut and he still doesn’t look like someone I’d vote for.