Amish School Shooting

[Badger]

What is it, then?

God's will? Fate? What?

Lunatics, Claus. Lunatics.

 

[Huntster]

......I sure hope the parents of this little girl haven't read this post. ......

Being Amish, it's extremely unlikely that they ever will.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That would likely be because you didn't evaluate the situation completely.

You have no concept or understanding of "concentration" zones? "Concentration" camps? "Ghettos"?

Think about the situation a bit more. Maybe you'll get it.

Care to explain your concept or understanding of "concentration" zones, "concentration" camps or "ghettos" in reasonable detail. If you don't I may be tempted to assume that you're being condescending in an attempt to mask your lack of knowledge of the subject.

I don't know. When you figure it out, let me know.

I realize that being argumentative for the sake of confrontation is sort of your shtick, but that really makes no sense.

Are you admitting that your statement...

Not necessarily, but it does help explain why, say Japan, doesn't have as much internal ethnic strife. The United States is a mixing pot of ethnicities. There is bound to be a measure of difficulty in it that nations which lack such a makeup don't have to deal with as much.

...like the link to The Color of Crime also had nothing to do with the subject of this thread? I only ask because if you really don't know and want me to let you know when I figure it out why did you post the above in the first place?

Steven

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I would have let them protest. They look bad enough at the funerals of homesexuals and soldiers. Protesting an Amish funeral when they're likely to bring you dinner would really show what jerks they are.

 

[shuize]

Make it very clear -- by anouncing over and over -- the terms under which they got their air time, then take calls for the whole hour.

 

[CFLarsen]

Like I said before, irrational people don't need rational excuses.

Lunatics, Claus. Lunatics.

Those are explanations, of course. They are rather uncomfortable explanations, when we are talking about a whole country.

 

[Badger]

Those are explanations, of course. They are rather uncomfortable explanations, when we are talking about a whole country.

"We"?

 

[coalesce]

Not to be insensitive to you, but I sure hope the parents of this little girl haven't read this post. Are they already aware of these details? It just seems somewhat irresponsible to post something like this in regards to such a high profile event on such a popular board. Odds are that that they won't see it, but you never know.

I disagree. His stories were not only compelling but completely respectful to his colleagues and his patients. No gratuitous or salacious details were given, only the dispassionate facts. To me, it shows not only extraordinary competence in the face of tragedy, but a glimpse of a world that I know I could not handle.

Michael

 

[ZiprHead]

I am aware of that. I have been careful not to divulge the names or revealing information of any of those involved. I have not even told you which institution I am at (and don't intend to). Most information I've given is already readily available and known in the public. Therefore, I'm not terribly concerned about professional repercussions of sharing my experiences here. I hope that, as I reflect on this incident and use this place as an anonymous forum, that the reader will only begin to be able to grasp what happened that day.

I share a similar "world view" as most who frequent here. The point is, that is not paramount. What is paramount is that we forget about our differences and let each other live our lives as we want. That is all the Amish want. That is all any of us want. And, there is nothing wrong with that so long as we don't injure anyone else in the process.

I firmly believe this. And, I am also equally confident that I've harmed no one by this post, nor that I have violated HIPAA. If I thought that, I would not have posted in the first place.

This is real. This is done. And, I have to move on. It was pure chance that I happened to be someone who was personally involved and affected by this tragedy. It is, on the other hand, an act of pure intent that I chose to share it here, and that others might - in whatever small way - benefit from my experiences. I hope some do.

-Dr. Imago

I hope you're right, in all you said above.

 

[ZiprHead]

No gratuitous or salacious details were given, only the dispassionate facts. To me, it shows not only extraordinary competence in the face of tragedy, but a glimpse of a world that I know I could not handle.

Michael

Dispassionate facts, no matter how good it makes others feel, are still not to be revealed without the patient's expressed permission in writing. Even people with very good intentions can get in trouble nowadays. I've seen it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Heard at the bar last night - parents now have a new way to threaten their kids: "If you don't behave, I'm going to send you to an Amish school".

I laughed!

I'm a bad person.

 

[sackett]

All honor to Dr. Imago.

 

[CFLarsen]

"We"?

We are talking about the US.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Oh, it gets better.


Their website announces that they are "continuing to pray for even worse punishment upon Pennsylvania".


There is, I suppose, Biblical precedent for this.

I'm converting to theism just long enough to allow Phelps to receive what's rightfully his under the Golden Rule..

"I am going to continue to pray for even worse punishment upon Fred Phelps".

Ok, back to agnosticism.

Make it very clear -- by anouncing over and over -- the terms under which they got their air time, then take calls for the whole hour.

Alternatively, give them their hour....and then have the station experience 60 minutes of "technical difficulties".

BEEEEEEEEP!

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That would likely be because you didn't evaluate the situation completely.

You have no concept or understanding of "concentration" zones? "Concentration" camps? "Ghettos"?

Think about the situation a bit more. Maybe you'll get it.

Care to explain your concept or understanding of "concentration" zones, "concentration" camps or "ghettos" in reasonable detail. If you don't I may be tempted to assume that you're being condescending in an attempt to mask your lack of knowledge of the subject.

A simple primer might be:

The concentration of ethnic groups in "communities" within the larger city is usually due to the preference to be with others whom you can identify with. If that "community" tends to be of lower economic standing (for whatever reason), or cultural/language differences exacerbate the difficulty of keeping young men in conformance with the rest of society, or a number of other factors keep that "community" from meshing with the overall, surrounding city, there will be more crime. While the hatred and blame tend to be focused outward, the crime tends to stay in the community, usually for logistic reasons, and because the rest of the surrounding city will blockade the crime problem within that community.

There are many, many more factors to be weighed with the above, complicating things so much that solutions are almost never agreed upon.

Quote:
I don't know. When you figure it out, let me know.

I realize that being argumentative for the sake of confrontation is sort of your shtick, but that really makes no sense.

Are you admitting that your statement...

Quote:
Not necessarily, but it does help explain why, say Japan, doesn't have as much internal ethnic strife. The United States is a mixing pot of ethnicities. There is bound to be a measure of difficulty in it that nations which lack such a makeup don't have to deal with as much.

...like the link to The Color of Crime also had nothing to do with the subject of this thread? I only ask because if you really don't know and want me to let you know when I figure it out why did you post the above in the first place?

The fact that crime statistics overwhelmingly, consistently, and reliably show that young black men commit the per capita majority of crime in America cannot be denied. The reasons for that will forever be the bouncing ball of discussion, denial, accusation, debate, conjecture, etc., thusly one of the reasons it will never be dealt with effectively.

Japan is a nearly pure ethnic society. Their crime rate is also extremely low.

While it is clearly not the complete explanation, I say there is a relationship. Denial of such a relationship, IMO, should be included in the "bouncing ball" of discussion, denial, accusation, debate, conjecture, etc. which assists in the problem never getting dealt with effectively.

 

[coalesce]

Those are explanations, of course. They are rather uncomfortable explanations, when we are talking about a whole country.

Why are they uncomfortable? Every country, every segment of society has irrational people. Why should the US lead the pack and be defined by only the actions of some crazy people? Do you personally think that every American is an armed-to-the-teeth, at-the-edge intolerant maniac? Just as any rational person knows that not every Norwegian is a Quisling, those same people should be smart enough to know that not every American is armed to the teeth (probably because not all of us have all of teeth), just as not every Asian person is brilliant at math, or that every Mexican is lazy. Falling into that stereotypical mindset is not only dangerous but is also intellectually dishonest and shows nothing but mental laziness in the person espousing that belief.

I'm curious about one thing, though. When Reagan, George Bush Sr. and now his son were/are president, the perception of Americans by many in the international community was that America is a nation of reckless, shoot-em-up cowboys. Did the same perception persist when Clinton was president? The reason for asking is that I wonder how much of a part that shoot-em-up perception is playing in people's minds when they read about this in the news. I mean, did people feel that the Scots were a bunch of child killers when that gunman killed 16 kids in 1996 or that the Canadians were a bunch of women-haters when Marc Lepine kills 13 women in Montreal in 1989?

Michael

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you personally think that every American is an armed-to-the-teeth, at-the-edge intolerant maniac?

Based on our interchange in the "Boom Boom" thread, Claus may perceive me as one such. In support of such a perception, I am armed, and I have teeth, so the evidence to meet that criterion begins to stack up. Maniac is still a matter of conjecture, however. Really, I'm OK! *sound of a shotgun round being jacked into the chamber* Really!

I mean, did people feel that the Scots were a bunch of child killers when that gunman killed 16 kids in 1996 or that the Canadians were a bunch of women-haters when Marc Lepine kills 13 women in Montreal in 1989?

I blamed the Scottish thing on a haggis overdose coupled with the lack of enough McKewan's to render the perp inert, and the Canadian case on frozen nuts.

However, those assessments are open to modification pending clearer evidence . . . that I'm not a maniac.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

Why are they uncomfortable? Every country, every segment of society has irrational people. Why should the US lead the pack and be defined by only the actions of some crazy people? Do you personally think that every American is an armed-to-the-teeth, at-the-edge intolerant maniac? Just as any rational person knows that not every Norwegian is a Quisling, those same people should be smart enough to know that not every American is armed to the teeth (probably because not all of us have all of teeth), just as not every Asian person is brilliant at math, or that every Mexican is lazy. Falling into that stereotypical mindset is not only dangerous but is also intellectually dishonest and shows nothing but mental laziness in the person espousing that belief.

I am talking about the general sentiment among Americans. I sure don't see any serious attempts of reverting this idiotic, overtly simplistic, and downright dangerous idea of private gun-ownership.

I'm curious about one thing, though. When Reagan, George Bush Sr. and now his son were/are president, the perception of Americans by many in the international community was that America is a nation of reckless, shoot-em-up cowboys. Did the same perception persist when Clinton was president? The reason for asking is that I wonder how much of a part that shoot-em-up perception is playing in people's minds when they read about this in the news. I mean, did people feel that the Scots were a bunch of child killers when that gunman killed 16 kids in 1996 or that the Canadians were a bunch of women-haters when Marc Lepine kills 13 women in Montreal in 1989?

No, the same perception didn't persist. When Clinton was President, you had a leader who was admired and trusted in Europe. Let me give you an example.

Clinton has visited Denmark a couple of times. Each time has been a virtual fan-dom tour. When he came to Copenhagen, the inner city was blocked for the whole day. Pure adoration, not a single demonstration against him. He has recently visited Frederikshavn, a fishing-town in the Northern Jutland - as hillbilly as you can get. Great reception, people loved him. And he spent his time talking not about his own achievements, not about Democrat politics, but the things that concerns him: The Big Issues.

When Dubya came to Denmark, he stayed less than 24 hours, and never got in touch with anyone who even resembled the general public. He blizzed through the red tape, had a date with the Queen, breakfast with the PM, zwwwooosh he went.

There have been big demonstrations against Bush, while he has been President. Against Bush, mind you. Not against America, or Americans. I can safely say that Danes love the US and we love Americans. We just don't like Bush.

OK? We don't hate Americans, we just don't like Bush.

Did we care about Clinton's sexual shenanigans? Not at all. I think that Europeans can distinguish between free-floating libidos and political goals. Unfortunately, they seem to be intertwined in the US. Perhaps politics is sex there?

What do you have today? A moron. A dimwit. Someone who can't even pronounce the names of his enemies - or just doesn't give a damn, but instead rely on the fact that the majority of his voters won't care.

You could have had Gore as President. Sure, a boring brainiac, but a brainiac nevertheless. Instead, you chose the moron. This time, you chose him. And this guy can obliterate the world, if his fundamentalist-Christian God tells him.

Your choice. Which the rest of the world has to live with.

Shame on you. Shame.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A simple primer might be:

The concentration of ethnic groups in "communities" within the larger city is usually due to the preference to be with others whom you can identify with.

Ah, so that's why people prefer to be in concentration camps and ghettos.

If that "community" tends to be of lower economic standing (for whatever reason), or cultural/language differences exacerbate the difficulty of keeping young men in conformance with the rest of society, or a number of other factors keep that "community" from meshing with the overall, surrounding city, there will be more crime.

You're describing numerous ethnic neighborhoods near where I grew up. I walked safely through many of them without fear of crack dealers or drive-by shootings. The Jewish communities in Europe prior to the rise of Nazism were quite insular and they weren't exactly hot beds of seething crime. The only factor mentioned above that seems to have any statistical significance is economic standing, namely poverty.

While the hatred and blame tend to be focused outward, the crime tends to stay in the community, usually for logistic reasons, and because the rest of the surrounding city will blockade the crime problem within that community.

This is true, usually.

The fact that crime statistics overwhelmingly, consistently, and reliably show that young black men commit the per capita majority of crime in America cannot be denied.

It's also true that a much higher percentage of them live in poverty with no perceived hope of escape except through crime.

The reasons for that will forever be the bouncing ball of discussion, denial, accusation, debate, conjecture, etc., thusly one of the reasons it will never be dealt with effectively.

I don't agree. It will be difficult unless more people drop their prejudices and come to regard the issues objectivly. But "never" is, I feel, too strong a word.

Japan is a nearly pure ethnic society. Their crime rate is also extremely low.

Can you prove that that is causation and not correlation? Japan also has a very low poverty rate. Russia on the other hand has a disturbingly high poverty rate. Despite the fact that most of its population is ethnically Russian the crime rate is staggeringly high.

While it is clearly not the complete explanation, I say there is a relationship. Denial of such a relationship, IMO, should be included in the "bouncing ball" of discussion, denial, accusation, debate, conjecture, etc. which assists in the problem never getting dealt with effectively.

Relationship to what? The murders of the Amish school girls? I still don't see what a book from a website that is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center has to do with the subject of this thread.
Steven

 

[Darth Rotor]

You could have had Gore as President. Sure, a boring brainiac, but a brainiac nevertheless. Instead, you chose the moron. This time, you chose him. And this guy can obliterate the world, if his fundamentalist-Christian God tells him.

Your choice. Which the rest of the world has to live with.

Shame on you. Shame.

My, my, my, it sucks to feel powerless, doesn't it? I don't reject your right to be upset on that score, every small nation was powerless to do much about the flailing about of elephants during the cold war (elephant US and elephant USSR) and this latest pair of elephants (elephant US and elephant Islamist irredentus) is a ghastly deja vu with a twist: it's nowhere near as rational as the US/USSR dick dance.

These same sorts of "chicken little" yelps were tossed at America when Reagan was president. Not a few Europeans were extremely worried that his stiff stance versus USSR was going to start a nuclear war in Europe. Do you remember the great hullabaloo about the nuclear tipped cruise missiles, IIRC the Pershings, in NATO? I do.

Those fears proved groundless, but his bluff worked pretty well. (Or maybe he wasn't bluffing! We'll never know, will we?)

So, absent the complaint about wit, since Pres GWB is quite possibly the least capable public speaker as politician I have ever witnessed and surely no genius, your frustration and complaint is 20 year old rhetoric, recycled.

Particularly gross, and unworthy of a skeptic, is the belief that GWB will push the button when his Christian God tells him to. While that caricature plays well in political cartoons, he's got a string of mental back up (thank goodness) who are most certainly not nuts. I am worried more about VP Cheney and Rumsfeld losing their grip, due to their massive influence on the President's positions, than I am Bush coming out of a prayer and pushing a button.

Why don't I worry, and why shouldn't you, unless Rummy, Condi and Cheney go completely bat[rule8]?

The AMerican military aren't nuts. I spent a career in it. I know a few general and flag officers. I've worked for a few more.

My experience is that the JCS is the check in the system, and that in the last two years the more level headed have been building some (behind the scenes) Congressional support to change the direction of GUlf policy. They've been burned badly on the Iraq war, though a few could be called complicit. The next rung down, the 1 and 2 stars, and those in lower echelon who've had to implement this policy are not blind to the problems. You might say a healthy skepticism is creeping into the force, and you'll never see it because it isn't in the papers. And it won't be.

A signal that this was going on was the number of generals who began to speak out perjoratively on the last three years of policy within the last year. Omerta has been broken. When the pundits and shills (Limbaugh and the like) went into attack mode in the media, trying to discredit people like John Batiste, or Anthony Zinni, nothing they threw at them could stick. Likewise Van Riper.

The guys in uniform are the ones who would have to give the orders to launch nuclear missiles or drop bombs. My sense is that bulk of the generals will expend significant energy to prevent the order from ever being issued. It's part of their implied task, and in their job description: expert advice on matters military.

There are thousands of us who spent 20 - 40 years backing away from a nuclear precipice. The prospect of a nuclear battlefield is not well received among those in uniform. That apprehension was played upon by the suits who kept pushing for the "get those WMD out of Iraq" war. The majority of the fools who are advocating even small nukes (Rummy's bunker busters) wear suits.

You want to see a revolt of the admirals, and the generals? You'll see one if some damned fool in a suit tries to order a preemptive nuclear strike.

DR