Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Memorial for Cho (update)
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, April 26, 2007

I'm unsurprised by her major:
A senior at Virginia Tech said moral responsibility led her to add a stone for gunman Seung-Hui Cho to a memorial for his 32 shooting victims that was set up at Virginia Tech late last week. The stone was later removed, but was restored by Wednesday morning.

Katelynn Johnson, a senior sociology-psychology major, identified herself in a letter to the Collegiate Times as the person who added the stone for Cho.

"My family did not raise me to do what is popular," she wrote in her letter to the campus newspaper. "They raised me to do what is morally right. We did not lose only 32 students and faculty members that day; we lost 33 lives."
Amazing. I'm sorry to tell you this, Ms. Johnson, but thirty two were murdered that day and the thirty third, aka the murderer, then committed suicide. Memorializing the murderer next to those he murdered defies common sense and good taste. It also has nothing to do with "morality".

I assume, given this sort of thinking, that Johnson's version of "moral responsibility" will drive her to push for adding 19 memorials for the 9/11 hijackers at Ground Zero because, as we all know, "we didn't lose only 2,973 that day, we lost 2,992 lives" when we include the murderers.

UPDATE: Interesting disagreement with my opinion here.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Oh, but I’m not surprised by her major - the very group that wants the responsibility for identifying the Cho’s of the world, assures us they can identify them, that they can ’fix’ them, massively failed in every way, but of course has no responsibility for anything that happened.

I wonder how many days of angst she suffered before she added Cho’s stone (oh, alas for Cho and the evil society that drove him to this deed!)

I hope someone else who’s family raised them to do what is morally right goes, collects Cho’s stone, and consigns it post haste to the bottom of a muddy lake, and every stone she places subsequently on his behalf until she gets the point.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Really, if I’d had to guess her major, I’d have gone with Philosophy.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
With her background she’ll be a tenured professor in no time.
 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://
Jesus...

People like this chick are the exact reason we have a hard time learning for events like the VTech shooting. The inability to grasp the idea that of those 33, one of them is the REASON for the other 32 shocks me. How the hell can this chick even THINK what she’s doing is right?

Her parents didn’t raise her to do what is right morally (I suspect they are moonbats of the highest order, have cried out that they wish Cheney would get shot and that they hate our troops).

They raised her to be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

That’s not moral, sweety. That’s retarded...
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
Dis. Gusting.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
"Katelynn Johnson, a senior sociology-psychology major,"

No doubt the person(s) who evaluated Cho and released him had the same major. I suspect the definition of "morally right" she learned at home included offending all those bourgeois attitudes and ideas that make this country so repressive and stifling.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
My family did not raise me to do what is popular," she wrote in her letter to the campus newspaper. "They raised me to do what is morally right. We did not lose only 32 students and faculty members that day; we lost 33 lives."
*SIGH*

Just wait until you leave college and enter the real world sweetheart (oooooh, bad old me just used gender-insensitive language!)

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
For the love of god please tell me its no longer there. If i was going to that school id remove it, hell ill do it right in front of her. My god i truly hope noone lets this slide.
 
Written By: josh b
URL: http://
As I recall from my college days, the Sociology Department tended to attract more than its share of bubbleheads back then, too.
 
Written By: Bilwick
URL: http://
Exact same thing happened at Columbine. It is sad and unfortunate that Katelynn’s parents taught her morality without teaching her right from wrong.
 
Written By: coater
URL: http://
I read an article about this (and her letter) in the Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, VA. I really expected to agree with her actions until I read her rationale.

I was ready for this to be an act of forgiveness, of grace. I respect and agree with the viewpoint that Cho can and should be forgiven, but this is because my faith propels me to do this. Hate the sin, love the sinner is a perfectly rational and reasonable view to take toward Cho, although the magnitude of the evil makes it difficult to do so.

But this young woman is taking a completely secular approach to her actions. She has been sucked into the vortex of secularism that insists that there can be no value judgements made, that all people, all cultures, are equal and valid no matter what despicable actions they take or philosophies they hold. This view insists that we must mourn the mass murderer because he is dead and life has value. This viewpoint insists that any context that may reduce that "value" is wrong and must be discarded.

If she wants to memorialize Cho, fine, but not in the same location and context as his victims. Let her place it somewhere else so that people who come to see the other memorials are not forced to see his.

But I would ask her what she would be doing for Cho right now if he had not killed himself but was instead locked up in a jail cell. Would she be reaching out to him? Would she be asking the "Hokie Nation" to rally to his side and help him overcome his mental problems because he is a member of their "family." Or is he only of "value" because he is dead?

What scares me about asking this question is that it would seem that among Cho’s many delusions, one of them was that he only had value to the rest of the world (and the "Hokie Nation") as a dead mass murderer. Is this woman proving him right, albeit un-intentionally?
 
Written By: mprell
URL: http://
I am a little mystified by this woman’s values, and am trying to parse them out. Someone, I think it was Rand, said ’if you value human life, then you cannot logically value its destroyers.’ So what is intended in putting perpetrator and victim together in the same memorial?

Cho had a moral obligation to himself and to others to seek help when he was troubled for so long by his crazy thoughts. He certainly had some time after buying the weapons to reconsider and seek help, and he was conscious of what he was doing.

However, if one thinks Cho had no choice, that he was acting out of some deterministic necessity, then putting that 33rd rock begins to make sense. And in so doing, one is perpetuating in the mind of every potential killer like Cho that he does not in fact have any control over himself. The message to all potential Chos ought to be: ’seek help when you have these kinds of crazy thoughts and fantasies’. Instead, with this gesture, that message moves closer to: ’we know you can’t help it’.

As for that ranter you pointed to with the ’interesting reaction’: he has one valid point, namely censuring your crude bit of wit that this woman’s major was somehow relevant. The rest of his reaction is exactly what he accuses others of doing: it’s a hubristic, emotional, hissy fit. Being a bit disturbed by this woman’s reactions is perfectly understandable, and has nothing to do with what the friends and relations of the VT victims need.

 
Written By: Cliff
URL: http://
I’d be a lot more sympathetic towards his suicide if he’d chosen to be the first mortality instead of the 33rd.
 
Written By: Joe R.
URL: http://
I am a little mystified by this woman’s values, and am trying to parse them out. Someone, I think it was Rand, said ’if you value human life, then you cannot logically value its destroyers.’ So what is intended in putting perpetrator and victim together in the same memorial?

Cho had a moral obligation to himself and to others to seek help when he was troubled for so long by his crazy thoughts. He certainly had some time after buying the weapons to reconsider and seek help, and he was conscious of what he was doing.

However, if one thinks Cho had no choice, that he was acting out of some deterministic necessity, then putting that 33rd rock begins to make sense. And in so doing, one is perpetuating in the mind of every potential killer like Cho that he does not in fact have any control over himself. The message to all potential Chos ought to be: ’seek help when you have these kinds of crazy thoughts and fantasies’. Instead, with this gesture, that message moves closer to: ’we know you can’t help it’.

As for that ranter you pointed to with the ’interesting reaction’: he has one valid point, namely censuring your crude bit of wit that this woman’s major was somehow relevant. The rest of his reaction is exactly what he accuses others of doing: it’s a hubristic, emotional, hissy fit. Being a bit disturbed by this woman’s reactions is perfectly understandable, and has nothing to do with what the friends and relations of the VT victims need.

 
Written By: Cliff
URL: http://
"My family did not raise me to do what is popular. They raised me to do what is morally right."
This chick should join the ACLU. They love to argue that way, too, bandying about the unpopularity of their own views as though it were evidence that their positions are correct. Yes, some unpopular views are moral ones, but most unpopular views are unpopular for a reason. Even when an unpopular view is moral or correct, it’s usually moral/correct for reasons having nothing to do with its popularity one way or the other, so why bring that non-issue up, unless your real goal is not to be moral or correct, but rather to be contrarian for contrarianism’s sake?

This is a variation of what I like to call Galileo’s fallacy: in Galileo’s day, everyone thought Galileo was full of crap, but Galileo was right. Today, everyone thinks I’m full of crap, therefore, I must be the next Galileo.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
You mean you aren’t?

Great, what am I going to do with all these Xrlq t-shirts??
 
Written By: Scott
URL: http://
I agree with Katelynn’s actions. Cho was suffering from a severe mental illness and/or thinking disorder and/or neurological impairment. That was obvious from all reports about him. He never received proper help, although many noticed his condition and failed to act. He was therefore also a victim. His inability to solve his problem of total isolation, anguish, and self-loathing led to his committing an evil act. For that, the whole world is sorry. But I believe he was the first victim of that tragedy, albeit the one who appeared to be the one responsible. The tragedy began long, long ago and built until he exploded. I don’t know how any sane, rational, compassionate person can blame him. Had he lived, I am certain he would have been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Putting ourselves in his shoes for even one day of his miserable, sad, despairing, hopeless life would be severe punishment enough. I pray for him, and for all the other victims. Katelynn, you did the right thing.
 
Written By: Elyssa
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider