<!-- Begin meta tags generated by ORblogs --> </meta name="keywords" content="progressive, liberal, politics, government, edit, language, grammar, accuracy, honesty, clarity, world, news, media" /> </> <!-- End meta tags generated by ORblogs -->> Editor at Large: April 2007

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Former OSU student "Worst Person in the World"

Last night on MSNBC, Keith Olbermann anointed former Oregon State University student Nathanael Blake "Worst Person in the World." Blake earned the dubious distinction for his comments about the Virginia Tech tragedy on the conservative Web site Human Events.

"Something is clearly wrong with the men in our culture," wrote Blake. "Among the first rules of manliness are fighting bad guys and protecting others: in a word, courage. And not a one of the healthy young fellows in the classrooms seems to have done that."

Though Blake admitted that he didn't know whether he "would live up to" his own notion of bravery, he said he would be "ashamed" of himself if he didn't, suggesting that the innocent victims at Virginia Tech should feel embarrassed for "ducking, running and holding doors shut" to avoid the bullets of a killer.

Olbermann's reaction: "...what could be more cowardly than to write that the Virginia Tech victims should be 'ashamed' of themselves for not fighting off their killer like some action movie hero? It is...Nathaniel [sic] Blake who should be ashamed today."

Blake previously wrote a highly controversial column for the OSU Daily Barometer. He was perhaps best known for his column of February 8, 2006, "The Islamic Double Standard," which sparked protests at OSU and elsewhere.


Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Jane Smiley: "What I Think About Guns"

(From today's Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com)

Some years ago, I was talking to a man about guns. At the time, I didn't really know anyone with guns (still don't), but he did. He had had guns himself. He said, "I gave my gun away, because when I had it, every time something happened that made me mad, my mind would start circling around that gun, and I would be thinking about using it. So I got rid of it and I'm glad I did."

Right up front I will say that I am opposed to casual gun ownership, but I also realize that Americans will always have guns. Period. It's a national fetish. But the mental state my interlocutor was describing years ago is the price we have to pay, along with, of course, the accidental deaths of children and other unprepared and careless people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and in proximity to the wrong gun. What I would like is for the gun-toting right wing to admit that there is a price we pay, that senseless accidental deaths and traumas are a national cost and that it's not so clear that it's worth it, but hey, we pay it anyway because so many guns are in the hands of so many people that there would never be any getting rid of them. I would like the right wing to admit that guns are not "good" and that the right to bear arms is not an absolute virtue and that the deaths in the US caused by guns are at least as problematic, philosophically, as abortion. But I'm not holding my breath.

Here's what I think about guns--guns have no other purpose than killing someone or something. All the other murder weapons Americans use, from automobiles to blunt objects, exist for another purpose and sometimes are used to kill. But guns are manufactured and bought to kill. They invite their owners to think about killing, to practice killing, and, eventually, to kill, if not other people, then animals. They are objects of temptation, and every so often, someone comes along who cannot resist the temptation--someone who would not have murdered, or murdered so many, if he did not have a gun, if he were reduced to a knife or a bludgeon or his own strength. I wish that the right wing would admit that, while people kill people and even an "automatic" weapon needs a shooter, people with guns kill more people than people without guns do.