Under the Sun

Sometimes those on-line sites for driving directions really screw up. Yesterday, April 16, we drove 135 miles on interstate roads, then made our exit, paid the troll, and, following the directions, turn a hard right off of a nice state highway on to a county road. "How far do we go on this?" I ask. "Three point five miles," replies my wife.

It was a great day for a drive in the country: bright sun, no clouds, temperature mid-fifties. We have been under cold clouds much of this month in the Midwest, and haven't had a sunny day like this for weeks.

Nothing but farm country Indiana, of course, as I would expect, along this county road. But details told us we were in unfamiliar territory. A farm house with several lines of wash blowing in wind and sun. Another one. Lots of dark-colored clothing. No parked cars. My suspicion was confirmed when I noticed that none of the houses were feeding off of power lines. The lines stayed put high up, running parallel to the road. At one point they disappeared completely. "Amish," I said.

In the field in the sun labored a man, and a horse, with a plow. Why did the computer lead us on to this slow narrow road, when the state highway at 55 mph would have whizzed us into town?

The town was getting nearer as we turned east: here and there a power line branched off the road to a house. A car stood in a driveway. But then came the computer's big screw up: dead ahead two road-blockades with large signs: stop. local school traffic only. Ahead some distance off was a school where I assume some of the local farm families sent their children. I thought about that Amish school where children were shot last year. Perhaps they were now restricting traffic around these schools, wherever it was feasible, as a precaution?

We detoured a long way north to a state road and finally found our way into town. My wife remarked at how deeply Christian the surrounding area was, and how the town, with all of its stores and craft shops, was also unashamedly Christian. All sorts of Christian books, plaques, carvings, with biblical references, were on display. She mentioned the deeply Christian witness of those Amish who forgave the shooter who killed their children at school.

It was past time for lunch, and we found a small restaurant where many of the locals ate. We ordered the daily special, a "chicken melt sandwich," and homemade soup, with pie for dessert. The waitress was friendly and chatty, but not too much. Like the meal, just right.

After we started dessert and the last cup of coffee, she came over and asked us if we had heard about the terrible school shooting. No. At least twenty-two students had been shot at a college in Virginia. "Lord, have mercy."

A bit later we drove to a shop owned by a Mennonite family, looking for furniture. The door was open but no one was inside. We looked about; then a young blond boy passed through the room. We said hello, and he greeted us with a smile on his way out. A minute or so later, his father came into and greeted us. Another, older, son followed. Mom was next door painting, you see, so she sent the boy over to fetch Dad, he tells us.

The owner helped us with our many questions. His sons watched him much of the time, dealing with the city folks. We made a deal.  The boys were polite, sharp, bright-eyed, and not shy. They were also taken with the fact that my wife had homeschooled our youngest.

"We have six children and nine grandchildren," my wife said. No jaws dropped, and instead there were encouraging smiles. "I'm one of seven," the father said, and "we have six right now." The oldest is 17. The older of two boys in the shop said how he liked living in the country and couldn't imagine living in the city. He would miss the woods right behind his house, for one thing. He didn't want to move away from his family.

"You've got the right idea," we said. I thought about the news we heard in the diner and wondered if they had yet heard. His wife had been busy painting in the house and he had been in a back shop working. The store, unlike some of those in town, had no background music to keep the shoppers happy, and certainly no radio. I refused to even consider telling them about the school slayings. They'll find out, perhaps, soon enough. Soon enough.

We returned to town, browsed a bit, stayed for dinner, and headed west, back home, into the bright sun, which finally cast long shadows  toward evening as we drove through downtown Chicago, arriving at our house as twilight began. We were safe, but others were in agony over the news from Virginia.

Thank God for the setting sun, I've often thought, so that whatever takes place on any day can finally become past, while we sleep awaiting as many dawns as it takes to dull the pain. May those Mennonite children, and our own, be spared such terrors under the sun.

Comments

[Bill R]

My parents moved to Mennonite country in central Kansas when I was in college (Bobby Winters probably knows this area well). I can vouch for all that Jim Kushiner says about these communities. I remember how impressed my mother was--she tried hard to get me to date a Mennonite girl! But the cultural differences were just to great for this "city" kid (our town had perhaps 45,000 residents).

[GL]

I've been waiting for the appropriate post to offer this observation from last week. In my Cyberlaw class last week, we discussed efforts to restrict minors' access to graphically violent video games. Part of the impetus for laws past during the past few years which would impose such restrictions has been the school shootings in which the perpetrators had been avid (obsessive) players of very violent video games. In a law review article which I wrote, I noted fourteen such incidents. For their readings, I assigned my class to read a 7th Circuit opinion authored by Judge Richard Posner, a well-respected jurist and former law professor at the University of Chicago, in which he found such an ordinance enacted by Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana to be in violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment. My article was written primarily in reaction to his opinion, with which I strongly disagree. The second reading was the state’s brief in defense of a Minnesota state statute restricting minors’ access to such games, which was declared unconstitutional by the district court and is pending appeal in the 7th Circuit. That brief extensively cites my article, as well as articles by other scholars critical of Posner’s opinion.

Our discussion in class, which took two class sessions, focused on two questions: are video games “speech” (as that term is used in the First Amendment) and, if they are, may minors’ access to them be nonetheless restricted. On the first question, which took up one class session, my class and I agreed with Judge Posner in including video games within the definition of speech (or rather as defining them as a medium by which speech may be conveyed).

On the second question, which was day two of our discussion, I differed with Judge Posner, reasoning that some of the most graphically violent video games are obscene because they “debase and brutalize human beings.” Judge Posner distinguished violent video games from obscenity as defined by the Supreme Court as a unprotected speech because in case law the term has always been limited to sexual (or in some cases excretory) depictions, concluding that there is no bases to define subject matter other than sex as obscene in so far as the free speech clause of the First Amendment was concerned and that, in any event, Indianapolis relied on the supposed harm caused by such games and not their offensiveness as a justification for the restrictions imposed in its ordinance. (He, of course, recognized that the common definition of obscenity (as opposed to the legal) extended beyond mere matters of sex.) Posner argued that the Court has permitted restrictions on obscenity not because such speech is harmful, but because it is offensive. He questioned whether the Court would today even permit restricting minors’ access to sexually explicit material protected as to adult. In any event, without a showing of harm, declared that minors’ access to violent video games could not be restricted. He found that the evidence of harm offered by Indianapolis was insufficient to support the restrictions. In response, I proposed first, as noted above, that some of the most graphically violent video games are obscene because they “debase and brutalize human beings” and second that the evidence that they caused harm was sufficient to justify the restrictions. Further, I proposed that it was not either obscenity or harm, but both obscenity and harm which justified such restrictions.

So far, more than a half dozen such ordinances and state statutes have been struck down by the courts. None has been approved. With the exception of three female African-American students, the entire class agrees with these decisions. After polling the class on this narrow issue, I asked how many of them believed that the state has a compelling state interest in restriction minors’ access to sexually explicit material which is not considered obscene as to adults but is defined as such as to minors. The break down was nearly the same, though there might have been a couple of additional supporters of such restrictions. We then discussed what evidence of harm would be sufficient in their minds to support such restrictions of either violent video games or sexually explicit material as to minors. The opponents of such restrictions expressed doubts that any such evidence would be sufficient, noting that a researcher can make a study say whatever he wants it to say. In short, with the exception of the three female African-American students and, perhaps, a couple of others as to sexually explicit material, in a class of 45, nearly 90% oppose any restriction on minors’ access to either graphically violent video games or to sexually explicit material. This is a subject which I address in my class every year and, while the sentiment against such restrictions grows every year, the vast majority always oppose them. I take from this observation that the next generation (or at least the next generation of lawyers and judges) are extremely libertarian in their views, especially as it pertains to restrictions of speech.

I took note that one of the African-American women who supports such restrictions specifically pondered whether graphically violent video games contribute to intercity violence. This caused me to wonder whether the children of comfortable, suburban households have become too isolated from the real violence of life to recognize the need to protect children from its virtual cousin. Based on past polling, I am sure many of the students (and probably most of the male students) have played such games and I am sure that this is true of their viewing of sexually explicit material. Perhaps this too is a contributing factor to their resistance to restrictions. One student did note the trend in our law to be less and less restrictive as to what speech minors may access. He agreed with Posner's speculation that the Supreme Cour would not today uphold the restrictions on "girlie magazines" upheld nearly 40 years ago. It makes one ponder whether the ancestors of the Mennonites and Amish made the right decision for their descendants in eschewing modernity.

[Joe Long]

GL, I could hope your students' reaction - at least some of them - came about through a distrust of government censorship, a "libertarian" conviction as you say - but I fear it might not: it could be that restriction of sexual or violent content is "prudish" and thus offends them, but that restriction of political or socially taboo content would suit them just fine.

The mentality that doesn't believe in restricting porn but believes in restricting "hate speech" is the real devil's brew in part of the next generation, I think...consistent libertarians are a lot better than repressive libertines. (And surely, if they are American libertarians, they believe PARENTS should protect kids from wicked recreations...right?)

[Gene Godbold]

GL, it is possible that age and experience (principally the experience of being a parent) may change their views. I know I wouldn't want to be judged for many (perhaps most) of the opinions I held as an 18 or 19 year old. By the time I was 25 I had a child and had begun to "come around".

I was listening to NPR yesterday when some pollster was giving his (rather despairing) opinion on political involvement by young people based on the results of some survey. My only thought was: "They'll grow up--their opinions aren't set in stone."

[GL]

Joe,

They do believe parents should protect their children. (At least up to a certain age. Some of them oppose even the right of parents to restrict their teenagers access to sexually explicit and violent speech.) What they reject is the notion that law should provide parents with any support in doing so. The restrictions I have supported (and the one's enacted in Minnesota are pretty much identical to my proposal with one very interesting exception, which I will explain below) would explicitly permit parents to allow their children to have access to such games.

My proposal was that vendors be prohibited from permitting minors such access absent parental consent. The Minnesota statute actually fines the minor child who accesses the games in question $25.

I actually omitted a fourth student who supports such restrictions. She is an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She is a mother and bemoans the filth available to minors in Europe.

[Judy Warner]

That is very interesting and very depressing. It is probably true that the next generation is more libertarian in its views, but this might be secondary to having been hardened to obscenity and fantasy violence. People who are all their lives exposed to explicit sex and brutal violence in the media do not experience it in the same way a more innocent person would. So their libertarianism might be more of a "what's the big deal?" attitude than a principled position.

One would think that common sense would tell people that there are consequences to exposing children to these things. Of course, one would be wrong. The distinction between adults and children is increasingly erased, apparently in law as well as in the culture. This is partly a product of the narcissism of our age, where many adults cannot see children as vulnerable creatures in need of protection, but see things only from their own point of view. It is very inconvenient to raise children properly, and inconvenience is less and less tolerated.

[GL]

GL, it is possible that age and experience (principally the experience of being a parent) may change their views. I know I wouldn't want to be judged for many (perhaps most) of the opinions I held as an 18 or 19 year old. By the time I was 25 I had a child and had begun to "come around".

Perhaps. Indeed, in the past, I have found that a higher percentage of parents in my class support such restrictions than non-parents. I must note, however, that I have parents in the class who oppose the restrictions. I must also note that my students are at the youngest in their mid-20s. My class is limited to second and third year law students.

Judy's observation hits the nail on the head. "What's the big deal?" is the prevalent attitude. I even show them videos from some of the games. I watched their reactions last week. From that alone I was able to predict who would support and who would oppose restrictions. Supporters covered their eyes and turned their faces away from the most brutally violent scenes. Opponents laughed.

One of the cases I cite for support of restrictions is FCC v. Pacifica, in which the Supreme Court upheld FCC regulations which required that George Carlin's Seven Filthy Words monologue be broadcast at times when minors were less likely to hear it. The Court upheld the restrictions because the words tended to "debase and brutalize human beings." I posted George Carlin's seven filthy words on the screen immediately before showing a video about the game Manhunt, which included clips of very violent scenes from the game. I then asked which speech tended more to "debase and brutalize human beings." Everyone agreed that Manhunt did so. Opponents of restrictions, however, thought the Court should not have restricted the times when George Carlin's monologue aired so the question had no power to convince them to support restrictions on violent video games.

[Brett]

You paid a troll?

Isn't that a little uncomplimentary to the person manning the tollbooth?

[Jim Kushiner]

"Troll"? Not a typo. It's what I've said to my children for years while waiting, idling, in line, waiting to get through the troll booth. My first tollway experience that I can remember in Chicago came in late winter 1972. It took over one full hour to get through a toll back up. No exaggeration. (I am bitter?) And besides, the previous toll-person gave me a Polish nickel in change.

[Bill R]

GL, do you think the results of your class survey would have been different if all of the victims in the game were black and all of the perpetrators were white? Or if the victims were homosexual and the perpetrators bigots? Do you think Posner might have ruled differently if the state still argued that such games as I described promoted violence, but did not claim that they were offensive?

[GL]

I doubt it would have impacted Posner, but it almost assuredly would have impacted at least some of my students.

We also study Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, in which the Court declared unconstitutional the federal law against virtual child pornography (i.e., pornography that appears to involve an actual child, but really does not, either because it is a youthful looking adult or is computer-generated image instead of an actual minor). In general, most of the class members (less the same students who support restricting minors access to violent video games) agreed with the Court decision in that case.

Actually, the law in question in Free Speech Coalition was very poorly drafted, though O'Connor, Rehnquist and Scalia thought it could be cured by narrow interpretation of its terms and limiting instructions. The PROTECT Act, passed in 2003, sought to cure some of those defects. The Court granted cert last month to hear a challenging of the pandering provisions of that PROTECT Act that apply to virtual child pornography and will likely be heard during the next session of the Court.

During our discussion of Free Speech Coalition, I raised the issues of Dakota Fanning's performance as a child rape victim in Hounddog and bestiality in Zoo. As I am teaching the course again this summer, if anyone out there knows of where I could get copies of either of those films, I would appreciate it. (Without seeing those films, it is hard to know how close to the line they may have come and whether the law struck down in Free Speech Coalition would have made what was done in Hounddog a crime.

[Bill R]

"As I am teaching the course again this summer, if anyone out there knows of where I could get copies of either of those films, I would appreciate it."

Both are available on Netflix. Probably also on Blockbuster online, so you could probably order them through a Blockbuster store.

"I doubt it would have impacted Posner, but it almost assuredly would have impacted at least some of my students."

But judges are sometimes affected by the thought that influential groups may call for their impeachment!

[James A. Altena]

What is perhaps most depressing is the sheer dearth of common sense evinced by people with such "libertarian" moral attitudes (who are in fact enslaved to sin). Or perhaps it is a sin of pride and self-idolatry, wherein they fondly imagine themselves to be immune from the harm such things entail.

[GL]

Bill R.,

Thanks.

[Ethan Cordray]

Now, Jim, I hear toll booth operators have one of the highest suicide rates among all professions. Shouldn't we be a little kinder?

[Judy Warner]

Is that true, Ethan? When I was younger my vision of hell was being a toll collector for the Holland Tunnel.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I took note that one of the African-American women who supports such restrictions specifically pondered whether graphically violent video games contribute to intercity violence. <<<

If so, it would be a secondary and minor cause. There are deeper social pathologies at work, which we can test empirically by looking at Japanese urban culture. The Japanese not only have access to the same video games we have, but many that are even more explicit, with graphic violence and sexual content. They also scarf up extraordinarily violent and mysogenistic comics called "manga" in which rape and murder are recurrent themes depicted in loving visual detail. Yet in Japan, the homocide rate is a fraction of ours (and not because they have gun control--despite the law, guns in Japan are fairly common, especially among the criminal class). Thus, exposure to violent video games, comics and television programs cannot be isolated as the cause of violence in our culture (indeed, they would seem not to have played any role in today's violence, which may be more attributable to a combination of Asian childrearing abuses (his sister got into Princeton, he only got into VT) and our propensity for pharmacological solutions to personal problems (he was apparently on anti-depressants).

It's easy to look for external causes, but the fault line between good and evil does not run through a PlayStation 3, but through every individual human heart.

[Judy Warner]

The pharmacological connection is interesting. I believe almost all if not all of the school shooters were on Ritalin, an anti-depressant, or some other mood-altering drug. I think we have not even begun to understand how damaging these drugs are and it is terrifying to think how many children are spending their formative years under their influence.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I think we have not even begun to understand how damaging these drugs are and it is terrifying to think how many children are spending their formative years under their influence.<<<

Naturally, South Park pointed out the worst side effect of Ritalin--it makes you like Phil Collins songs.

[Bill R]

"There are deeper social pathologies at work, which we can test empirically by looking at Japanese urban culture."

But it's possible that you're looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope, Stuart. That is, cultural influences (such as traditional Japanese culture) may inhibit certain anti-social behaviors, whereas where such cultural restraints are not present, exposure to such violent games ignites tendencies that are not otherwise restrained. That may be what GL's African-American coeds sensed.

[Judy Warner]

Also, the Japanese might have a low homicide rate, but they don't appear to have particularly healthy relationships between men and women. Might the "extraordinarily violent and mysogenistic comics called "manga" in which rape and murder are recurrent themes depicted in loving visual detail" be a cause, an effect, or a sign of this?

[Nick]

I agree Bill. Having Japanese in my family and being a fan of Japanese culture and its cross-pollination with America I'd be inclined to believe that Japan's low incidence of violence exists because the culture as a whole abhors *external* versus *internal* violence (there suicide rate is through the roof). There popular dramatic fiction tends to focus on suicide rather than homicide. --PUN ALERT-- If you want some mind blowingly dull movies I suggest checking them out.

Besides wasn't there a study on the effects of violence in a small town in Canada in the 90's when TV was introduced there? I wish I could remember the details of that one...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Also, the Japanese might have a low homicide rate, but they don't appear to have particularly healthy relationships between men and women.<<<

Scrape off the veneer of 21st century modernity, and Japan remains a very medieval country. Until quite recently, many marriages were still arranged. In familial relations, it is the father who ostensibly runs the family, but the mother-in-law traditionally has had responsibility for "training" the wives of their sons--in the process making their lives living hells. This pattern has existed for hundreds of years, and is perpetuated by the dynamics of hazing and dysfunctional relationships. Just as frat boys or British public school kids bully their juniors, who in turn grow up to bully their juniors, so Japanese mothers in law were bullied as young wives, and feel the need to bully the women their sons marry. Closed cycle.

Actually, I see the inherent violence of Japanese entertainment (another characteristic that goes back hundreds of years) as something of a safety valve in a society in which all relationships are highly circumscribed and in which the notion of shame precludes open and sincere expressions of feelings. These outlets keep the pressure from building up to unsustainable levels, while at the same time, the social constraints that make the outlets necessary also inhibit any tendency to act out on the fantasies contained therein.

[GL]

>>>If so, it would be a secondary and minor cause.<<<

I actually believe that an obsession for violent video games and a tendency to act out violently are both symptoms of an underlying problem and not a case of the former causing the latter. The FBI found a correlation, but not a causation.

Nonetheless, I also believe a healthy society does not entertain its children by having them cut off people's heads with machetes or cave in their skulls with baseball bats or crow bars (all means of scoring points in Manhunt) with very realistic eruptions of blood and splashing of gray matter following "success." Studies do show that playing such games increases aggressive thoughts and actions.

My main objective is to increase the ability of parents to decide whether and when their minor children have access to such games by prohibiting vendors from making them available to minors (16 years and under) without parental consent.

Stuart is correct when he says, "It's easy to look for external causes, but the fault line between good and evil does not run through a PlayStation 3, but through every individual human heart." On the other hand, there is no need to feed and water our sinful natures.

[francesca]

>>The pharmacological connection is interesting. I believe almost all if not all of the school shooters were on Ritalin, an anti-depressant, or some other mood-altering drug. I think we have not even begun to understand how damaging these drugs are and it is terrifying to think how many children are spending their formative years under their influence.<<

This doesn't necessarily mean that Ritalin or anti-depressants *cause* aberrant behavior. It seems more likely that children manifesting aberrant behaviors are likely to be placed on Ritalin or anti-depressants.

[Tony Esolen]

Judy,

Fr. Robert Hart has written for us about Ritalin, which he says is basically the same drug the streets have known as Speed. Speed kills.

Anybody wondering about what there is in our "childhoods" these days that is deeply perverse, even inhuman, without the palliating effects of the outdoors and physical labor?

[Isamashii Yuubi (Courageous Grace)]

"They [Japanese] also scarf up extraordinarily violent and mysogenistic comics called "manga" in which rape and murder are recurrent themes depicted in loving visual detail."

Not trying to weigh in an opinion on the discussion, but I'd just like to make a clarification here (I worked as a sales associate for a comic/gaming store for quite a while and enjoy reading manga and watching anime). Manga is very similar to American comics in that there are good and bad manga just as there are good and bad comics (think Superman or X-men vs Vampirella or Army of Darkness). Both have certain titles which are considered "top shelf" or too mature for younger audiences, but there are also many titles that are quite safe for younger audiences (Peach Fuzz is a cute one).

[Judy Warner]

Another good article is Mary Eberstadt's Why Ritalin Rules for Policy Review, 1999.

[Judy Warner]

Tony, do you have the date of the Fr. Hart article?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Vampirella or Army of Darkness<<<

Are G-rated as compared to the "bad manga". Moreover, the bad manga is ubiquitous: Japanese businessmen think nothing of reading it in public on crowded trains as they head off to work. I suppose the Japanese conception of privacy in public (inevitable in such a crowded--although rapidly emptying--country) makes this acceptable, it does not take away from he order of magnitude difference in the content nor does it explain the mainstreaming of what we would call deviant materials. I mean, even in San Francisco, nobody reads Playboy on the subway.

[francesca]

GL writes "I actually believe that an obsession for violent video games and a tendency to act out violently are both symptoms of an underlying problem and not a case of the former causing the latter. The FBI found a correlation, but not a causation."

In general I agree, although I could imagine that the former might influence the expression of the latter. I just read an interview with a forensic psychiatrist at http://abcnews.go.com/Health/VATech/story?id=3050483&page=1 , which suggests that Cho Seung-Hui, the VTech gunman, was a paranoid schizophrenic. Michael Welner, the psychiatrist, discusses the American "soldier of fortune culture" and states, "An assailant who carries out a crime of the alienated, the emasculated, the rejected may have been inspired to a destructive path precisely because of how much he associated mass shooters with the American iconography."

Somehow I find it enormously reassuring that this horrible slaughter was probably carried out by a mentally ill person with diminished responsibility for his actions. The alternative is just too disturbing to contemplate.

[Steve Nicoloso]

Now, Jim, I hear toll booth operators have one of the highest suicide rates among all professions.

Wouldn't be surprising especially since EZ-pass is putting a lot of them out of work.

[Steve Nicoloso]

It's easy to look for external causes, but the fault line between good and evil does not run through a PlayStation 3, but through every individual human heart.

I certainly agree with this, Stuart, but I think a strong case can be made (and many have made it) that the tools (and toys) we make do affect us, often in unintended ways, and in ways that can permanently change the culture and the ways we think, and not often for the better. As we come up with ever more pleasurable ways to waste time (i.e., not do productive work nor improve our souls nor actually copulate), lo and behold: we end up wasting ever more time. PS3 is a device that enables increasingly intense virtuality.

None of which to say, that it (or gaming of any kind) had any immediate causal role in the specific case of the VT Massacre, but that this virtuality (whether as a symptom or a cause) is thick in the air breathed by society in which the tragedy occurred.

[GL]

GL writes "I actually believe that an obsession for violent video games and a tendency to act out violently are both symptoms of an underlying problem and not a case of the former causing the latter. The FBI found a correlation, but not a causation."

In general I agree, although I could imagine that the former might influence the expression of the latter.

Francesca,

I tend to agree with your response to my earlier post.

[Ethan Cordray]

I'm not sure about the toll booth operator thing. It's just something I heard from someone once. Regardless, it's a hard, tedious, and thankless job, and those who do it deserve our forebearance and kindness.

And I found myself wishing every booth was still manual in my recent trip to Wheaton, as it seemed like every automatic gate on the Eisenhower was malfunctioning.

[Ethan Cordray]

>>Somehow I find it enormously reassuring that this horrible slaughter was probably carried out by a mentally ill person with diminished responsibility for his actions. The alternative is just too disturbing to contemplate.<<

I'm afraid I can't agree with this, Francesca. Why should mental illness imply diminished responsibility in this case? It's not as though he didn't realize that he was killing people.

And what's so disturbingly unthinkable about a mentally stable person doing something like this? A "blaze of glory" fantasy is a fairly honest response to the despair of living in a godless universe. "If there is no God, then all things are permitted."

[Francesca]

>>>>Somehow I find it enormously reassuring that this horrible slaughter was probably carried out by a mentally ill person with diminished responsibility for his actions. The alternative is just too disturbing to contemplate.<<

I'm afraid I can't agree with this, Francesca. Why should mental illness imply diminished responsibility in this case? It's not as though he didn't realize that he was killing people.

And what's so disturbingly unthinkable about a mentally stable person doing something like this? A "blaze of glory" fantasy is a fairly honest response to the despair of living in a godless universe. "If there is no God, then all things are permitted."<<

Ethan, if the gunman was a paranoid schizophrenic, as some are suggesting, he would likely have had a diminished grasp of reality. He must have known he was killing people and it seems his actions were even premeditated, but the mind of a truly mentally ill person would be so confused as to be less culpable and his illness may have prevented him from fully understanding the consequences of his behavior. Perhaps he was incapable of relating to the pain of others. "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," would be more applicable to a schizophrenic than to a sane person.

I'm not suggesting that the mentally ill be absolved, at a practical level, from the consequences of their behavior. I'm sure everyone now wishes there had been aggressive early intervention in this case. It's just that in trying to understand evil and the problem of suffering, in a world where we're all supposed to be created in the image and likeness of God, mental illness does seem to provide some answers to perplexing questions.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>And what's so disturbingly unthinkable about a mentally stable person doing something like this? <<<

Robert Fuller's classic war movie, "The Big Red One" contains a scene in which a squad of American dog faces has to clean out a German unit that is billeted in an insane asylum. They try to sneak up on the Germans, but are discovered and a firefight breaks out in the dining room. While American and German soldiers are shooting at one another and trying to find cover behind the furniture, the inmates of the asylum continue to eat lunch, paying no notice to the carnage around them.

Until one German is killed, and his submachinegun lands on the table in front of one of the inmates. He stares at it lovingly. He caresses it. He picks it up, stands, and begins shooting in all directions. "They were wrong!" he cries. "I am not insane. I am one of YOU!"

The narrator, an aspiring writer, comments sardonically, "For a moment, I thought he had a point. Just before I dropped him".

[Nick]

I will come out of the closet. I play violent video games. This weekend in fact I killed countless terrorist in "Rainbow 6: Las Vegas". I have played the "Rainbow" series for a long time (with the current one being a wee bit of a disappointment compared to earlier titles since the realism dropped; one should not be able to shrug off a burst from a military rifle at short range even with body armor). I will be buying more in the future. My children will not be playing them and some of them may be hidden in out of the way places.

Contra-Stuart Playstation 3 does affect aggression. I get *seriously* amped up when I play an aggressive game. I wobble on whether this is bad. Aggression in and of itself is not an evil and can be good. However, I think it would be foolish in the extreme to not at least grant it a multiplier affect to existing personalities. I also think you seriously discount the effect of media on the mind. If it didn't have an effect then marketing would be as much a waste of time as a rousing speech.

As to violence in general I'm not sure if I agree with GL (but I admit to not being clear as to how violence was discussed in the class). My biggest complaint about modern games is not the violence per se, its that the protagonists are no longer "good-guys". I don't mind anti-heroes, but with the rise of Grand Theft Auto II (one was mostly a failure if it wasn't for the publicity it generated) you have started more and more playing the "bad guys". This is seen across the whole gaming culture. For example, in the RPG arena we've had the World of Darkness since the 80's.

We've tossed the Noble Warrior Ethic (for I would appreciate gun totting terrorist killing by standers next to me on the plane any day of the week) for the Thug Ethic. What's worse we encourage it....

GL, did your class consider the opinion that the game may be considered "fighting words"?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I will come out of the closet. I play violent video games. This weekend in fact I killed countless terrorist in "Rainbow 6: Las Vegas".<<<

I don't like first-person shooter games. First, they aren't cerebral enough. Second, they aren't very realistic, due to what I call the "John Wayne Effect"--you know you won't be killed (actually, not virtually), and so you do things you would not do in real life. By the same tokens, the sims feel no fear and no pain, and so they, too, keep on coming when real human beings would be trying to make themselves one with the pavement and wetting their pants. The problem is endeminc to such simulations, even the ones the miltiary uses (I got paid big bucks to study the question, came up with a solution, too; don't know whether the algorithms were ever implemented).

That said, a lot of the better first person shooter games (Call to Duty and World at War come to mind) do server a very useful purpose in making people get a least a modicum of understanding about what war is like. I've had a number of kids who never showed any interest in history start asking me stuff after playing some of those games for a while.

That you get hopped up when playing them is merely a sign that they are achieving their purpose. Combat seems to induce two contradictory reactions in people--sheer terror and tremendous exhilaration. If you can control the first and not let the second get too far out of hand, you can function pretty well with bullets flying about you. Let the fear take control, and you break down; get too high, and you become dead in a hurry. After the battle, the reaction sets in as the adrenalin stops pumping. Most soldiers report feeling absolutely drained after a battle, physically and emotionally wrung out. No wonder, then, that after a week or two of intense combat, soldiers are at the end of their tether. At the end of World War II, a bunch of Army sociologists headed by a guy named Stouffer wrote a monumental multi-volume study called "The American Soldier" (still available from the GPO--it's fascinating reading). They figured that the typical soldier could spend at most 242 days in the combat zone before breaking down totally. Removing him from the front for R&R could partially recharge his battery, but as soon as he got back, the process would begin. Since the U.S. had no policy of troop rotation in World War II, those soldiers who weren't killed or wounded would begin to show signs of combat psychosis if they approached nine months in combat. The war in Europe ended just in time, in that case.

By the way, the "high" can be achieved even with something as innocuous as Napoleonic or Seven Years War miniatures. I remember one particularly hard fought game in which I was so wrapped up in the moment that I not only lost track of time (not unusual, as any gamer will attest), but also lost track of what was going on elsewhere on the game table (actually, the floor of a pretty large classroom at Georgetown. By the last roll of the dice, all I was concerned about was winning my little corner of the field. I was totally surprised to look up and see that we had in fact, won the battle. And when it was over, I felt really, really tired.

[Bill R]

"My biggest complaint about modern games is not the violence per se, its that the protagonists are no longer "good-guys"."

This is seriously interesting to me, Nick. Seven or eight years ago, when my son was in junior high school, he started playing some of the early "shoot-'em-up" games. ("Doom," as I recall.) I didn't forbid playing them outright (I knew he'd just play them at friends' homes), but I expressed my displeasure. He soon shifted interest to puzzle games ("Myst") and quests. I really didn't find any of these problematic. But to hear that violent games now almost all posit the player as a criminal or thug--that's quite disturbing. It's one thing to blow away the "bad guys." It's quite something else to fantasize about BEING the bad guy!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>We've tossed the Noble Warrior Ethic (for I would appreciate gun totting terrorist killing by standers next to me on the plane any day of the week) for the Thug Ethic.<<<

I would disagree. The dominant ethos displayed at Virginia Tech would appear, based on the behavior of most of the students, to be one of passivity. Very few seem to have done anything to stop this guy, or even to defend themselves. With the exception of the one professor (who, interestingly enough, was someone who had first-hand experience of violent aggression), most of the people who were shot appear to have been mowed down like sheep. This was not Flight 93.

I put it to you that the middle and upper-middle classes have raised a generation of wusses, indoctrinated to believe that "violence never solves anything" and that conflict can be mediated or negotiated out of existence. Hence, the notion that they should fight back seems not to have occured to them. Think about it--a room full of people, one guy with a gun, and nobody could take him? I mean, if he's going to kill you, better to be hanged as a goat than a sheep. Why didn't they? Because they were raised to believe that "the proper authorities" would always take care of the situation. Maybe it's the fact that I read history, or just that I grew up in Brooklyn in the 1970s, but I know the one group on whom you should NOT count to protect you is the "proper authorities".

We need to make our kids more self-reliant and willing to look out for their own safety, because it is a dangerous world. One of the few sensible things I have heard over the past couple of days came from a counter-terrorism expert, who said that, no matter what programs and policies may be in place at a school, every student, every teacher, has to have in his head his only individual plan about what to do in cases like this, or in any type of emergency.

[Judy Warner]

I had the same thoughts, Stuart, especially about contrasting the students' and teachers' behavior with Flight 93. Then I read We Need More Heroes, which also references the kidnapped Brits. He quotes a columnist: “Why are some so weak-minded compared with those 18- year-olds who, within living memory, went over the top on the Somme, or splashed through machine-gun fire onto the Normandy beaches?” One reason is that there are no good examples of real heroism in the media, and they don't read books, so acting heroic is something that simply doesn't occur to them. They have no model for it. I add that while kids used to learn about heroes in school, they now learn that there are no heroes, just dead white racist men.

[Bill R]

"I add that while kids used to learn about heroes in school, they now learn that there are no heroes, just dead white racist men."

Or just anti-heroes, apparently.

[Stuart Koehl]

“Why are some so weak-minded compared with those 18- year-olds who, within living memory, went over the top on the Somme, or splashed through machine-gun fire onto the Normandy beaches?”

Well, let's understand that those kids at the Somme and Normandy weren't 18-year old kids. Most were in their early to mid-20s, many were married, some had kids of their own. And they didn't just get up one morning and decide that they were going over the top or jumping out of a landing craft. They were, in fact, the product of a long process of training and indoctrination that gave them the moral resources needed to do something very extraordinary, because nobody in his right mind would choose to do what they did (as some wag put it, "a sane army would run away").

That training and indoctrination had two principal objectives: to instill subordination and to promote small unit cohesion. Subordination is the instantaneous obedience to orders, even to the point of overriding the instinct for self-preservation. A soldier is trained to obey, and that is the entire purpose of basic training, of the close order drilling, of the physical hardship and the psychological abuse. The training breaks down the individual identity of the recruit and rebuilds a corporate identity. It's that subordination that allows him to do his job when the bullets are whizzing around his ears. The same process also develops intimate bonds among the men who have been through it together. They become a true band of brothers, and if the process works, each would lay down his life for the others. Because it is not love of country, or belief in freedom, or any such claptrap that keeps men in the battle. It may suffice to get them to join up, but it won't hold them in the line when the shooting starts. Rather, it is the fear of being thought a coward by his peers, and the knowledge that his life depends on the steadfastness of his comrades, who in turn depend on him, that keeps the soldier in the line. It is that solidarity that allows them to go over the top or storm Omaha Beach.

But one other thing needs to be pointed out: most of the troops at the Somme and at Omaha were grossly ignorant of what they were facing. The British army of 1916 was Kitchener's "New Army", the first waves of the conscription. The pre-war British army, the "Old Contemptibles" of 1914-1915, were by that time mostly gone, and in their place came a wave of civilian soldiers with eighteen months of training under their belts. Many were so-called "Pal's Battalions", groups of friends and co-workers who enlisted together, and for the most part would die together in the next twelve months. They were given the most rudimentary tactical training; their officers were little better prepared. They were told that the artillery barrage (which lasted for more than a week) would kill all the Germans, and they could just walk across no-man's land, into the German trenches (or what was left of them), and then "to the green fields beyond". But the artillery didn't kill the Germans, who came out of their dugouts and manned their machineguns, and mowed down the Pals like new-grown wheat. That the British could keep this up for several months, that they did not collapse, that the men would continue to go over the top time and time again, is a tribute both to the effectiveness of their subordination, and to the cohesion that was created within their units. They were Pals. They would not funk on their friends.

The troops who dropped in the first wave on Omaha Beach were a mixed bag. The First Infantry, on the left, sent in two regiments (15th and 16th Infantry). They had seen action in North Africa and Sicily, but had also taken serious casualties. The 29th Infantry Division (Blue and Gray) was a National Guard division recruited from Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. Though some of the component units could trace their roots to the Civil War, the two regiments that stormed the beach (115th and 116th Infantry) had never seen action before. They also believed that the pre-landing bombardment and naval barrage would suppress the defenses. They were also told that they faced second-rate opposition, when in fact the crack German 352nd Infantry Division had just moved one of its two component regiments up to the Atlantic Wall. When the 116th Infantry dropped its bow ramps off of Dog Green beach, they found themselves looking right down the muzzles of dozens of German machineguns, mortars, and heavy artillery pieces. The worst hit was Company A, 1st Battalion, 116th Infantry, recruited mainly from small Virginia farming communities in and around the town of Bristol. Many of them never got off their boats, because when the ramps dropped, the Germans could shoot right into them. Most of the others never got off the beach. Most of the officers went down before they could give a single order. In ones and twos, the survivors managed to run and crawl to a protective sea wall. Gradually, they began filtering forward and winkling the Germans out of their positions (with a lot of help from American destroyers that closed to within 500 yards of the beach to fire point-blank into pillboxes. What kept the men of the 29th moving forward was the spirit of subordination, and the inspirational leadership of the deputy division commander, MG Norman Cota (who got a Medal of Honor). He got them organized, and moved them out with a simple truth: the only people staying on this beach are the dead and the dying.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with our 18-19 year olds. They've been brought up with a pack of lies, but they aren't stupid and they can see through them, if they are given the chance. This event, like 9/11, is a great wake up call for them, a chance to penetrate the pious cant of their elders. They aren't the backbone of the anti-war movement; those people are the same ones who marched back in 1968 (older, smellier, and paunchier than back then, but none the wiser). They aren't the ones advocating total disarmament and passivity in the face of evil--that's the administration of VTU and other colleges that think they can become islands of peace by "banning" weapons from campus. Smart kids go to Virginia Tech; I think they now know that when everyone is unarmed, the wolf has run of the fold, and the shepherd is asleep in the hay.

[Judy Warner]

We'll see. I hope you're right. There are a few differences besides the lack of military training and the lies they've been told, however. One is that in the days before television, most children grew up being physically active rather than spending most of their time as spectators. Boys, at least, took risks during their ordinary play, and took delight in overcoming physical challenges. They were not told "safety first" their whole lives, nor made to feel ashamed for liking risks and boldness. Then, they were more likely to identify closely with a group -- family, church, perhaps Boy Scouts -- and thus have a sense of social cohesion. They believed that a man's job is to protect his family and by extension his group, extending outward to his country.

After decades of feminism, broken families, learning to despise their country, and growing up physically passive, if the kids today can overcome these things by this "wake up call," I will salute them as great heroes. But I'm not as optimistic as you are, Stuart.

[Judy Warner]

To mitigate the above, I will note that those young people who join the armed forces today perform ably, and there are many heroes among them including some who have deliberately sacrificed their lives for others. I hope that many combat veterans go to college when they return; perhaps they can have a salutory influence on their peers.

[Stuart Koehl]

It seems Mark Steyn agrees with me:

A Culture of Passivity
"Protecting" our "children" at Virginia Tech.

By Mark Steyn

I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on. But I was giving a couple of speeches in Minnesota yesterday and I was asked about it and found myself more and more disturbed by the tone of the coverage. I’m not sure I’m ready to go the full Derb but I think he’s closer to the reality of the situation than most. On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”

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. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

Point two: The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,” the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals. And a few months later as Richard Reid bent down and tried to light his shoe in that critical split-second even the French guys leapt up and pounded the bejasus out of him.

We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.

[Joe Long]

Careful cultivation of the sense of honor in young males is simply not a social priority to most Americans...the result seems to me to be fewer Flight 93's, more mass slaughters. Conditions are right for the development of sociopaths AND passive victims; both esteem themselves very highly. As Chesterton said, in a violent situation "the man who loves his life shall lose it" is perfectly practical advice - unless you can risk yourself intelligently you cannot protect yourself or anyone else.

I am not specifically criticizing recent shooting victims, many of whom perhaps DID futily resist. But I think there'd be a deal more deterrent to sociopaths if there were more - "valor" is the only proper word for it.

(From the "Hagakure", a fine old book, clearly fanatical and wrong where it's wrong, but in other places truly noble:)

"There is a way of bringing up the child of a samurai. From the time of infancy one should encourage bravery and avoid trivially frightening or teasing the child. If a person is affected by cowardice as a child, it remains a lifetime scar. It is a mistake for parents to thoughtlessly make their children dread lightning, or to have them not go into dark places, or to tell them frightening things in order to stop them from crying."

Thoughtless promotion of dread...a pretty good description of much of "social studies".

[GL]

This causes me to recall the shootings at Columbine. I recall that the police waited outside for some time after the shooting had stopped before entering the school. At the time, I thought, "Why the hell didn't they go in and try to stop these boys and get medical aid to whomever might still be saved?" (I think from a past thread that we all agree that the phrase "why the hell" was appropriate to the circumstance.) Maybe it wouldn't have been the best practice; I am not a cop and have no training as such. Nonetheless, it seemed to me that men with guns and body armour had a responsibility to go in and try to stop the carnage and save lives and not wait for the situation to calm down. But hey, that's just me.

[Nick]

You're right Stuart I should have been more clear. Those that participate in a violent ethos are now reduced to the Thug Ethic. It is amazing that not one man attempted to take the guy who was under sixty. Sad really.

I should also be clear that not all games are using violent thugs as the main character. Its just become alarmingly more common. Interestingly the top selling series of all time, Halo, is about two very honorable military comabtants. I'll also note Stuart that in some of the newer squad games your opponents and friends do cower in fear. The player, for reasons of game play is usually ignored.

All of this is making me want to go get an aging copy of Close Combat V (WWII tactical sim) and cross my fingers that the new one will be out sometime before I die (it was *supposed* to be modern Korean "what-if").

[GL]

It is not the violence per se that is the problem. I have looked at war games as part of my research and most of them are not the over-the-top gratuitous and graphic type of violence seen in games like Manhunt and its ilk, where the more brutal and disturbing the method the better the player scores and, as Nick and others have pointed out, the player is not a good guy defeating evil, but it is evil versus evil or an evil man brutalizing a female prostitute. If you ever have played any of these games, you know what I mean; if you have not, you have no idea how far some of these game programmers have gone.

The Minnesota statute actually relied on the video game industry's own rating system to identify the games restricted, banning minors access only to those games which the industry itself identified as unsuited for minors. The industry, of course, wants to use ratings, but does not want laws which mandate what they merely recommend.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>All of this is making me want to go get an aging copy of Close Combat V (WWII tactical sim) and cross my fingers that the new one will be out sometime before I die (it was *supposed* to be modern Korean "what-if").<<<

I love Close Combat, especially the later versions in which you had to establish C2 links. Unfortunately, Atomic Games sold out to Microsoft and never produced a Mac version after CC II (A Bridge Too Far). Fortunately, my new Mac has an Intel Duo processor and can run Windows native as well as OS X. So, off to E-Bay to pick up some old copies for a song.

[Francesca]

There have certainly been recent examples of heroism by young people in similar situations. Kip Kinkel, a school shooter in Oregon, was tackled and restrained by fellow students, one of whom was wounded. We don't yet know all the details of the Virginia Tech massacre and we can't say that any of us would have done any better under the circumstances than did these students. The gunman had semi-automatic weapons, the element of surprise, and in many cases had the advantage of entering classrooms in which students were seated some distance away from him. It may be that some amongst the dead did in fact perform acts of heroism.

The passivity that worries me more is the lack of intervention in the case of the student gunman when he had so clearly been disturbed for years. This seems mostly due to legal limitations. In 2005, he was institutionalized as an imminent threat to others, yet two years later he could pass a background check and purchase semi-automatic weapons?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This seems mostly due to legal limitations. In 2005, he was institutionalized as an imminent threat to others, yet two years later he could pass a background check and purchase semi-automatic weapons?<<<

Because he WASN'T institutionalized, just given some outpatient counselling, then allowed back into the student community. The ability to snow an overworked and underpaid shrink in the student health service isn't that difficult to do.

[Francesca]

Stuart Koehl writes, "That training and indoctrination had two principal objectives: to instill subordination and to promote small unit cohesion. Subordination is the instantaneous obedience to orders, even to the point of overriding the instinct for self-preservation. A soldier is trained to obey, and that is the entire purpose of basic training, of the close order drilling, of the physical hardship and the psychological abuse. The training breaks down the individual identity of the recruit and rebuilds a corporate identity. "

This makes me think of The Charge of the Light Brigade:

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:

Someone had blundered. And those "someones" have blundered so often, or lied, or been on personal power kicks, and those vanities, those frauds, and that incompetence is now so quickly uncovered and made accessible to all, that people are less available for sacrificing their lives for someone else's "bright ideas." There are probably lofty ideals most people would be prepared to die for, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to be enthusiastically sacrificed for someone else's cause. Do we want our sons/brothers/fathers dying for Aryan supremacy? For a piece of mud near the Somme? For Haliburton? Personally I think it's a good thing we're more inclined to program robots rather than people these days.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Someone had blundered. <<<

What did Tennyson know, anyway? Consider Karl von Clausewitz:

"In war, everything is very simple but even the simplest thiing is very difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce a friction which no man can imagine who has not seen War. . . Friction is the only conception which in a general way distinguishes real War from War on paper. The military machine, the Army and all that belong to it, is in fact simple, and appears on this account to be easy to manage [Are you listening, Nancy Pelosi?]. But let us reflect that no part of it is in one piece, that it is composed entirely of individuals, each of which keeps up its own friction in all directions. Theoretically, all sounds very well: the commander of the battalion is responsible for the execution of the order given; and as the battalion by its discipline is glued together into one piece, and the chief must be a man of acknowledged zeal, the beam turns on an iron pin with little friction. But it is not so in reality, and all that is exaggerated and false in such a conception manifests itself at once in War. The battalion always remains composed of a number of men, of whom, if chance so wills, the most insignificant is able to occasion delay and even irregularity. The danger which War brings with it, the bodily exertions which it requires, augment this evil so much that they may be regarded as he greatest causes of it.

"This enormous friction, which is not concentrated, as in mechanics, at a few points, is tehrefore everywhre brought into contact with chance, and thus incidents take place upon which it was impossible to calculate, their chief origin being chance. . ."

Now, what happened at the so-called "Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava?

The Russian army sortied to attack the Anglo-French supply base at the port town of Balaclava. The port was protected by a series of redoubts on a low ridge, some of which were defended by Turkish troops. The Russians captured the redoubts and began to drag off the guns installed there. The British commander, Lord Raglan, saw the Turks retreat, saw the Russians taking off the guns, and decided to use the British light cavalry brigade (reduced by illness to the size of a regiment) to attack the Russians at the redoubts and recapture the guns. But there was no radio, there was no internet. To get the Light Brigade to advance, Raglan had to send an orderly with a written note, scribbled in a hurry by his Adjutant, General Airey, the gist of which was, "His Lordship desires the Light Brigade to advance into the valley and retake the guns". From Raglan's position, it was very simple indeed. He could see it all from the hill on which he had his command post. He gave the order to his aide de camp, Captain Lewis Nolan, who carried it to Lord Cardigan, commander of the Light Brigade.

It is at this point that Friction comes into play. Nolan and Cardigan detested each other, the former thinking Cardigan a pompous ass, the latter thinking Nolan an impertinent popinjay (both were correct). Worse, still, when Nolan got to Cardigan's position, the redoubts and the guns were not visible. Cardigan reads the order, and is confused. What guns? What valley? Nolan has no patience for Cardigan, impertinently shouts at him, "There, my Lord, there are your guns!", while waving vaguely down the valley directly to Cardigan's front. This is not the right valley, but if Cardigan rides down it, he will come up on the flank of the Russians removing the guns, and can charge them to advantage. But Nolan doesn't explain, he just shouts at Cardigan, and Cardigan, his back up, decides to do exactly what Nolan says the order tells him to do. Except that, down at the end of the valley, is a battery of Russian artillery. And on the hills to either side of the valley are moe batteries of Russian artillery, as well as squadrons of Russian cavalry.

Cardigan knows enough to tell his second in command Lord George Paget, that it is a suicide mission, "but Lord Raglan will have it", puts the Brigade into three lines and sets off. As they move down the valley, Nolan suddenly realizes that Cardigan has misunderstood him and is going to charge the Russian guns, not the captured Turkish ones. Instead of wheeling to the right, the Brigade is moving straight ahead. Nolan gallups up to Cardigan at the head of the Brigade, and begins yelling and gesticulating to his right, but Cardigan can't hear what he is saying, and in fact thinks that Nolan is trying to usurp his leadership of the Brigade. In a few more moments, Nolan might have made himself understood, but at that very moment, a Russian shell bursts nearby, and a fragment lodges in Nolan's heart, killing him instantly (gruesomely, Nolan is such a good rider that his corpse remains upright in the saddle for several more moments before falling in the dust). The Brigade advances to the trot, then the cantor, then the gallop, and finally, the charge. The break into the Russian battery, repel several Russian squadrons in support, then rally, turn around, and cut their way back out and return to their start point, having lost about 400 men and horses killed, wounded and captured.

It was all quite useless, of course: a regiment of French light cavalry moving in open order managed to repel the Russians (and save the Light Brigade--Tennyson left that out), but the following things need to be recognized:

1. The blunders were not caused by vainglory, or ambition, or even incompetence, but merely by the kind of Friction and chance that Clausewitz rightly says dominate real War.

2. If any one of the many variables had changed, the Charge of the Light Brigade would have been as successful as the Charge of the Heavy Brigade (never heard of that one, have you?). Alternatively, it could have been much worse than it was.

3. The last half of your post is pure twaddle. And I'm being nice when I say that. Because, my first inclination in response to your saying,

>>>There are probably lofty ideals most people would be prepared to die for, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to be enthusiastically sacrificed for someone else's cause. Do we want our sons/brothers/fathers dying for Aryan supremacy? For a piece of mud near the Somme? For Haliburton? Personally I think it's a good thing we're more inclined to program robots rather than people these days.<<<

is that you are being an ass. Particularly about the "program robots" part. What happened in VTU was at least partly due to the way in which those poor kids had been programmed as robots, unable to take the initiative even when their lives were threatened. The fact is, Francesca, that subordination and cohesion does not turn soldiers into robots, and your implying that it does shows how little exposure you have had to them. The fact is, good soldiers have individual initiative, which is applied in furtherance of the assigned mission. Soldiers who blindly obey orders without taking the real situation into account do not make good soldiers. That kind of soldier exists only in "war on paper", not war in reality, which is to say, war by amateurs--which apparently includes you, Francesca.

Clausewitz's pupil, Moltke the Elder, the man who created the Prussian Army that defeated Austria and France and forged the German Empire, confronted a colonel whose regiment had been badly shot up during the Battle of Sadowa in the Austro-Prussian War. Why, Moltke demanded, did the colonel advance his regiment into an impossible position? Because I was ordered to do so, said the poor colonel. "Mein herr", replied Moltke coldly, "his majesty made you a colonel precisely because he thought you would know when NOT to obey orders".

[Bill R]

"Personally I think it's a good thing we're more inclined to program robots rather than people these days."

Alas, if only that "we" would include our adversaries!

[Francesca]

Stuart Koehl writes, "Because he WASN'T institutionalized, just given some outpatient counselling, then allowed back into the student community. The ability to snow an overworked and underpaid shrink in the student health service isn't that difficult to do."

Actually he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital and detained after a district court ruled that he presented an imminent threat to self or others. This was after he had been accused of stalking two women. He was then evaluated by a state doctor and released, which is where he fell through the cracks.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Actually he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital and detained after a district court ruled that he presented an imminent threat to self or others. This was after he had been accused of stalking two women. He was then evaluated by a state doctor and released, which is where he fell through the cracks.<<<

Psychiatric evaluation is not the same thing as "commitment". Adjudged by the state psychologist NOT to be insane or a danger to others, he was released on his own recognizance and no entry was made on his record that would preclude his aquisition of a firearm. Because Virginia's involuntary commitment laws are among the most stringent in the country, it is practically impossible to put someone in an institution unlesshi is stark, raving mad AND causing bodily injury to himself or others.

[Francesca]

Stuart Koehl writes, "3. The last half of your post is pure twaddle. And I'm being nice when I say that. Because, my first inclination in response to your saying,

>>>There are probably lofty ideals most people would be prepared to die for, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to be enthusiastically sacrificed for someone else's cause. Do we want our sons/brothers/fathers dying for Aryan supremacy? For a piece of mud near the Somme? For Haliburton? Personally I think it's a good thing we're more inclined to program robots rather than people these days.<<<

is that you are being an ass. "

My sentiments precisely regarding your response. I could add long-winded, rambling, uninformed, and deaf to nuance.

You carry on:
"Particularly about the "program robots" part. What happened in VTU was at least partly due to the way in which those poor kids had been programmed as robots, unable to take the initiative even when their lives were threatened."

Absolute nonsense. Many of these students were budding scientists and engineers who were highly creative and intelligent people and far more likely than most to "think outside the box" and to come up with innovative and imaginative solutions. Several showed signs of initiative throughout this ordeal. What about those who blocked doors to protect their fellow students and themselves? Quickly turning over desks to provide cover and jumping from windows were two other ways in which they defended themselves. One young man said he wanted to tackle the killer, but he'd just seen the front row of students in his class killed in the blink of an eye and he realized there was no way he could reach the gunman, from his position, without being killed in the process, epecially as his movement would have been impeded by bodies and desks. As a budding engineer, he was probably visual-spatial enough to make a more informed decision than most of us about the distances, speeds, and times involved. There's a difference between blind stupidity and true heroism and it's very easy, from a safe distance, to pontificate about what these students could have done better. A scuba diving trip I took in a very strong current comes to mind. While in the boat, one pompous and loud-mouthed member of the group gave us all a lecture about how to handle the dangers of the situation. Once in the water, he clung to a piece of coral and we could all hear him screaming, even underwater! We had to calm him down, prise him loose, and get him back to the boat, where he was suitably chastened for, oh, about 5 minutes. Other students and teachers showed initiative and insight at an earlier stage by contacting police, faculty, the administration, and mental health officials regarding the killer's mental state. *This* is where the situation could have been dealt with. Blaming the victims for "lack of initiative" seems vile, particularly given: a) all that they've just endured, and b) the fact that you weren't there and you really don't know all the details.

[Ethan Cordray]

Stuart, all this talk of violent games and the relaities of warfare has finally given me an excuse to post this link.

Warning: the humor is quite salty, and other parts of the site are far worse. And some of the jokes rely a bit on video game knowledge. But I'm sure one or two of you all will find it very funny.

[Francesca]

"Psychiatric evaluation is not the same thing as "commitment". Adjudged by the state psychologist NOT to be insane or a danger to others, he was released on his own recognizance and no entry was made on his record that would preclude his aquisition of a firearm. Because Virginia's involuntary commitment laws are among the most stringent in the country, it is practically impossible to put someone in an institution unlesshi is stark, raving mad AND causing bodily injury to himself or others."

It's almost impossible even if he IS stark, raving mad. Many experts are expressing frustration in this context. The fact is that he WAS briefly institutionalized under court order, pending evaluation, because he was accused of stalking. The point is that despite many red flags and deep concern on the part of some insightful faculty members, no intervention was taken and he could pass a background check to purchase semi-automatic weapons. This cries out for some legislative changes.

[Bill R]

"Stuart, all this talk of violent games and the relaities of warfare has finally given me an excuse to post this link."

OK, Ethan, I take back everything I said about your maturity! ;-)

[James A. Altena]

"There's nothing fundamentally wrong with our 18-19 year olds. They've been brought up with a pack of lies, but they aren't stupid and they can see through them, if they are given the chance."

Wanna bet, Stuart? Remember that stupidity is a matter of faulty judgment, not faulty intellectual capacity. If they didn't see through the lies originally -- and those are so transparent -- they *are* stupid. They've had *plenty* of chances to see through them. But they have no capacity for judgment -- it's been stifled, even eradicated. What they need is not another chance to exercise a capacity they lack, but fundamental regeneration to instill that capacity.

As a onetime friend of mine said, "We are living in the golden age of stupidity." He rightly attributed much of it to the feminists, of which he observed: "Since they can't eradicate the difference between men and women, they want to do the next best thing and raise a generation too stupid to be able to tell the difference." That agenda has largely succeeded, and with it every lesser form of stupidity flourishes as well.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Many of these students were budding scientists and engineers who were highly creative and intelligent people and far more likely than most to "think outside the box" and to come up with innovative and imaginative solutions. <<<

Don't make me laugh, Francesca. I WORK with those people every day. Hell, my kids ARE those people.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It's almost impossible even if he IS stark, raving mad. Many experts are expressing frustration in this context. The fact is that he WAS briefly institutionalized under court order, pending evaluation, because he was accused of stalking. The point is that despite many red flags and deep concern on the part of some insightful faculty members, no intervention was taken and he could pass a background check to purchase semi-automatic weapons. This cries out for some legislative changes. <<<

It's the same privacy fetish that prevents us from telling people that a sexual predator has AIDS.

[Francesca]

"Don't make me laugh, Francesca. I WORK with those people every day. Hell, my kids ARE those people."

In that case you should know that these students are/were NOT people who were "programmed as robots" or were "unable to take the initiative."

[David Gray]

>The gunman had semi-automatic weapons

Do you know what that means?

>In that case you should know that these students are/were NOT people who were "programmed as robots" or were "unable to take the initiative."

Those students who were lined up against the wall en masse and then shot one by one, how did they take the initiative?

>And those "someones" have blundered so often, or lied, or been on personal power kicks, and those vanities, those frauds, and that incompetence is now so quickly uncovered and made accessible to all, that people are less available for sacrificing their lives for someone else's "bright ideas." There are probably lofty ideals most people would be prepared to die for, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to be enthusiastically sacrificed for someone else's cause. Do we want our sons/brothers/fathers dying for Aryan supremacy? For a piece of mud near the Somme? For Haliburton? Personally I think it's a good thing we're more inclined to program robots rather than people these days.

Regarding this warm, moist pile of poo Stuart was quite generous.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Do you know what that means?<<<

It means that after he's pulled the trigger nine or ten times, you have about six or seven seconds in which to hit him with a chair.

[David Gray]

>It means that after he's pulled the trigger nine or ten times, you have about six or seven seconds in which to hit him with a chair.

I wonder if she knew that.

[Stuart Koehl]

I wonder if Chou was even that good. He apparently only had the gun for a short while, which isn't enough to become proficient. New gun, fumble for the magazine (just how many mags did he have? They said they found 350 rounds in his car, but normally you buy a semi-automatic pistol, you get two or three magazines. Did he buy more separately? In any case, when you're out of magazines, you have to reload them by hand, which means pulling out a handful of rounds and feeding them in one at a time. With those big 9mm magazines, that could take quite a while. Did he call time out while he did that?

[Judy Warner]

Ethan, I know nothing about video war games but I thought that was pretty good. But then, I'm pretty immature.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Ethan, I know nothing about video war games but I thought that was pretty good. But then, I'm pretty immature.<<<

I bust a gut, but then, I'm REALLY immature.

[Yaknyeti]

Agreed... The War Games post was hilarious. Going on to read the discussion of the future of the world based on online gaming (MMORPGs) shows that the site isn't quite up to snuff overall, though.

[Francesca]

David Gray writes, "Regarding this warm, moist pile of poo ... "

Probably exactly what the critics of these students' courage and initiative would be producing under similar circumstances. I notice that, while piling on about the deficiencies of modern youth, nobody has acknowledged my point about the students who tackled an Oregon school shooter. You really don't know that some of the people who died *didn't* show initiative. There are many concerns here, but undermining the Vtech students, including the victims, seems particularly nasty.

[Judy Warner]

I would like to see more commentary about instances in which would-be mass murderers were stopped. The Oregon school is one instance. Another is Appalachian Law School, where in 2002 a disgruntled student killed three people before armed students subdued him. In the vast coverage of the event, it was hardly mentioned that the students' possession of guns was what prevented a mass murder. Later, Bernard Goldberg devoted a chapter of his book, Arrogance, to this willful omission by the media.

It has not been unmentioned, but not emphasized either, that Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone in a state where citizens may ordinarily get a concealed-carry permit fairly easily.

The original push a number of years ago to ease the requirements for concealed-carry came about because of a massacre in a Texas cafeteria. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, a state legislator, watched in frustration as her parents were murdered. Her gun was in her car because the law forbade carrying a concealed weapon. She went on to campaign across the county for laws allowing concealed-carry, and succeeded in many states. These laws have not led to the carnage that some predicted, but rather to lower crime rates. But VT preferred political correctness to reality; thus everyone was unarmed in the face of a murderer for whom a gun-free zone meant nothing.

[Stuart Koehl]

Police confirm that Cho used two guns fitted with standard magazines, One was a .22-cal popgun.

[David Gray]

>One was a .22-cal popgun

A gun for shooting squirrels...

[Bobby Winters]

>>>But VT preferred political correctness to reality; thus everyone was unarmed in the face of a murderer for whom a gun-free zone meant nothing.<<<

As a teacher I would prefer that the vast majority of my students not be carrying guns since I sometimes give them news they don't like.

My school as a good ROTC program. I don't think the gunman would have died of his own hand here.

[Judy Warner]

If VT had lived under the laws of Virginia rather than under a special exemption, the vast majority of the students there would not have been carrying guns. But a few would have. Especially perhaps some of those students who were already fearful of the murderer. Perhaps too the Israeli professor who had survived the holocaust and seen violence in his own country, and understood how to save lives even without a gun, though sacrificing his own.

[Bobby Winters]

>>>Perhaps too the Israeli professor who had survived the holocaust and seen violence in his own country, and understood how to save lives even without a gun, though sacrificing his own.<<<

No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his friends. May God be glorified through this sacrifice.

[GL]

A .22 can most definitely kill someone. You may recall that President Reagan was shot by John Hinckley with a .22, which nearly killed him. The same gun also left Jim Brady permanently disabled. I too have used a .22 to hunt squirrels, but I would not call it a pop gun. It is, indeed, a potentially deadly weapon as to humans as well as squirrels. Those who died from .22 wounds on Monday were by no means the first to do so.

[David Gray]

>A .22 can most definitely kill someone.

It certainly can. But if it doesn't hit your vitals it may not even knock you down. It doesn't have man-quality stopping power.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It certainly can. But if it doesn't hit your vitals it may not even knock you down. It doesn't have man-quality stopping power.<<<

Quite right. No stopping power whatsoever, especially if the adrenalin is surging. In fact, even the U.S. Army's 5.56 x 45mm M895 round, (which is .223-cal) used in the M16A2 and the M4 carbine, has proven less than adequate in putting down a charing enemy. Rangers in Somalia, firing point-blank at Somali militiamen, discovered that they could put two, three or four rounds into a man and he would keep coming. "Like stabbing someone with an icepick", one of the Rangers put it. You had to hit the guy in the head or heart to stop him, especially if he was high on qat (the leaves of a plant similar to coca). The bullet was too stable, so it would go right through a guy without dumping any of its energy into him. Same with the .22, though not being steel or copper jacketed, the bullet can do a lot of damage by breaking up.

[Nick]

Francesca, I am one of those people. I have been employed in software engineering for a long time. With the exception of the libertarians in the company I hang out with most engineers are the last people on earth I'd want around in a gun fight. Their ideas on positive aggression are severely lacking.

Stuart is dead on. He had to reload some time. Also if those were .22 a *chair* might make decent body armor allowing you to cover yourself during the charge.

[James A. Altena]

The debate here (and elsewhere) is in a certain sense metaphorical, even iconic. The victims at VTech are symbolic stand-ins here for larger trends in American culture. But, in the interest of charity toward the actual victims, might I suggest that we wait for more detailed accounts to be made available before we presume to state with such seeming certainty what those murdered supposedly could and could not have done in their situation, and what this does or does not supposedly reveal about both their moral character and that of the body politic in general?

I for one have absolutely no idea how I would react in such an extreme and unexpected situation. I know how I ought to and would like to react, but I'm not going to flatter myself that I actually would do so. Never having been in the military, I don't have the training the soldier has on how to react under fire -- and such training is all-important. While men may be naturally inclined to fight, they are not naturally inclined to do so with discipline -- that has to be inculcated by intensive training.

Bobby Winters has a good point. If there had been even one or two folks with ROTC training, there might have been a much better chance at resistance. If there is criticism to be voiced at this time, perhaps it should be directed toward a military culture that has devalued military service. What happened at VTech is in part (though far from the whole) the fruits of the political parasites who devoted so much time and effort to running the ROTC off so many campuses without regard for how the military protects their butts at every moment of their lives. (Does anyone know the situation regarding the ROTC at VTech?) Of course, that too is symbolic of larger trends that have boded ill for our nation and continue to do so.

I do think there is one important difference between the VTech situation and Flight 93. In the latter case, the hostages were not immediately under fire; they had time to collect their wits and nerves, to talk among themselves apart from their assailants, and plan their move before making it.

[GL]

The debate here (and elsewhere) is in a certain sense metaphorical, even iconic. The victims at VTech are symbolic stand-ins here for larger trends in American culture. But, in the interest of charity toward the actual victims, might I suggest that we wait for more detailed accounts to be made available before we presume to state with such seeming certainty what those murdered supposedly could and could not have done in their situation, and what this does or does not supposedly reveal about both their moral character and that of the body politic in general?

I for one have absolutely no idea how I would react in such an extreme and unexpected situation. I know how I ought to and would like to react, but I'm not going to flatter myself that I actually would do so. Never having been in the military, I don't have the training the soldier has on how to react under fire -- and such training is all-important. While men may be naturally inclined to fight, they are not naturally inclined to do so with discipline -- that has to be inculcated by intensive training.

* * *

I do think there is one important difference between the VTech situation and Flight 93. In the latter case, the hostages were not immediately under fire; they had time to collect their wits and nerves, to talk among themselves apart from their assailants, and plan their move before making it.

Ditto.

[Francesca]

"Francesca, I am one of those people. I have been employed in software engineering for a long time. With the exception of the libertarians in the company I hang out with most engineers are the last people on earth I'd want around in a gun fight. Their ideas on positive aggression are severely lacking."

Nick, I'm one of "those people" too:-) There's obviously a great deal of individual personality variation within any profession, but my experience as an engineer is that my co-workers have generally been resourceful, independent-minded, rather deliberate people with many interests and very little of the histrionic in their characters. Stuart's silly claim that these students were "programmed as robots" couldn't be more at odds with my own observations of engineers and engineering students, who rely for their success on creative thinking and the generation of multiple and innovative solutions to problems.

[David Gray]

>Stuart's silly claim that these students were "programmed as robots"

As I recall Francesca you were the one who introduced the idea that people had been programmed as robots, a remarkably foolish claim.

[Juli]

Also if those were .22 a *chair* might make decent body armor allowing you to cover yourself during the charge.

Which is exactly what at least some of the students tried to do, according to one young guy I saw interviewed that day. They threw desks, etc, between themselves/others students and the shooter.

I for one have absolutely no idea how I would react in such an extreme and unexpected situation. I know how I ought to and would like to react, but I'm not going to flatter myself that I actually would do so.

Of course we don't know. I'm not necessarily referring to people here, but sometimes I think the people who are most swaggeringly sure of how brave they would be in facing an enemy are precisely the ones who have never been in anything like that situation - nor are they lining up to volunteer for military duty.

On an e-mail list I'm on, we've had a conversation about guns, gun ownership, etc. A C of E priest remarked about Americans' casual attitude toward guns and how it strikes him (and he said it not critically, but as one making an observation); he and went on to say that his parents were adamant about not wanting their children to play with guns, etc - *because* they had lived through WWII, and in a way that we Americans never did.

For all the violence of our culture, and our entertainment, Americans have been sheltered from the reality of war.

[David Gray]

>sometimes I think the people who are most swaggeringly sure of how brave they would be in facing an enemy are precisely the ones who have never been in anything like that situation - nor are they lining up to volunteer for military duty

What do you think provides you with insight into who here has served in the military?

[Francesca]

"As I recall Francesca you were the one who introduced the idea that people had been programmed as robots, a remarkably foolish claim."

Go back and re-read the thread and see if you can figure out what I actually said and how it relates to instant obedience, subordination, etc.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>he and went on to say that his parents were adamant about not wanting their children to play with guns, etc - *because* they had lived through WWII, and in a way that we Americans never did.<<<

Horsecrap, Francesca.

>>>Go back and re-read the thread and see if you can figure out what I actually said and how it relates to instant obedience, subordination, etc.<<<

More horsecrap.

[David Gray]

>Go back and re-read the thread and see if you can figure out what I actually said and how it relates to instant obedience, subordination, etc.

>There are probably lofty ideals most people would be prepared to die for, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to be enthusiastically sacrificed for someone else's cause. Do we want our sons/brothers/fathers dying for Aryan supremacy? For a piece of mud near the Somme? For Haliburton? Personally I think it's a good thing we're more inclined to program robots rather than people these days.

So, who was ever programmed as a robot?

[Francesca]

"More horsecrap."

LOL. How profound.

BTW, you can't even get your quotes right. I was not the author of the first.

[Francesca]

"So, who was ever programmed as a robot?"

How about the Hitler Youth? Or anyone else brainwashed into believing "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" and then dying for a fraud.

[David Gray]

>How about the Hitler Youth?

Did they fight on the Somme?

>Or anyone else brainwashed into believing "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" and then dying for a fraud.

You mean like Wilfred Owen?

>There are probably lofty ideals most people would be prepared to die for, but that doesn't mean they're prepared to be enthusiastically sacrificed for someone else's cause.

Be glad your betters are less cynical than you are. Americans who've died in any of our wars died for "someone else's cause." And less often for abstractions than you might think.

>For Haliburton?

Are you sufficiently debauched to believe that your betters in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are dying for Haliburton?

[Juli]

As I recall Francesca you were the one who introduced the idea that people had been programmed as robots, a remarkably foolish claim.

Huh? That was Stuart, in response to Francesca. Stuart said:

What happened in VTU was at least partly due to the way in which those poor kids had been programmed as robots

That was in response to this comment from Francesca:

Personally I think it's a good thing we're more inclined to program robots rather than people these days.

I think it may have been on another thread where someone said that soldiers have to be well programmed (trained) to respond as expected in such situations - giving the example of young soldiers in WWII ... but I may have read that comment on another blog. The point was that soldiers do have to be highly trained to react quickly and decisively in such situations.

David, I don't know who here has or hasn't served in the miliary. Not Luthien - and I think Ethan is also quite young, so if he had served it would have been recently. As I said, I'm not necessarily referring to people here.

[Francesca]

">How about the Hitler Youth?

Did they fight on the Somme? "

You're missing the point by miles, but never mind. Just to make your day, here's another quotation from Mencken:

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it".