Chad takes me out behind the woodshed, and I'm not totally sure that he's wrong.

I said it in the forums, and I'll say it again here (hopefully someone might actually comment this time).

Just because it may not be the time for poltical soapboxing does not mean that it *is* the time for disrespectful and hateful invective. We're all reeling from this, and people deal in different ways. Some people wish to sit back in stoic silence, while others wish to ask "whys" and "hows" in an attempt to make a tragic situation cogent. Engaging in debate is a coping mechanism too.

I think Chad's wrong, and here's why : the PATRIOT act.

If we don't speak up at times like this, we can't be sure that nobody else will. And ill-advised things may be rushed through.

It'd be nice if everybody in the world were sensitive and took a moment of silence after a tragedy. Alas, that's not how the world works. As such, if you have an opinion, you have to be especially attentive and ready to speak at times like this, or something thoughtless may get steamrolled through.

Like the PATRIOT act.

-Rob

Rob, it seems to me that the Patriot Act was a response to the emotional public reaction to the WTC disaster. The people demanded to be protected by the government, and the govenrnment complied -- provided, of course, you trade away some of your civil liberties. In the name of safety.

This would be a good time to ask yourself if demanding some kind of legislative action -- RIGHT NOW! -- would result in a net loss to the overall quality of life in your country, the same way the Patriot Act did. Perhaps a time for consideration and reflection would allow people the perspective to better see the consequences of such actions.

Sorry, but I don't buy "now is not the time." It seems like every time an event happens, any attempt to talk about it in any way other than what's generally approved is discouraged.

If that's the way it's to be, all anybody can say about it is "What a shame." So, we should go ahead now and appoint someone to do that and all shut up until .... when?

I have a sneaking suspicion that set in after 9/11, and again after just about every debacle of the Iraq war. It's that "now is not the time" means there will never be a time, or at least that the appropriate time won't come until well after anyone's listening. (Because by then the next "big story" will be on everyone's minds.)

Maybe it's me. I'm one of those people who sees any number of news events and immediately thinks of how they relate to a host of other things, often in terms of how some tragic events might be avoided next time. But if seems that now, after every event, there's a grace period when we're not supposed to think. Or if we do, we're supposed to keep quiet about it.

In this case, I don't have a problem waiting until the families are notified. Or is it after the funerals? Or a week after the funerals? Or ... when is the arbitrary deadline after which we can talk about what we're not supposed to talk about, so that maybe we won't have any need to talk about what we're not supposed to talk about the next time something like this happens because maybe something like this won't happen if we talk about what we're not supposed to talk about? And will anyone be listening by then?

But, now is probably not the time to ask those questions. Is it?

Is there any reason to believe that the parents wouldn't want intelligent discourse to occur, that might prevent the future deaths of innocent people?

Talk is just that, talk. Blog posts and chatter won't result in legislation on either side of the issue, but it might help a lot of people think through the event. And events which are salient and shocking make people think and talk. Stifling that urge feels unnatural. I don't quite understand why engaging in discourse in a productive way is construed as insulting or disrespectful. In a way, isn't it respectful? People are concerned about preventing these types of things from ever happening again.

If you don't have a clear and careful analysis of what actually happened, how do you build a solution that addresses what really went wrong as opposed to the perceptions of what went wrong.

Generally the longer the analysis takes the more it is influenced by the emotions that come to the fore at a time like this.

That does not mean that there should be a quick response to the analysis however. Its those quick, knee-jerk responses that gave us the Patriot Act.

I think the best example of the way this should be done, (in my obviously not so humble opinion) would be the investigation after an airplane crash.

I wish I thought something that dispassionate could happen here. I would be shocked if it does. Its much more likely that people will react in fear, and horror with a push from those who could either lose or benefit from it.

That is much more the norm. My guess is that we'll have a huge amount of energy put into "target-hardening" - which usually means more expensive locks, and more security, and little into identifying and interveining with those at risk.

You don't really get to pick on your kid brother, doo-doo head.

Really? Does that hold true for the two cases where my kid brother is also your kid brother, or just when we're talking about you?

It seems some of us need to be reminded of the 11th Commandment.

"Thou shall not comment on shootings until a consensus of people agree that it is appropriate and/or a different sign of the zodiac. Unless you are a) extremely religious b) stand to make a substantial profit under a capitalistic government or c) are required to comment before you are allowed to use the restrooms."

Mrs. Manners

No, the other two are fair-game.

And also doo-doo heads. (I have proof.)

It does this mother's soul (yes, I believe in God and souls) to realize that my two oldest sons have matured so well.