Posted on 04/18/2007 1:44:08 PM PDT by neverdem
I heard an interesting comment on Michael Savage last night...
Savage asked a caller why she thought Librescu reacted differently than others. Her response (paraphrased): He understood that evil exists and that you must confront it.
Uh-huh. Do you disagree with Steyn? The good professor described here is certainly a hero, but the kid with the cellphone didn’t do a whole lot of good for anybody. I can pretty much guarantee that Steyn’s reaction would not have been to get everything on film.
None of us can say for sure what we would have done in that situation but I do know what the right thing to do is.
Why shouldn’t Steyn bloviate? You certainly do. Steyn at least does so with common sense and eloquence.
He was of a different generation—a generation that understood not only what evil is and that it must be confronted, but that certain sacrifices must be made from time to time to guarantee life and liberty. One of our neighbors, a WWII veteran, said it in a less flowery way: “Our generation won’t be around much longer to save the next ones. They’re going to have to figure it out on their own.”
If the cell-phone video you’re referring to is the one I think it is, the kid was only able to record video of the police firing and the audio of other gunshots, from what I understand he may not have even been able to see the murderer, which would of course make tryign to stop him nearly impossible. Also, if police were shooting at the guy, trying to stop him would probably mean getting in the way. I’m not defending cowardice or anything, just pointing out that in this case doing anything about the situation would have been next to impossible. I may have got the names attached to the different videos mixed up, though.
What exactly did Steyn and whoever else say that offended you so? Do you have a link to their comments, or at least the titles of their “offending” columns?
Fine, none of us know whether the kid in question even had the opportunity to do anything or not. The point is that someone posted to his facebook page that he is a hero (for recording the events on his camera) which he certainly is not. That doesn’t mean he is a coward, but the term hero should be reserved for those who act-like the professor (sorry, not even going to try to spell his name from memory).
Oh, OK, I can have a hard time understanding what people mean sometimes. Most of the time. Anyways, yeah, I don’t think he really qualifies as a hero (my jouranlism-major friends would disagree). The prof was a real hero.
I don’t think it’s important whether the others in the room were male or female. The right thing, the courageous thing, the heroic thing to do would have been to help the professor, regardless of one’s plumbing.
The gunman didn’t care about the gender of his victims. Neither did the terrorists on 9-11. We’re all in this fight together.
If you think I’m being “feminist,” read my tagline.
Colour Sergeant Bourne: “It’s a miracle.”
Lieutenant John Chard: “If it’s a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it’s a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.”
Colour Sergeant Bourne: “And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind.”
TAW
No worries-written communication makes it very hard to convey all sorts of subtle hints we normally take for granted in spoken communication.
“Because we’re here lad. Just us, and no one else.”
BS. I can think of at least two articles this year of expectant mothers with cancer who refused to terminate their pregnancies, even though their doctors said it would probably kill them.
Little help wags?
I have to disagree. True courage and heroism know no gender. Real men and real women should both step up to the plate when it is time.
Thanks for the pic & caption.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.