Replies

She may have been a leftist. She may have been a spoiled brat. Just as it is a bad idea to play in the highway or bring your plugged in radio into your bathwater while you are bathing, it is also a terrific idea to avoid the vicinity of protestors and outside agitators marching on armed national guardsmen on the day after the ROTC building was burned. Think of it as a fatal case of morbid curiosity. And no, I do not now, have never, and never will believe the airheaded propaganda about Kent State shootees being little Joans of Arc. They were advancing the cause of the North Vietnamese reds and Uncle Ho, threatening the guard, refusing to disperse when ordered to do so (the heart of most state riot acts). They were advancing as desirable the defeat and death of American troops while marching against the National Guard.

The girl you describe should have taken the long way around as I am sure she would now agree in the unlikely event that she was "innocent" and not just nosy about the action or on her way to join the action. When people cause the guard to shoot, it is not the guard's fault that some passersby are jeopardized. First responsibility is that of the criminal protestors (marching on the guard is NOT free speech). Second is on the dimwits who are brainless enough and clueless enough to wander into the path of fire or even the potential path of fire.

It is certainly not the fault of guardsmen defending themselves. You can safely bet that salutes or cherry bombs were set off in the crowd. Marching against the guard is sufficient justification for firing against the mob.

This caterwauling over the shooting of about 17 people who mostly needed shooting and a few negligent dimwits among them is the kind of windtunnelism that has changed our rules of engagement in Afghanistan to make sure the soldiers understand that it is OK with O'B if our soldiers are shot from private homes but not OK if the soldiers defend themselves. Baloney in Afghanistan and baloney at Kent State.

Also note that Dubya conducted a long and controversial war in Iraq and in Afghanistan and that, remembering the wages of brainless leftist arson and threats to the guard at Kent State, the left somehow, this time, managed to control itself into NOT burning ROTC buildings and NOT marching on guardsmen. They have learned that the government is quite as capable of shooting little boodgeums times 17 as little boodgeums may deserve to get shot when insisting on suicide by guard. The alternative is anarchy, a goal of the radical left unless and until they are in charge. No tears now or ever. No change of mind now or ever, either.

My father told me never to argue with a fool, and it’s time I took his advice.

I’d take a slightly different tack as to the reasons why the Left fought in the streets during Vietnam, but not during any of the more recent conflicts. It comes down to the Draft. We had it then, we haven’t had it since. The Left simply cannot gin-up for a street confrontation with authorities because the immediate physical stakes are too high compared to potential political gain.