Time Immortal

George Jonas muses on this subject in light of the recent fatal shootings which took place in Finland. I saw the newsbit about the shootings back when they happened, but didn’t really follow the story. Mr. Jonas, however, has taken his analysis in the same direction that my own thoughts went, at least initially. Whatever might have prevented the massacre at the Kauhajoki School of Hospitality, Gun control was not it: the Finns already have comprehensive gun control.

And in this particular case especially, it was the gun control apparatus of the Finnish state that contributed to the problem.

Note: per site policy and the excellent suggestion of Mark Shea from way back when, the name of the shooter has been removed from the excerpt below. May his name be blotted out!

One of [the shooter]’s two faces conveyed enough reassurance to make him the legal owner of a Walther .22 pistol, even after he featured himself on a Web site discharging his weapon in the direction of whoever was filming him, snarling at the camera in near-flawless English: “You will die next.” The video appeared on a local social networking site, causing the police to request an interview with him, but not to withdraw his permit. As police spokesman Mintala Urpo put it: “The officer made his decision — he thought there was no reason to take the gun off him.”

The officer probably let other people keep their guns that day who subsequently did nothing. [The shooter] did, though. The next day at around 11 a.m., he entered a classroom at the Kauhajoki School of Hospitality. He carried some Molotov-cocktails — initial British press reports described them as “petrol-bombs” — along with his Walther .22. The pistol probably had a five-inch barrel as the original 3.4-inch barrel made the model a concealable weapon, unavailable for recreational use in Finland. This wise regulation didn’t prevent [the shooter] from reaching the classroom with his gun concealed — until he put it to what he may have regarded as recreational use.

Having shot seven women and two men in the classroom, the apprentice chef set off his gasoline-filled bottles, broiling his nine victims beyond recognition. Another young woman was shot in the hallway, and died later in the same hospital to which [the shooter] himself was taken after shooting himself in the head. By around 12:30 p.m., it was all over.

What could have prevented the tragedy? Gun control? Finland has gun control. [An e]ighteen-year-old…who last year killed six fellow students, a headmistress and a school nurse in the Finnish town of Jokela before turning the gun on himself, had to do it with a wimpy .22, a SIG Mosquito, as police wouldn’t let him buy a 9 mm Beretta. They thought [the shooter] wasn’t experienced enough. Presumably, after his shooting spree, he would have been.

Of course, in the wake of such tragedies as this, people look for something to blame. Some call for a ban on handguns, as though this would have a deterrent effect on would-be mass-murderers. The kid also had Molotov cocktails — shall we ban petrol and glass bottles along with handguns? Could not the shooter have obtained a handgun illegally, or simply gone about the task of murder using a rifle instead? George Jonas glibly suggests that the Finns should blame America (he is obviously joking, but his point is not one of humour).

Nobody would ever think to blame gun control or the chances in social attitude toward personal protection and firearms that has taken place in recent decades, would they?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

At least, I think that’s the gist of what George Jonas is getting at in his latest article. And not just establishment feminists either, who are obviously threatened that a woman who has risen as high, and as quickly, as Sarah Palin has could possibly have had five kids along the way, and who are disgusted and vexed by the thought that any woman of achievement could possibly espouse a pro-life viewpoint.

The word “insult” recurs, and not only on my phone messages. As noted by The Weekly Standard’s Noemie Emery, “insulting” is the word of choice for The New Republic’s Michelle Cottle, the Newsweek/Washington Post blog’s Sally Quinn, as well as for The Baltimore Sun’s Susan Reimer and The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus. Why “insulting”? Here’s one obvious reason. The sickening speed with which the moose-hunting ex-mayor of Wasilla passed everyone in the queue for Queen Bee made a mockery of any woman who wore out her contact lenses reading books that essentially bored her; or who gave up a sweet guy who wasn’t going places for a nerd or a windbag who was; or who planned her parenthood because a person couldn’t have it all; or one who had it all and could no longer fit into her Dolce & Gabbana.

“Why did I plan all those hideous dinner parties?” cry the subtext of my phone messages. “Why did I read all that Proust and Joyce? Why did I pretend that I had an interest in the Seychelles? Does she even know where the Seychelles are? I bet she doesn’t.

“Why did I make nice to that wet noodle from Yale? Why was I nasty to that great guy from Alaska? From Alaska, no less! Look where it got me. Three diplomas on the wall, and I’m not even on the A-list. No children — she has five — five! — and can still fit into her Ermenegildo Zegna, even if she can’t pronounce it.”

Dear ladies, thanks for calling. What can I say to ease your hurt? Not much. Remember, you can only prepare yourself for small things. Big ones are usually gifts. You can study business, but not how to be a captain of industry. Resign yourselves to the next inhabitant of the White House having an atrocious hairdo.

There is something in all this “she’s not the right kind of woman” commentary being levelled at Palin that, I think, is quite revealing. It is revealing of the inherent insecurities of many women who have, to one degree or another, bought into modern feminist myths. It is also revealing of just how empty a life modern feminism proposes to reward women with, and the way it has distorted the perceptions of many people about even something so normal and so essential as the propagation of the species to the next generation.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Dr. Andre Lalonde is worried:

Dr. Andre Lalonde, executive vice president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Ottawa, worries that [Sarah Palin]’s now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.

Because obviously, it’s a WRETCHED AND TERRIBLE THING that Canadian women opt not to engage in eugenics by targeting for abortion those unborn babies which test positive for genetic defects after blood screenings and amniocentesis, both of which may not give accurate results in the first place.

He says not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies, who have developmental delays, some physical difficulties and often a shortened lifespan.

I think Ms. Lucas says it best:“Just, WOW…You know, I was just thinking, not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of BABIES IN GENERAL, some of whom have developmental delays and other problems. Abort! Abort! Abort!”

George Jonas, not exactly known for his pro-life stance (if I recall correctly), said something interesting at the end of his most recent article: “So close to power with a woman so far removed from every reason for which feminists would wish to exercise it! The matriarchy feels betrayed. “Sadly, this election has become all about the rights of the unborn, and not about the rights of the born,” a correspondent wrote to me. Well, I don’t know: The born can at least vote and write letters to the editor. The unborn can only kick, squirm, and wonder whether Mommy grants them vacuum suction or life.

As an ex-fetus, in this predicament I’d like a pitbull on my side.”

And it’s worth mentioning Ace’s turn of phrase as well:“Hmmm… their “choices” will be reduced by their choice of a choice you obviously don’t approve of.”

Too true.

Dr. Lalonde frets that the example of Sarah Palin — and hers is a good example, to be sure — may cause more women to opt to keep their babies instead of choosing to abort them. Why should he care? If it’s really about women having “choice,” then is not one choice as good as the other? Is not the choice to keep the baby every bit as valid as the choice not to? Ah, but the doctor protests: the women might not be ready for the challenge of raising a disabled child. But so what? What does readiness have to do with it? I could have sworn the issue was concerned solely with choice, not readiness. If it’s really about women having “choice,” then can we really say that it matters if a woman chooses something for which she may not be entirely ready?

And if Dr. Lalonde insists that women must make informed choices, then would he support legislation mandating that abortion clinics provide information on alternatives to the procedure (e.g. Adoption services, parental support groups)? Would he support legislation mandating that prior to obtaining an abortion, young girls must seek parental permission and counselling? Would he support legislation mandating that prior to obtaining an abortion, women must view and/or read reference material about the development of the unborn child, and that they must be presented with images of the results of abortion as well?

Of course, it is unlikely that the doctor would support such things. So we must ask again: why his objection? Why does it matter if fewer women choose abortion?

As usual, Mark Shea has an excellent take on the matter:: “Golly, who could foresee that somebody who profits from death would want to have more death to profit from? And who could possibly have imagined that those who target a particular population for murder would come to hate that population in order to convince itself that the murders are justified and they aren’t committing grave evil? And who could have foreseen that somebody who defies this murderous wisdom and chooses to love a baby with Down’s instead of kill him would become a national lightning rod for all the guilt, shame, fear, and rage that comes from making this appallingly wicked choice? And who could have predicted that the very people who profit from the exploitation of this evil would continue encourage the hatred and tell soothing lies on behalf of the evil?”

Finally, the Shaidle suggests sending Dr. Lalonde pictures of your unaborted Down’s child, whom you very much love.

alalonde@sogc.com
phone extension 227

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada
780 Echo Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5R7

Tel: 613-730-4192
or 1-800-561-2416
Fax: 613-730-4314

I’d suggest sending him pictures of your unaborted child, period, O Reader.

Every so often, something I write gets wildly misinterpreted. NH provides us with a decent example of what I mean when I say this, in his (?) response to my recent article concerning Bristol Palin, the daughter of presidential candidate John McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin. For those who have been living under a rock since last week, Bristol is, at age 17, pregnant. She will be keeping the baby, and will be marrying the father. Moreover, she will be doing both with the full love and support of her family, as has been pledged in a public statement by the Palins.

Not the most ideal of situations (teen pregnancy never is), but certainly not the worst of circumstances either.

So you’d rather she NOT get married and go on welfare?

You Obama nuts kill me.

You’re willing to support some dangerous racist fringe candidate and attack a woman who’s kid did something she had little control over.

Shame on you all.

It would seem I am being mistaken for a supporter of Barrack Hussein Obama, an allegation which even a cursory search of this site should dispel. Perhaps it would be beneficial to re-state some of that which I wrote previously.

Firstly, the point of my writing was to note a disagreement I had with the opinion of another blogger, albeit one with whom I usually agree. I noted, correctly I think, that there was a moral argument to be made in the case of Bristol’s pregnancy: pregnancy out of wedlock is not something which should be encouraged, and is (in fact) wrong. That she is pregnant does, in fact, indicate that Bristol Palin has made some poor choices in her life. I think we’re within our rights to note as much.

But that’s also where our rights end, in that regard. At the end of the day, what has happened? A teenager made the choice to sleep with her boyfriend, and she got pregnant because of it. This is her mother’s fault…how? Yes, her mother is ardently pro-life, to the point of putting her money where her mouth is and choosing to carry a child with Down’s to term. Yes, her mother is pro-abstinence, and supports teaching abstinence as a part of sex-ed in schools. And yes, legally speaking, Bristol Palin is still the responsibility of her parents, and will be for another year.

She’s still her own person, and she made a bad choice. I don’t see how her bad choices reflect poorly on her mother. Some have speculated that Sarah and Todd Palin have been lax in their duties as parents to impart good sex-ed to their children. Maybe they have been lax — we cannot and do not know — but even if they were, their daughter still had a choice to make between right and wrong, and chose “wrong.” And as to the matter of the possibility of the Palins having been lax in teaching their daughter about sex…well, I come back to the observation that she is still her own person.

As my wife noted previously, one of her sisters is pregnant (indeed, at the time of this writing, I may already be an uncle) out of wedlock — this despite being raised by devout Catholic parents, and despite receiving (I am told) education about sexuality and sexual morality within that framework. The best a parent can hope for is that the lessons imparted to children will, somehow, stick. But there is no way to know for sure, and sometimes even those children raised in the most optimal, moral fashion will choose to go astray. That’s. Life.

And given her situation, I do think Bristol Palin is making the best choices she can. She will not be seeking an abortion¹, she will be getting married to the father of the child, and she will be doing so with the full love and support of her family. She’ll have a tough life ahead, at least initially, but she stands a better chance of making it work than the welfare mamas that Kathy decried in the post that I was responding to. And while it’s still not good that Bristol is pregnant at this early age, and then out of wedlock, it is good that she is making the right decisions now.

And no, I don’t think it would be better for Bristol to remain unmarried and go on welfare.

I didn’t say that explicitly, but I did note that Kathy is exactly right that we should want “people better than ‘tacky and low class’ in the White House.” But really, given the respective examples of Sarah Palin and Barrack Obama — the latter of whom defended his stance on abortion by stating his desire to protect his daughters from being “punished with a baby” if they should happen to make a bit of a mistake in the sex department — who is the one who is really tacky and low class? Sarah and Todd Palin, with their messages of accepting responsibility, reminders of just how difficult the road ahead will be for their daughter, and emphasis on the importance of the love and support of family in such times? Or Obama’s “screw now, abort later” attitude?

Who really has the Hamilton ghetto attitude?

Kathy notes that she is happy that Bristol has chosen not to seek an abortion, less happy that she has chosen to wed. I don’t share this view: I think both are positive steps, and I think she will grow up quite a lot thanks to both of them. Bristol Palin will indeed have a tough road ahead. But she will have the loving support of her family, she will have a child to nurture and love, and she will have a husband who may just turn out to be a decent sort who will love and care for her “till death do they part.” Stranger things have happened, and as fates go that one is not so terrible at all. Bristol is unlikely to become another welfare baby mama…and that is a good thing.

And in the end, I don’t think Bristol’s pregnancy will be detrimental to the McCain/Palin (or, as George Jonas suggests, Palin/McCain (can’t we flip the ticket?)) campaign. If anything, it will increase the already broad appeal that Palin has with the Heartland voters. Even many liberals are noting the brilliance of Palin’s selection:

“We may be seeing the first woman president. As a Democrat, I am reeling,” said Camille Paglia, the cultural critic. “That was the best political speech I have ever seen delivered by an American woman politician. Palin is as tough as nails.”

…

“Good Lord, we had barely 12 hours of Democrat optimism,” said Paglia. “It was a stunningly timed piece of PR by the Republicans.”

At the same time, Palin’s appeal on the “traditional values” scale couldn’t be higher, I don’t think. She hunts and is a member of the NRA. She has five kids, all with the same husband, to whom she has been happily married for 20 years. She’s a former teen beauty queen runner-up, he’s an oilpatch roughneck and commercial fisherman. They’re both active churchgoers. My goodness…John Mellencamp could not contrive a more “All American” couple on his best day. And here’s the best part: it’s not uncommon to find her youngest two children in her office as governor of Alaska — Trig, the youngest, even has his own crib therein, a point David Warren did not miss:

To the people who work hard for a living; who pay taxes instead of collecting food stamps and subsidies; who face the vagaries of life with gratitude for existence, and take their lumps and setbacks in their stride; who raise multiple children instead of perhaps one designer child; who go to church on Sunday, and believe on Jesus; who volunteer for civic tasks, donate money to real charities, help each other materially in distress; who otherwise mind their own private business and expect others to mind theirs; and who, among other quaint customs, love the fresh air, and indulge such pleasures as hunting and fishing, through which they acquire a sense of stewardship over the land — Sarah Palin is the bee’s knees.

…

That she could wind up as President, inspires a gulp — with a Down’s syndrome kid in a playpen by the executive desk in the Oval Office. If God were to contrive a pro-life statement, it might look like that.

And let us not forget to mention the whole “Margaret Thatcher of the Frozen North” vibe that even a cursory glimpse at Palin’s record in office makes plain. She took on the corruption of her own party, even to the point of resigning from a six-figure-salary position when adequate action was not taken. She then ran for election against a popular incumbent and won, despite the fact that elements of her own party actually held fundraisers for the other guy. And she has consistently shown no tolerance whatsoever for corruption or money-wasting projects. Yes, she supports drilling in the wildlife reserves in Alaska…but by the same token, she is no friend of big oil either: she signed into law a massive “windfall tax” levied against oil developers in the state.