As I feared, the previous thread on Virginia Tech is rapidly escalating into partisan politics discussion. So I am asking that all posters on that thread restrict their commments to extending condolences or, if they actually knew Jamie (as friends typically called Christopher) share their recollections. In the meantime, feel free to use this space to discuss broader societal issues.
I think here’s what we can expect to see over the next months, as we move beyond shock and disbelief into anger.
1) Law suits filed by aggrieved families against Virginia Tech authorities for their failure to lock down the campus in the intervening two hours, while investigations are held to determine whether Virginia Tech authorites were to blame.
2) Considering the theme of parental abuse that reveals itself in the shooter’s unproduced play scripts, investigations into the shooter’s parents to determine if there was indeed child abuse present. If so, possible law suits on the basis that their abuse resulted in their son’s actions and therefore they bear responsibility.
3) Advocates of gun control holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be made stricter, considering that the shooter acquired his weapon legally.
4) Advocates of unrestricted gun ownership holding this up as another example of how gun laws should be abolished because if everyone in the college had been packing, they could have fought back. Because in a confined environment where there’s inevitably going to be drinking, partying, intense romances, and scads of young people lacking many aspects of maturity, that’s what you really want to have on a daily basis: Lots of firepower.
5) An upswing in incidents of students who write essays/poems/short stories themed around violence suddenly finding themselves tagged as potential shooters and being suspended or expelled.
PAD
• 
Den, I think you’re being unduly harsh on Thomas. If you support Bush — which I do not — you could argue that he has shown courage in the face of criticism. Standing firm on principle in the face of scathing criticism is in no way comparable to being mocked because you shaved your head and went into rehab.
Do I agree with Thomas’ feelings about Bush? No. Not even close. I don’t think Bush is in any way principled. But I think there’s a big leap between “I disagree with you” and “you’re a moron.” I don’t think there’s any call to make that leap in Thomas’ case.
Well, Bill, we’re going to have to agree to disagree, because think giving someone a medal they didn’t earn just for taking flak is moronic. As Bobb noted, it comes with the job of being a politician. Don’t like it? Take a job where no one will ever criticize you in public.
And I would say that no matter who was president.
As Den reminds us, another purple heart recipient decided to do something with his medal…and it arguably cost him the White House.
Actually, didn’t Kerry later say that the medals he threw over the fence were someone elses?
Although, you could argue that there is something in that embellishment to the story that tells you why Kerry lost.
Kerry lost for soooooo many more reasons then that.
Bill Mulligan, I understand you hate Kerry with a passion… but, frankly, he lost by the narrowest of margins to an incumbent wartime president. That says as much, if not more, about Bush’s weakness as president than it does about Kerry.
By the way, before anyone misconstrues my prior post: I thought Kerry was a HORRIBLE candidate. But I find it odd that so many people talk about Kerry’s political tone-deafness. Until recently, the media acted as though Bush had political perfect pitch when in fact he was just coasting on goodwill created in the aftermath of 9/11. His firing of Rumsfeld after the midterm elections, rather than before them when it could have made a difference, demonstrates that his own ear for political “music” is at the barest minimum as bad as Kerry’s.
Bill Mulligan, I understand you hate Kerry with a passion… but, frankly, he lost by the narrowest of margins to an incumbent wartime president. That says as much, if not more, about Bush’s weakness as president than it does about Kerry.
I really didn’t hate Kerry at all–CARTER is the guy I can’t stand. Kerry was a terrible candidate and his nomination was a breathtakingly cynical example of choosing a guy nobody wanted but everyone had been convinced was “electable”…but I have no hatred for the guy.
Your other point is obviously correct–Bush was a very vulnerable candidate. Had he run against Dean or maybe Gore again…the result might have been very different.
Similarly, I’ve always been amused by the paranoia and awe some liberals have of Karl Rove’s supposed evil genius. Pheh! He barely got his man elected in both presidential elections and led his party to disaster in 2006. But to hear some people talk, he’s some kind of puppetmaster, controlling the weather and the timing of eathquakes.
The lack of religiousness on television really only tells us ONE THING: that religious content would cause ratings to go down.
Which tells us that America isn’t quite as religious as religious activists would have us believe. At the very least, it tells us they don’t want much of it in their comedy, drama, news, sports, cartoons, etc.
Hollywood isn’t atheist, it’s capitalist. They go where the money is, and the “money” says “leave religion out.”
Micha, thanks for the kind words. Brazil is indeed a beautiful country. We have our many, many problems, but yes, sometimes we Brazilians forget that we’re blessed with living in a place where there is no extreme weather, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, even no wars (though we have lots of crime and considerable poverty, unfortunately).
Your post didn’t sound depressing at all. It sounded beautiful, in a way. What I know of Israel is what I get from the news, so it may be very distorted, but it seems to me you guys have a strong sense of identity, of history.
My post may have given the impression that I suffer 24 hours a day pondering those questions, but no, I have to admit that it doesn’t affect me all that much in my everyday life. It’s just when such things as funerals are mentioned, or when I’m awake late at night, that it bothers me, this tremendous fear of death I have.
You know, I don’t blame atheists at all for this supposed “secularization” of Western culture, even though atheist thought sometimes is personally frightening to me. I rather blame the major religions themselves. By refusing to adopt a view on sex and relationships that is minimally in tune with reality and human nature, they lose more and more young people every day. The recent apparent rebirth of religious fervor in the US I think is only an attempt to react to this, that is doomed to fail.
Which tells us that America isn’t quite as religious as religious activists would have us believe. At the very least, it tells us they don’t want much of it in their comedy, drama, news, sports, cartoons, etc.
You don’t see many protagonists that have strong religious devotion on TV for the same reason you also don’t have atheists. Both extremes can alienate viewers. It’s safer to have characters that are (like Tim Lynch said above) spiritual enough in vague ecumenical way, when the situation calls for it.
It’s a rare situation where a decision caused by fear of giving offense is also kinda realistic. Most protagonists in TV are white, young, middle-class, Big City, Americans. The sort of people that in real life also aren’t given to extremes in religious oppinions.
TV shows with larger casts will have more diversity, and then you’ll have the deeply religious character or the atheist character, but they’ll likely not be portrayed as perfect role models. The deeply Catholic usually is troubled and guilt-ridden. The deeply Protestant usually is a hypocritical fanatic. The vocal Atheist is usually cynical and bitter. Ironically, the deeply Muslim or Hindu will be the one most likely to be portrayed positively, because the writers and producers will fear to appear bigoted.
It’s real easy to say in hindsight that Kerry was a terrible candidate. He won the nomination basically on his resume of being a decorated veteran. Unfortunately for him, he ran during the era of television and his glaring personality problems (ie, he had no personality) overshone his resume.
As for Rove, I agree his “genius” is overstated, both on the left and the right.
One of the things that amazes me is that the republicans have proven to be so astoundingly bad at governing and so transparently corrupt* over the past six years and yet they still managed to hold onto power for as long as they have. If the democrats had managed to put together even a halfway decent platform and run a candidate who wasn’t a droning technocrat, they could have retaken both Congress and the White House in 2004.
Part of the problem the democrats have, I think dates back to the Vietnam era. That war nearly ripped the party apart and they really have never fully recovered. The GOP, on the other hand, have maintained a stronger sense of party discipline and it has paid off for them, particularly in the past 10 years.
Will Iraq have the same effect on the GOP that Vietnam did on the democrats? I doubt it, simply because the GOP are more prone to maintain disciplined ranks (a less charitable way of putting it would be “herd mentality”). On the other hand, the GOP are down in the polls on nearly every issue, and if the democrats could manage to get their act together for a change, they have an excellent chance of gaining the White House and widening their control of Congress.
*In fairness, the democrats are equally corrupt in most matters, but they at least can run a government.
Strangely, the best shows that I can think of do involve characters that express a faith (real or fictional) or at least discuss them. TV has a long history of hit shows that have regular characters who have their religion displayed in. Maybe it’s just the ones I like.
More on atheism in the media:
The religious punditry is really engaging in some seriously blatant LYING about this issue. They characterize anything that isn’t “religious” as atheistic, which is ridiculous and extremist. And opportunistic.
Another conveniently misguiding argument is that every attack on the CHURCH is a disbelief in God. That also is ridiculous (and opportunistic). Churches have EARNED the skepticism of the public. They have claimed ultimate knowledge in all things and been proven wrong (most particularly in science). They have held absolute spiritual power and wielded it for wholly non-spiritual purposes. A great many people do not appreciate the lust for power and lack of sincerity that many Christian churches have shown. This does NOT mean that all these people are atheists. (It simply means that the churches in question have failed to make the word “church” and “God” synonymous.)
But religious leaders cannot afford to acknowledge that important distinction. It might put them under a spotlight they’d much rather avoid.
Bill Mulligan asked: “what were the spiritual beliefs of the cast of Friends?”
There was an episode that involved a funeral, and the characters were discussing the afterlife. Paraphrasing from memory:
***
Joey: “Me, I think that when you die, you die. That’s it, you’re wormfood.”
Everyone else looks at him aghast, specifically the people who are mourning the loss of a close relative.
Joey: “What?”
***
So, based on that I’d say he’s an atheist.
Posted by: Rene at April 25, 2007 12:06 AM:
“My post may have given the impression that I suffer 24 hours a day pondering those questions, but no, I have to admit that it doesn’t affect me all that much in my everyday life. It’s just when such things as funerals are mentioned, or when I’m awake late at night, that it bothers me, this tremendous fear of death I have.”
I understand completely. thousands of years of religions and philosophies of every kind, atheistic and not, and still there’s no perfect solution to these questions, yet life continues. I hope I helped a little.
I’m certaiin I know even less of Brasil than you do of Israel. Both countries are probably more complex than their stereotypes.
“it seems to me you guys have a strong sense of identity, of history.”
Yes and no. We are actually extremely uncertain about our identity. It has and is questioned repeatedly by us and by others. However, ironically, the ongoing need to think about our identity perhaps strengthens it compared to other peoples who take their identity for granted.
“You know, I don’t blame atheists at all for this supposed “secularization” of Western culture, even though atheist thought sometimes is personally frightening to me. I rather blame the major religions themselves. By refusing to adopt a view on sex and relationships that is minimally in tune with reality and human nature, they lose more and more young people every day. The recent apparent rebirth of religious fervor in the US I think is only an attempt to react to this, that is doomed to fail.”
The modern world and the secularism that came with it have resulted in a several cultural reactions such as post-modernism, new-age, and Christian, Islamic, Jewish and Hindu fundementalism. You are correct that they are naive if they think they can stop modernity and keep or regain the power they had in the past without adapting. However, the people who thought that religion and spiritualism will vanish before the powers of modernism were also wrong (although I myself am not spiritual). As usual there’s a need for some balance.
From my brief visit to Rio back in 2000 it seemed to me that Brasil was pretty religious. Certainly compared to Buenos Aires, which I also visited on the same trip (but only for a few days). I city Cathedral in Rio was full, the one in Buenos Aires was empty (although maybe because it was a holiday).
“TV shows with larger casts will have more diversity, and then you’ll have the deeply religious character or the atheist character, but they’ll likely not be portrayed as perfect role models. The deeply Catholic usually is troubled and guilt-ridden. The deeply Protestant usually is a hypocritical fanatic. The vocal Atheist is usually cynical and bitter.”
Yes, this was my original thought.
“They characterize anything that isn’t “religious” as atheistic, which is ridiculous and extremist. And opportunistic.”
this post reflects the common attitude that atheism is a flaw of some sort, while just being hostile to established religion but not to spirituality is OK.
Den –
Incidentally, Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates and they have a law which requires every able-bodied man to own and maintain a fully automatic weapon as all men are considered part of their national militia.
I know it’s a week late, but an article appeared on Yahoo this morning about the Swiss and their guns… and the push for gun control laws there.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/lf_nm/swiss_suicide_dc