Facing the Unique [Wm. F. Buckley on Cho Seung-Hui and Virginia Tech]

National Review ^ | April 21, 2007 | William F. Buckley, Jr.

[Zeroisanumber]

It takes writers, even great writers, a while to grapple with tragedy. I remember after 9/11 reading an inane story by Hunter Thompson comparing the terror of 9/11 with the terror he felt after one of his peacocks knocked out his cable TV, and another idiotic piece by Martin Amis about the "Angelization" of Americans.

Similarly, here we have WFB meandering around the page talking about not very much and ending on a strange and discordant note.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Pretty soon we’ll forget, not the horror of what happened, but the presumption that we can discover and attack evil, other than by the cultivation of biblical rules for human behavior.

Yup.

[GovernmentShrinker]

We can retroactively pluck from him signs of aberration, but they did not come together beforehand to spell out, NOT FIT FOR ADMISSION.

The admission question is not particularly relevant, since we have no idea what history of Cho's plusses and minuses were available to the decision-makers. The relevant question is why our laws and policies are set up so that numerous signs of things a lot more ominous than "aberrations", which clearly spelled out NOT FIT TO REMAIN, are studiously ignored.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Pretty soon we’ll forget, not the horror of what happened, but the presumption that we can discover and attack evil, other than by the cultivation of biblical rules for human behavior.

So far, the reductionist psychological analysis of Cho offered by experts has been spectacularly unenlightening. What does it profit us to hear an expert explaining something he doesn't understand, in terms of other things he doesn't understand? What do we learn when familiar pathological behaviors are labelled with technical jargon like so... "People with so-called avoidant personality disorder shun social situations because of a paralyzing dread of disapproval or criticism" ? Nothing much. None of these explanations - bullying, rejection, narcissistic personality disorder, depression, avoidant personality, schizophrenia etc. - none of these psychological reductionisms even recognize an objective factor that the rest of us call evil.

[M-cubed]

the presumption that we can discover and attack evil, other than by the cultivation of biblical rules for human behavior. <<

took him a few words!!!..but he finally got there!

* * *

[GSlob]

OK. First of all, evil is banal, and each and every one of us is perfectly capable of it, and to an appalling degree. Not everyone does manifest it, though. Secondly, even if it were possible to quantify the evil somehow - say “those with ‘evil quotient’ [EQ] above 0.40 are not to be permitted... [insert the list: to own firearms, to procreate, to be admitted to citizenship...] - then what to do about those with EQ 0.39? The test would be inherently approximate.

[M-cubed]

The relevant question is why our laws and policies are set up so that numerous signs of things a lot more ominous than “aberrations”, which clearly spelled out NOT FIT TO REMAIN, are studiously ignored.<<<

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOW...All I can tell ya is......go to DU to get your thoughts confirmed!!!!!( I truly believe you’re offended... but do always look between your legs to make an opinion?????)

[Blind Eye Jones]

Evil can’t be put under the microscope or analyzed and treated by drugs. Therefore, it is not objective. In fact, to say somebody is evil is to invite war — the intractable war of good vs evil — and no democracy wants war. Democracy wants “values” which are fuzzy, malleable things that don’t lead to war.

[RobbyS]

Trying to quantify evil is to misuse science. It tells us no more than a bald statement that the kid was possessed by a demon. You know evil persons when when you see them do evil but it is impossible to predict with an exactitude who they are or what they will do. Somewhere this guy’s virtual twin will live his whole life without doing something like this.

[Eastbound]

Don't know if such a thing can be prevented from happening, but the risk can be greatly minimized. The perp would have had many second thoughts about attempting his carnage if he knew there was a greater chance he could have been blown away by anyone with a concealed weapon.

[California Patriot]

“a strange and discordant note” for a strange and discordant situation, Cho and the Blacksburg horror. I’m not normally a big fan of WFB’s column, but I do think this was a pretty good one.

I’m also encouraged that WFB was able to write a decent column less than a week after the death of his beloved wife. It’s a hopeful sign that this great American hero may be able to carry on for a while yet.

All conservatives and all true Americans are in this man’s debt.

[Old_Mil]

The problem lies equally with evil, and those who would deny its existence.

[Huber]

WFB failed to mention the obvious. If Virginia Tech has 500 classrooms, it also has 500 self-reliant law abiding students who would be willing to carry if the rules would allow it.

[Blind Eye Jones]

Science denies evil’s existence. That is part of the problem because science is authoritative.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

First of all, evil is banal, and each and every one of us is perfectly capable of it, and to an appalling degree.

So?

Not everyone does manifest it, though

So?

Secondly, even if it were possible to quantify the evil somehow - say “those with ‘evil quotient’ [EQ] above 0.40

Yeah, I know the routine. You can't build an evil-meter therefore there is no such thing as evil, etc., etc.

[Jedidah]

You wrote, “The relevant question is why our laws and policies are set up so that numerous signs of things a lot more ominous than “aberrations”, which clearly spelled out NOT FIT TO REMAIN, are studiously ignored.”

I agree with what you wrote, but probably not with what you meant.

Assuming you meant that Cho should not have been allowed to remain at Virginia Tech, I believe that you (as most of us) are looking too narrowly at the problem.

Expelling him would not have prevented his murderous rampage. He could still have come to campus as an ex-student and killed at will. Or he could have exploded in another venue, such as mall, elementary school, church.

This guy was a ticking time bomb, sure to eventually go off.

The bigger issue is what to do with the seriously disturbed individual, how to identify and effectively remove from society those who would harm us, without violating the freedoms we hold dear as individuals in this great land.

Being odd, or obnoxious, or sullen and angry simply isn’t criminal until an act is committed that breaks the law or until associates or family can convince a judge that the individual is a danger to himself or others. This is a very hard thing to do, and, even when seemingly successful, often merely treats the mentally aberrant until he reaches the margins of “normalcy” and is allowed back into society.

What to do? Again, I agee with what you suggested: that our laws and policies somehow better address how to remove the sicko from society.

[Jedidah]

Trouble is that he didn’t care about being blown away by someone with a concealed weapon. He expected to die.

Concealed weapons would have been no deterrent to this perp, but they might well have lessened the body count.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Trying to quantify evil is to misuse science.

I don't know why GSlob brought up 'measurement of evil'. It's a stupid red herring. Ignore it. The question we can ask about Cho is not just 'why was he crazy' or 'how did he come to be such a demented nut', but...

How did Seung Cho become evil?

But many would consider this to be the most politically incorrect question imaginable. Even on FR.

[investigateworld]

Bingo!