Mark Steyn: 'Events' Don't Just Happen

The Jerusalem Post ^ | January 6, 2004 | Mark Steyn

[quidnunc]

One of the most tediously over-venerated bits of political wisdom comes from the late British prime minister Harold MacMillan. It was his characteristically laconic Edwardian response as to what he feared most in the months ahead: "Events, dear boy, events."

It turns up in a gazillion books of quotations and 1,000 Fleet Street columns as if it's some brilliant insight.

It's not. It's an urbane banality. Even events come, so to speak, politically predetermined. If, for example, you have powerful public sector unions, you will be at the mercy of potentially crippling strikes. The quasi-Eastern European Britain of the 1970s was brought to a halt by a miners' strike in a way that would have been impossible in the United States.

A strike, of course, is man-made. But the best test of the political character of "events" is supposedly natural phenomena.

Six years ago this week an ice storm devastated my corner of the Eastern Seaboard. On the Vermont/New Hampshire side of the border folks were without power for a couple of days. On the Quebec side of the border some were without power for the best part of a couple of months.

Did God spot the frontier posts on His GPS monitor and decide to afflict Quebecers more? Doesn't seem likely. It's true the pictures of Montreal on the morning of the ice storm look much worse than those of Burlington, Vermont. But that's because in Montreal the streets were still clogged with uncleared snow from the previous week, thanks to the unionized municipal government's desultory approach to winter maintenance.

Here's a starker example: The two images that for me sum up the aftermath of September 11 — on the one hand, the New York firemen pounding up the stairs of the World Trade Center to rescue those in the towers; and, on the other, a fire in Mecca a few months later.

Some young Saudi girls were trying to flee a blazing school, but they were prevented from doing so by the mutaween — the religious police — who beat them with sticks and drove them back inside the building to perish in the flames. Why would they do such a thing? Because the girls, in their haste to escape the inferno, had neglected to put on their head scarves. Fifteen of them died.

It really is as basic as that: There are cultures that create civic institutions to rescue you from the fire, and there are cultures which create civic institutions to push you back in and be consumed.

Last year provided some especially salutary lessons in the political nature of "events:"

-snip-

[upchuck]

BUMP!!

[moodyskeptic]

Agreed, Steyn is the most prolific satirist in the world, IMHO. Almost every day, he submits another well researched and scathingly funny gem. Does he have a research staff?

[moodyskeptic]

You're right. While I have DSL, I am dialup-aware so that I don't create big files. I learned this designing web sites. I learned to always res-down images and create the smallest possible files that do the job.

For this reason I still get angry at posters who link to large images or silly animated gifs that gobble badwidth, it's a breach of protocol discipline.

Yes, you're right about linking to printer-friendly pages. It's about empathy and web etiquette.

[Ruth A.]

That, my dear AmishMan, is a brillant idea! I second.

[thoughtomator]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/keyword/excerptmadness

[upchuck]

Thanks and BUMP!

[Stultis]

I'm stuck with a 56K dialup connection. No DSL or cable modem available where I live. So one of the things I like most about FR is the relative lack of graphics. When a FReeper unnecessarily excerpts an article I have to go to the source to read it. And the source is usually loaded down with graphics that take forever to load, pop-up ads, etc. So I endure it all the while cussing under my breath 'cause some lazy FReeper couldn't take the time to post the entire article.

You don't seem to understand that all this is secondary to the importance of quidnunc making his point. Unlike you, and me, and Jim Robinson, and most freepers, quidnunc is a man (or woman) of principle, and cannot therefore be held to the accepted standards or conventions of this website he (or she) voluntarily chooses to patronize.

Actually I may have that wrong. The mass irritation quidnunc gratuitously generates is probably not "secondary," but rather part and parcel of making his (or her) point. Some "principled" people are like that.

[Stultis]

Yes, you're right about linking to printer-friendly pages. It's about empathy and web etiquette.

Sorry. I don't agree, at least unless the printer friendly page has a link back to the article's main page. The page linked should be the same page you would cite if you were formally documenting the source. Also the article's main page may have hyperlinks within the article, relevant news photos, side bars, links to related material, information on the content provider and/or homepage links that the printer friendly page often lacks.

[Stultis]

Only including the first paragraph in the excerpt would be nice, too.

Cretin! As a man of principle quidnunc has every right to unilaterally impose a restricted standard of "fair use" rejected by FreeRepublic and its users, while simultaneously violating that same standard by posting fifty percent or more of his articles. Such behavior is how one recognizes a man of principle!

[hellinahandcart]

Oh, I know, how about just posting the first sentence alone? That seems to be the new trend. Then we can have an archive full of single-sentence articles with expired links.

Why would *anyone* excerpt Mark Steyn?

[quidnunc]

Stultis wrote: You don't seem to understand that all this is secondary to the importance of quidnunc making his point. Unlike you, and me, and Jim Robinson, and most freepers, quidnunc is a man (or woman) of principle, and cannot therefore be held to the accepted standards or conventions of this website he (or she) voluntarily chooses to patronize. Actually I may have that wrong. The mass irritation quidnunc gratuitously generates is probably not "secondary," but rather part and parcel of making his (or her) point. Some "principled" people are like that.

There is a very simple solution for you, just ignore anything and everything which I post.

By so doing you'll save yourself the sturm und drang of having to go to the bother of opening a link.

[GOPJ]

Great "all cultures are not equal" quote:

There are cultures that create civic institutions to rescue you from the fire, and there are cultures which create civic institutions to push you back in and be consumed.

[Stultis]

Oh, I know, how about just posting the first sentence alone? That seems to be the new trend.

Well, actually that would be more consistent, which was the point I was trying to make, but maybe I should be more explicit. quidnunc seems to believe that posting full articles, even for the purpose of commentary and analysis, does not conform to "fair use" and therefore violates copyright. If you are going to take that position then posting significant percentages of articles is unavoidably also a violation of copyright. If quidnunc insists on adopting the strict and restrictive interpretation of "fair use," then he should post only the isolated sentences or fragments of the article that he himself provides commentary on.

IOW quidnunc is being not only irritating, but arbitrary and hypocritical as well. His position has no coherence.

[quidnunc]

Stultis wrote: (Oh, I know, how about just posting the first sentence alone? That seems to be the new trend.) Well, actually that would be more consistent, which was the point I was trying to make, but maybe I should be more explicit. quidnunc seems to believe that posting full articles, even for the purpose of commentary and analysis, does not conform to "fair use" and therefore violates copyright. If you are going to take that position then posting significant percentages of articles is unavoidably also a violation of copyright. If quidnunc insists on adopting the strict and restrictive interpretation of "fair use," then he should post only the isolated sentences or fragments of the article that he himself provides commentary on. IOW quidnunc is being not only irritating, but arbitrary and hypocritical as well. His position has no coherence.

You seem to be especially irritable today, may I be so bold as to suggest more fibre in your diet?

[AmishDude]

The mass irritation quidnunc gratuitously generates is probably not "secondary," but rather part and parcel of making his (or her) point. Some "principled" people are like that.

Worth saying again. And again. I've noticed it as well.

[Brian Allen]

<< Take a look around here on Free Republic, and you'll notice quite a bit of criticism, comment, and news reporting going on.

Except on the threads he posts and the topics he covets. Which is, after all, the point. >>

Redundant excerpting is quite clearly the only way the poor dumb passive-aggressive un-and-anti-FReeRepublican basta*d can get the attention he obviously compulsively obsessively craves!

Must be a canadian.

Eh?

[Brian Allen]

<< quidnunc is one of "those" who does things just to annoy people. >>

Bet he drives [Well, "aims," actually. Be surprised if his motoring habits include an ability to drive] his car at 68.5 in the fast lane in all the 70 zones.

A self appointed speed-limit policeman.

[quidnunc]

I thought we agreed that you were going to stay off my threads in order to keep ypour blood pressure from elevating to unacceptable levels.