Chickenhawks on Virginia Tech
April 17, 2007, 7:42 pm
Posted by Eduardo Peñalver
Who are these people?
Seriously. This is sick stuff. It reminds me of this song by the Mighty Mighty Bosstones.
“These people” would be devotees of John Derbyshire, whence the original comments about “where were the men” came.
Derbyshire is a British expat (so that’d be DARbyshur, to you), who writes for the National Review.
He and Andrew Sullivan have had at each other through Sullivan’s blog.
You can read about Derb, as he is affectionately known to his friends and admirers, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Derbyshire
I need to go have a nice lie down now.
On the other hand, we do admire those on Flight 93 who charged the cockpit. We also admire the old professor who stood between the bullets and his students. This is hardly sick stuff. It is the stuff of heros and it is too bad there are not more of them….even in the great state of Virginia.
It’s not sick to actually respond heroically to a tragic situation. It’s sick to criticize the responses of those who were actually involved in such a tragic situation from the safety of one’s own keyboard.
As the Bosstones put it:
I’m not a coward,
I’ve just never been tested
I’d like to think that if I was,
I would pass.
Where are the neocons who wanted this war in Iraq? Good old hero Dick Cheney had Google take his house off its global map. Great heroes. W awol and Cheney in hiding. But Cheney can’t hide that long. http://www.duckcheney.com/about.html
Eduardo, you are saying it is sick to want heros. Wouldn’t it have been great if there was a hero on Flght 11 or am i sick to wonder from the safety of my keyboard?
It is one thing to extol heroism. The people on Flight 11 had time to collect their thoughts, assess their situation and give it their best shot. They had time to realize they had nothing to lose by trying.
It’s a different thing to condemn dead students because they didn’t throw themselves in front of bullets to save others or rush toward a gunman firing an automatic pistol in what reports indicate was an extremely chaotic situation.
Derbyshire, nor any of us, DON’T KNOW what some of the students might have tried to do. They’re DEAD, which means they can’t defend themselves from Derb’s assumptions that their deadness proves they did nothing but allow themselves and others to be gunned down because we have raised a generation of sissy boys.
It takes a truly special kind of person to look at a tragedy like this and spin a conclusion like that out of it.
And I hope these special people in the world are few and far between.
My husband and I were discussing this very issue yesterday (before I read about Derbyshire). We decided that:
1. There might indeed have been heroes, but they’re dead, with no cockpit recording or cellphones to help spread the word.
2. Kip Kinkel (the Oregon high school student who murdered his parents and then a few classmates) was tackled by another student, but he was shooting in the cafeteria where he was surrounded by many people. The VT shooter entered classrooms where he had complete strategic advantage over students who were seated at what I would imagine are confining chair/desk combos that made it difficult even to duck let alone lunge at the shooter.
I mean, this is aside from the fact that no one can be blamed for how they react in such a sudden and crazed, life threatening situation. And for all that there were acts of personal courage — more than a few people tried to barricade doors under a barrage of bullets, some more successfully than others.
This is a cruel and idiotic response.
Austin — Think very carefully about this. There is a difference between praising heroes, on the one hand, and (implicitly or explicitly) criticizing those who in the heat of the moment did not do what you — from the safety of your office far, far away — think they ought to have done (even though you don’t in fact know what they did or tried to do, or what you would have done under similar circumstances), on the other. The former is fine. The latter is sick.
Heroes are heroes because they do the extraordinary. By definition, then, people who do not react as heroes are not doing anything wrong. To write a blog post, just a day after the rampage, saying that these kids at Va. Tech. were not sufficiently manly is about as clear a definition of sickness as one could demand. I could understand it if it came from someone who had actually demonstrated some heroism in even remotely analogous circumstances (although my guess is that such a person would not be tempted to make such a stupid comment). I guess it’s par for the course from a former illegal immigrant (Derbyshire) who criticizes illegal immigrants.
Just to remind you, Austin, what we’re talking about, these conservative posters did not “wish for a hero,” but criticized the students who did not respond as they (hypothetically, of course) might have. They said that the students ought to be ashamed of themselves. Here’s a taste:
“Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture. Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that. …
Like Derb, I don’t know if I would live up to this myself, but I know that I should be heartily ashamed of myself if I didn’t. Am I noble, courageous and self-sacrificing? I don’t know; but I should hope to be so when necessary.”
Don’t forget Glenn Reynolds and other right-wingers blaming the campus gun ban. In their view, campuses would be safer if every drunken frat boy carried a handgun…
Courage is not heroic by itself; it is virtuous.
So far we have only documented the heroic courage and self-sacrifice of the elderly professor who was killed attempting to block a door with his own body.
One can’t expect heroism out of any particular individual, but speaking generally we do note when it fails to materialise visibly out of a large group of healthy young people.
The shootings took place in multiple classrooms over half an hour; only in the first classroom would students have been completely off guard and unaware of what was occuring.
Every able-bodied person there is going to ask themselves if their own personal safety was worth more than the lives of the people killed after they turned and ran–this is an inevitable survivor’s question. Encouraging people to be aware of this and to think about that fact is in fact merciful both because it decreases the uncertainty in crisis which is often the most fatal lapse in life-or-death situations regardless of the course ultimately chosen, and because it encourages those who choose heroism to hope for the backing of others.
We can argue about the tact with which this question was raised, but simply branding those who did so as “sick” or “chickenhawks” smacks more of discomfort with discussion of the virtue of physical courage than of reasoned discourse about how we hope or expect individuals will react in times of crisis.
Just for the record, I don’t think it’s accurate to label Glenn Reynolds as a “right winger.” Instapundit holds many positions that would be placed on the extreme “left wing,” such as support for same sex marriage, cloning, etc. In fact he’s a pretty consistent libertarian, rightly or wrongly, and therefore difficult to place on the usual left-right spectrum.
Also, it’s conceivable that some straw man exists who believes that “campuses would be safer if every drunken frat boy carried a handgun…” but it’s less than fair to attribute that position to Reynolds.
Yes, and it’s too bad more Catholics didn’t stand up for their Jewish neighbors before and during World War II. And it *is* too bad — but I have a feeling that most people hold a more nuanced view of the lack of heroism displayed in that setting both by those with and those without institutional authority. And certainly, in my view, the nuanced view is the right starting point. The logic of Derbyshire’s proposition cab be twisted back around and aimed directly at many other acts and failures to act.
There really is no predicting how you might react — I once held back an escaped pit bull that was spoiling for a fight with another dog. It didn’t even occur to me until much, much later that I might have been putting myself in personal danger. I don’t consider that to be a display of heroism, just an example of how inexplicable our actions can be in split second crisis situations.
Philo says: “We can argue about the tact with which this question was raised, but simply branding those who did so as “sick” or “chickenhawks” smacks more of discomfort with discussion of the virtue of physical courage than of reasoned discourse about how we hope or expect individuals will react in times of crisis.”
I have no discomfort with extolling the virtues of physical courage.
I agree that courage is not equal to heroism, and I don’t believe I suggested otherwise. The bloggers I’m discussing were not calling for simple courage, but heroic courage. They wanted unarmed students to rush at a man carrying two handguns and shooting to kill. And they are criticizing students who failed to act accordingly.
As the facts come out, I am confident that there will be ample stories of heroic courage to tell. And celebrating those who responded heroically to the tragedy will be fine in my book. But the lack of heroic courage is not cowardice, so why attack those who ran?
To impugn the manliness of people who are, after all, kids, the day after they watched 30 of their classmates and teachers gunned down suggests to me someone with his own issues to work out about his manliness.
“Yes, and it’s too bad more Catholics didn’t stand up for their Jewish neighbors before and during World War II.”
But if no Catholics at all had stood up, what would be the consensus judgment of the Churchby outsiders? Pretty negative, I would expect.
Now, prudence is a virtue as well, but it won’t do to say that mere self-preservation serves as the last word in courage.
It is problematic to hear people of voting age described as children. I don’t think most people addressing them directly would address them thus.
I, also hope for additonal accounts of courage, but it’s not wrong to ask “did anyone try to stand up to him?” The error, mostly, then is concluding that the initial reports were dispositive of the question, not raising the question at all.
I don’t think bad timing is by itself evidence of mental disorder. It’s ironic that this thread is running simultaneously with one on civility in public discourse, since the critics here accuse others of impolite discourse by calling them names or pathologising their thinking.
Well, philo.junius, I don’t know what the “consensus judgment of the Church by outsiders” is but there is a certainly a significant number of “outsiders” as well as more than a few “insiders” whose view of the Church on this score is already pretty negative. In some cases, the view appears to be (to me) at least as unnuanced as the view expressed by Derbyshire and his echos, as in, Catholics as a group were “willing executioners.” My only point is that if you find that view to be offensive or even just inaccurate, I would tread very softly before flunking VT students (or just about anyone else, for that matter) for failing to engage in grand acts of heroism at the expense of personal well-being.
“My only point is that if you find that view to be offensive or even just inaccurate, I would tread very softly before flunking VT students (or just about anyone else, for that matter) for failing to engage in grand acts of heroism at the expense of personal well-being.”
” We cannot know how many Christians in countries occupied or ruled by the Nazi powers or their allies were horrified at the disappearance of their Jewish neighbours and yet were not strong enough to raise their voices in protest. For Christians, this heavy burden of conscience of their brothers and sisters during the Second World War must be a call to penitence.”
Sounds like the Church as a whole is willing to take its lumps for the shortcomings of its members; why aren’t we?
Who exactly is “we” in this equation? “We” is not VT students. “We” wasn’t even there. “We” is criticizing others for failing to do things that “we” so far as “I” know has never been asked to or even considered doing “ourselves.” And the Church’s apology, of course, did not exactly come one day after the end of the war . . . or without a fair amount of outside pressure, and was criticized by many of the hierarchy one of whom might even be the current occupant of St. Peter’s chair.
Whatever happened to “women and children first” i think is what Derbyshire is getting at. Not everyone died. Lots of men jumped out of windows while women were getting shot in the mouth and the stomach. That is a brutal way of putting it and maybe now was not the time (like all those now yammering for gun control), but it is an interesting question to be raised some time. I have to think that some of those men considered doing something, maybe some of them did and died. Others may be haunted for the rest of their lives about the opening they had to rush the guy and decided no.
“Who exactly is “we” in this equation? “We” is not VT students. “We” wasn’t even there. “We” is criticizing others for failing to do things that “we” so far as “I” know has never been asked to or even considered doing “ourselves.” ”
Send not to know for whom the bell tolls; either the VT campus is representative of us or not; we don’t get to relate only to the parts we like. If we sympathise for their loss, we also reflect on what could have been done differently.
“we don’t get to relate only to the parts we like.”
I’m going to save this for the next time I get into a discussion on the Catholic Church and European anti-semitism.
“If we sympathise for their loss, we also reflect on what could have been done differently.”
By pointing fingers one day after the event at individual victims and survivors? That’s your idea of empathy as embodied in John Donne’s poem?
And just to complete the thought, reimagining the event with a different conclusion based on the perceived ability of others to exhibit heroism that is at best rare is an act of hubris, not “relating” to the actual experience.
What if the men are not in a position to protect the women? It’s not like it was a hostage situation and they had the chance to bargain with the gunman.
No, you get some guys and rush him knowing that someone may die but that you will likely stop the carnage.
Regarding the apologies related to Europe in mid-Century. It was directed at individuals Catholics who did not live up to their baptismal promises. In the same way, a future Pope will likely apologize for the folks on this blog for not doing more to stop abortion.
“By pointing fingers one day after the event at individual victims and survivors?”
No one is criticising the victims; we don’t know enough about how they died. Having said that, I would be ashamed to learn that not one person that fled that building didn’t have regrets about the things he or she could possibly have done to have intervened before the body count reached its final total.
If they do have their regrets, though, then we are in fact feeling what they feel, whether those feelings would meet either with your approval or John Donne’s.
“that not one person that fled that building didn’t have regrets ”
Double negative problem–should read:
“that not one person that fled that building had any regrets.”
Austin Ruse says: “Lots of men jumped out of windows while women were getting shot in the mouth and the stomach.”
Jean asks: Were you there? Do you know that events happened in just this way?
Or are you making up a picture about what might have happened and suggesting that if it DID happen this way it was a travesty?
And if it is a travesty, what we do …. what?
Have a conversation with all young men in which we admonish them about not being cowards? Send them to hero training school where people open fire on them to test their mettle? Give them all weapons so they can defend women and children? Exact severe penalties for cowardice like in the army?
I truly don’t know how Derb’s comments are supposed to lead to any kind of betterment of our citizens. He has made a rush to judgment without knowing any of the facts, but it sure has people stirred up and that’s how he makes his money.
Oy! An awful lot of second guessing here.
If you see someone held at gunpoint, do the police urge you and your buddy toi rush him?
What some describe as manliness is expected of all of us – the courage to stand up for what’s righ tas best we can.
That means truth telling, taking responsibility and certainly not using the power of position that may insulate us from doing what’s right.
Unfortunately, there’s precious little of that today in our institutions, so let’s blame these young adults.
Th shooter wasn’t trying to take hostages; he was trying to kill people.
There’s certainly blame enough to go around, but anyone who places his entire hope for safety on the competence of civil servants is liable to great disappointment.
A group of hundreds composed exclusively of such people is a herd of victims positively attractive to abuse, either by the antisocial or by the guardians of their willful infantilisation.
Austin Ruse wrote, “a future Pope will likely apologize for the folks on this blog for not doing more to stop abortion.”
Consider this a warning Austin. If you post more inflammatory bunk like that, you’ll find yourself banned.
I know that the apology was supposed to be on behalf of individual Catholics. That, among other reasons, is why it met with a less than ecstatic reception. The Church is the spotless bride of Christ, by definition, and with its reliance on the literal interpretation of that phrase, the Church has seemingly rendered itself incapable of institutional self-examination. I’m not saying any particular apology is or was necessary (save that regarding the sexual abuse scandal, I suppose), I am saying that, as with whatever individuals involved in the VT massacre did or didn’t do, ethical behavior starts with self-examination not finger pointing. I bet that, however hard you are coming down on VT students, more than a few of them are ripping themselves up ten times as much. Placing their conduct under a microscope is likely to magnify their sense of grief and shame, even if unwarranted, not lead to some kind of rational understanding on the possibilities and limits of heroic action.
Added to the grief of relatives and loved ones of the deceased is the needless guilt of the survivors.
In light of that, to make unfounded claims about someone’s supposed lack of courage from the safety of one’s keyboard is itself a particularly vile and disgusting act of cowardice.
Gee, Grant, I wondered how long the lovers of dialogue would rush in to stop it. I wonder why you did not jump in when folks were calling Weigel a liar. Is that OK? Or is it only OK when it is aimed at someone who is perceived as your enemy. I know you would love to get rid of me but it ought to be for something other than your hurt feelings. I fully expect a future Pope to apologize for those Catholics today who are not doing enough to stop abortion just as he apologized for those Catholics who did do enought to stopthat other Holocaust……and gee I thought it might include some who are on this blog…….nahhhhhhhh. Be fair Grant and toughen up.
“nahhhhhhhhhh”?
Yes, for heaven’s sakes, Grant, toughen up or we’ll all think you’re the kind of weenie who would shove women and children out of the way on your way to the lifeboat, like those yellowbellies at Virginia Tech.
I must say that this kind of articulate response to your liberal pandering is just the kind of thing we need in organizations that seek to protect the Catholic way of life against the United Nations, WHO and the World Bank.
Why I bet those folks at the U.N. just wilt when Mr. Ruse says “nahhhhhh” at them!
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I am proud, dammit PROUD, we have spokespeople of this caliber who are out there so eloquently and movingly representing Catholic interests in the world today!
Mr. Ruse seems even nicer than that Mr. Donohue everybody is always criticizing.
Philo says: “A group of hundreds composed exclusively of such people is a herd of victims positively attractive to abuse, either by the antisocial or by the guardians of their willful infantilisation.”
So now it’s the fault of the students that they were the victims of this crime because they’re the sort of people who rely on the police to deal with madmen with guns? And those of us who take issue with folks like Derbyshire who can’t wait even a day to assert their (hypothetical) moral superiority to those who actually lived through it (an effort that is offensive for more reasons than its awful timing) are the moral equivalent of the antisocial shooter? This argument just gets better and better.
Jean,
What really works at the UN is nya-nya-nya. They love that!
Best,
Austin
Austin: You’re done here.
Grant,
I have been watching this blog for some time and I frankly am astounded at the hypocracy of you so-called progressives. Progressives fancy they like dialogue, but it appears from your actions just now that dialogue means that the left talks to the left. You fancy yourselves tolerant but clearly this is only a club you beat conservatives with. After all, here was one of the great unwashed, Mr. Ruse, and you toss him overboard. What a wonderful opportunity for tolerance, except that don’t really have any. You cut him off for what? for bruising your ego by not knuckling under to you? Far worse things have been said on this blog than what he said (that some on this blog likely do not do enough for the unborn?).
Shameful and cowardly, Grant.
“And those of us who take issue with folks like Derbyshire who can’t wait even a day to assert their (hypothetical) moral superiority to those who actually lived through it (an effort that is offensive for more reasons than its awful timing) are the moral equivalent of the antisocial shooter? This argument just gets better and better.”
Erm, no, not unless you view yourself as a guardian of infantilisation.
The point was that people who cede all responsibility for their wellbeing to others will inevitably eventually find themselves abused either or both by the antisocial and their guardians–the police, the Party, the Church hierarchy, whomever. This is just a hard fact of fallen human nature, not an attack on anyone on this thread.
No, Harry, you’re wrong. Let me show you an example of an unfair, shameful, discussion-ending sentence, delivered by your friend Austin Ruse:
“In the same way, a future Pope will likely apologize for the folks on this blog for not doing more to stop abortion.”
(Note that he doesn’t even qualify it as you try to with “some.” Nevermind that he simply cannot know what he’s talking about.) That kind of ignorant presumption, no matter how much you try to dress it up as a real discussion point (how did it relate to the subject of this thread?), functions here as ad hominem attack, and is not permitted in this space.
Ignorant presumptions? And points unrelated to the subject of a thread? Horrors – how could these offenses ever occur in what should be the reign of the saints on this site.
This episode is so unprecedented I can only assume it’s due to the still powerful influence of Augustine and Constantine.
I think you are being remarkably thin skinned adn to throw Ruse into outer darkness shows how unsure you are of your positions. If you ask any professonal prolifer if they do enough for the unborn child, they would likely say no. Do you do enough for theunborn child, Grant.
Since he cannot respond to your attack on him, i will also repeat a question he posed to you. Do you hold your other lefty pals to the same standard?How about the person who called Weigel a liar? Ruse is right, you should be fair, Grant. You’re not. I think you are afraid of someone ruining your litle lefty gabfest.
Or how about Eduardo calling those who disagre with him “sick” How ad hominem is that? I guess not since he is going after those this blog hates. Be consistent, Grant.
I’m sorry to see the end of this thread get so regressive; Harry should also read the thread on civility and Austin’s xcomments were at best juvenile.
That gets us back to the discussion on blogs at st. Josephs (PA). There is a need to monitor, unfortunately and civility is the issue.
Actually, Harry, I have done nothing technically to ban Austin Ruse from commenting. This isn’t about thin skin (so you can dispense with the macho “be a man” bunk). It’s about making baseless claims that cast aspersion on the readers and writers of this blog. Don’t presume to know how much we moderate and edit the comments. And don’t pretend that Austin Ruse wasn’t needlessly picking a fight.
Can you find the comment in which someone called Weigel a liar? No? That’s because I deleted it as soon as I saw it, well before you and Ruse bemoaned my supposed unfairness.
(Apologies to readers for hijacking this thread–I’m done talking about this incident now.)
Grant,
Again with the name calling….
So, you took off the post where one of your regulars called Weigel a liar but you ban Ruse? Or you haven’t banned Ruse? Not sure. It seems that even here there is an imbalance.
I am sure that Ruse will be pleased he is not banned and I look forward to seeing him back.
Finally, rather than needlessly pickng a fight, i think he was raising a facinating point. The Holy Father apologized for Catholics in Germany who did not do enough to stop the Holocaust. If a future Pope was going to apologize for those who did not do enough to stop abortion, what successive Pope’s have considered the most pressing social issue of our time, would he apologize for me? Likely. For others on this blog? Likely some. I don’t ask you to answer this pubicly, Grant, but would he be apologizing for you? This does not presume unfaithfulness to the teachings of the Church, but what have people done. And I dont see this as picking a fight but raising an interesting point. i wonder if Ruse pricked your conscience?
Harry
Bob Nunz makes a good point about civil discussion on blogs. So I’d like to clarify a few things and then over the weekend I’ll close comments on this thread, which has clearly run its course.
It’s not surprising that the person posting under the name Harry Balch would find Austin Ruse’s views so congenial: the IP address from which their comments originated is identical. What’s more, the user I.D. “Harry Balch” was created very recently, so I find it hard to believe that someone named Harry Balch has been “watching the blog for some time.” I became suspicious when “Harry Balch” parrotted Austin Ruse’s complaint about an inappropriate comment that was available for perhaps an hour before I deleted it. I doubt many readers saw it at all. If, as I suspect, Austin Ruse and “Harry Balch” are the same person, this provides reason to permanently ban his IP address from the blog. Before I do that, however, I’ll give Austin Ruse/”Harry Balch” the opportunity to explain himself/themselves. He/they has/have until Saturday to post here.
Moderating a blog, or a listserv, is not a science, but an art, and I can’t pretend to perform the duties with anything approaching perfection. But I can report that everyone who has been moderated–whether liberal, conservative, or neither–has complained bitterly about it, and accused me of unfair bias. We all have our biases, of course, but for the time being, I take complaints from all points on the ideological spectrum as a good sign.
Finally, another reminder: ad hominem attack is not permitted on the blog. Neither is trolling. Neither is deception about one’s identity.
Grant,
You are turning yourself into a pretzel trying to get rid of me.
First, you “ban” me because I perpetrated an ad hominem attack by suggesting that some people on this blog might not do enough to help the unborn child. Then it was pointed out to you that other ad hominem attacks have taken place even on this thread. You said you had taken down the “Weigel is liar” attack yet that person, one of your regulars was not banned for the same crime. You also did not answer about the question about Eduardo calling people sick, even those on this blog who disagree with him about the bravery of Virginia Tech students. The casual observer might believe you have a double standard for your allies.
And now you want to kick me off for supposedly coming on the site as Harry Balch. It appears that you have a new policy that anyone coming on this blog has to use their real name. In that case, you might want to start checking ID’s Is Barbara really someone named Barbara? That Joseph Gannon sounds made up to me. And Bill Mazzella? Who the heck is he? Is his name really Bill or in your new policy does the blog handle not have to match the passport? And since you are now banning nom de’ blogs, I guess Morning’s Minion has to go. We know little about him except that he is male, 36 and was born in the year of the Dog (you can look it up).
It appears as if you are making this up as you go along.
I think what is going on here is that I have not shown you proper obeisance and that has upset you. Additionally, I have challenged this little progressive tea party:
“I hate Neuhaus.”
“I hate him more.”
“I hate him more than you.”
“I hate Groeschel, too.”
“Not more than me. I really hate him.”
Your justifications have run out but I suspect you can come up with more and in the end you will do what you and your friends have wanted for a while.
Here’s to dialogue, diversity, and tolerance, the great hypocrisies of the left.
With all due respect,
Austin Ruse ( if it is really me)
As most readers of blogs know, there is a difference between anonymous writers, who consistently use the same pseudonym to post comments, and “sock puppets,” the term given to people who create false Web identities to support their real identity’s comments online. Lee Siegel lost his blog at the New Republic for creating a sock puppet to bolster support for his opinions in comment boxes, just as Austin Ruse apparently did here. No matter how much it would serve Ruse’s purposes, anonymity and outright deception are not identical.
I warned him about the ad hominem attack on those who participate on this blog (he has now softened the language to “some people,” because he knows his original statement was untenable). It was a cheap shot that had nothing to do with the subject of this thread. He persisted, so I told him he was done here–as in, done in this thread. In response, he created a false identity and tried to trick readers into believing there was a second reader of the blog who supported his outlandish attack. For that reason, he is no longer welcome on this blog. His IP address has been blocked.
Ruse decided to go out with a bang, as it were, repeating a series of self-satisfying distortions about “the left,” with which he associates this blog, all of which make clear that his understanding of Commonweal is anemic, at best. Or his understanding of the magazine is more robust, and he is willfully distorting the commentary here in order to harm the magazine. That wouldn’t surprise me. Commonweal doesn’t fit into his simplistic identity politics, and that must be difficult to process.
Just to make sure this is placed with the other responses here, before this thread id shut down (an excellent idea, by the way) I think it would be fair and constructive to report the Corner’s John Podhoretz’s reaction to Derb’s and others words:
“The notion that a human being or group of human beings holding no weapon whatever should somehow “fight back” against someone calmly executing other people right in front of their eyes is ludicrous beyond belief, irrational beyond bounds, and tasteless beyond the limits of reason.
“Why didn’t anyone rush the guy?” Derb asks. Gee, I don’t know. Because he was executing people? Because if you rush a guy with a gun, he shoots you in the head the way he executed the teachers in each classroom?
Derb claims proudly to be touching a “third rail” by raising something no one wants to talk about. The third rail is a metaphor for electrocution. What happened in those classrooms was no metaphor. It was a psychotic with a gun and a lot of people with no weaponry at their disposal. A few were astonishingly brave, and deserve to be considered heroes. Everybody else was just a person either in danger of being murdered, being mortally wounded, or being murdered.
In the name of old-fashioned and time-honored forms of human behavior, Derb has trampled on one of the oldest: Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
He also refers to an article by David Maraniss, “This was the desk I chose to die under” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041802824_pf.html) on just what happened in those classrooms — I commend it to those of you wondering about the reactions of students in them.