Pussy Nation

John Derbyshire, in his "November Diary" at National Review Online, hits the nail on the head. There's no doubt that the problems we face are very complicated, but Derb's brief comments cut right to the heart of the matter: At some point, we became a nation of pussies:

Randall Parker wonders why we are such pussies about these Somali pirates. Well, why wouldn't we be? We’re pussies about everything else.

We’re pussies about capital punishment. Instead of speedily dispatching psychopaths who commit beastly murders, we give them 15 years of free gym time and cable TV while we wring our hands about their rights. Then, if we finally decide to give the swine what they deserve, we make their exit as hygienic and painless as possible. Why? Because we’re squealing, simpering girlies, that’s why.

We’re pussies about enemy nations, embarking on decades-long, trillion-dollar campaigns to make them love us, instead of quick ten-million-dollar lessons in why they should fear us. Why? Because we seek love and approval, like the furrowed-brow, teary-eyed, compassionate pansies we are.

We’re pussies about people who come to our country without permission, stay here without permission, work without permission, and leech on our school, hospital, and welfare systems. Eisenhower rounded them up and expelled them, but we’re assured we can’t do that. We can’t, we can’t. Why can’t we? Because we are timid, cringing, mincing, driveling, sniveling, weeping, moaning, soft, flabby, PC pussies, that’s why.

While all the talk about pussies is definitely the highlight, Derb's whole Diary is worth a read.

"People were crawling on each other, trampling each other,"

As with the Virginia Tech shooting, we'll be hearing a lot of anecdotal testimony about what went on during those few seconds where 5-6 people were killed and many more were injured. There's so much we don't know, but there's so much about this that troubles me and has me thinking:

Is it wrong to hope that some of those who were murdered died trying to overpower the gunman?

Is it wrong to wonder how many of the wounded were injured by other students, shoving them out of the way and running over them? How many of the dead were killed this way? I hope none, but if some were, will the authorities even release that information?

Is it wrong for me to bring up, given the fact that this guy had time to "nonchalantly" reload at least one of his guns, the mentality that might lead some to hide under their desks and pray: "Oh God, just let him shoot someone else! Oh God, just let him shoot someone else!"

During all the discussions earlier this year in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, I saw a lot of people saying, "you can't pass judgment; you have no idea what you would do in such a situation with no time to think about it, etc., etc."

But those folks are only half right: It's true; I don't know what I'd do in such a situation. But I can make a distinction between the avert-your-eyes-and-hope-the-crocodile-eats-someone-else mentality and the courage shown by the passengers on United flight 93, even if I'm never faced with situations like that.

I tend to waver on the question of armed students, only because I'm presented daily reminders of how irresponsible college students generally are. Whoever we as a society allow to carry a weapon like that ought to be well trained, it goes without saying.

But what bothers me so much more about stories like this is the apparent lack of moral training that so often makes victims of crime mere lambs to the slaughter or, worse, craven odds-players who trust that the gun-wielding (or box cutter-wielding or nuke-wielding) maniac will be satisfied after destroying their neighbor.

A couple relevant articles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/6-dead-in-n-illinois-u-

_n_86734.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/15shoot.html?ref=us