Noonan on Cho

From the WSJ:

Money Quotes:

I thought of Thoreau. He said he didn't have to read newspapers because if you're familiar with a principle you don't have to be familiar with its numerous applications. If you know lightning hits trees, you don't have to know every time a tree is struck by lightning.

In terms of school shootings, we are now familiar with the principle.

Dennis Miller the other night said something compassionate and sensible on TV. Invited to criticize some famous person's stupid response to a past tragedy, he said he sort of applied a 48 hour grace period after a tragedy and didn't hold anyone to the things they'd said. People get rattled and say things that are extreme. But more than 48 hours have passed.

So: some impressions.

and:

The school officials I saw, especially the head of the campus psychological services, seemed to me endearing losers. But endearing is too strong. I mean "not obviously and vividly offensive." The school officials who gave all the highly competent, almost smooth and practiced news conferences seemed to me like white, bearded people who were educated in softness. Cho was "troubled"; he clearly had "issues"; it would have been good if someone had "reached out"; it's too bad America doesn't have better "support services." They don't use direct, clear words, because if they're blunt, they're implicated.

The literally white-bearded academic who was head of the campus counseling center was on Paula Zahn Wednesday night suggesting the utter incompetence of officials to stop a man who had stalked two women, set a fire in his room, written morbid and violent plays and poems, been expelled from one class, and been declared by a judge to be "mentally ill" was due to the lack of a government "safety net." In a news conference, he decried inadequate "funding for mental health services in the United States." Way to take responsibility. Way to show the kids how to dodge.

Loyalty or Principle?

This is better late than never, I guess.

Peggy Noonan, Reagan’s much vaunted word smith, had an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal this past Friday, The Trouble with Loyalty. Noonan explains, far more clearly than I ever could, why principle is important, and why that should color our decisions at the ballot box.

Money Quote:

We were marking a birthday. I was seated next to a politically experienced businessman, an acquaintance of many years. He kept talking about the presidential race. I asked who he's supporting. He was surprised I had to ask.

"Hillary," he said. I nodded.

"Tell me why," I said. "I've known her for years," he said. "I'm a loyal person."

I waited for him to say more. But he didn't.

"Your reason for backing her is that you're loyal?"

"Yes," he said. As if that were enough.

I was puzzled. You're loyal. So what? You have a virtue, good. But that doesn't mean the person you're loyal to should be my president. That's not enough. [Emphasis added]

I believe in loyalty, I just believe loyalty must be placed upon principle, not personality. I have loyalty toward candidates, only in so far as they respect, represent and vote for the principles that are important.

I will not vote for or support candidates that are not pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-traditional small government conservatives. My vote is important, as is the time I volunteer and the money I give to on candidates.

To honor the sacrifices of those who protect my right to vote freely, I can’t waste my vote on someone who does represent what I believe are the ideals and principles that make this country great.