A question of blame

[WSpence245@aol.com]

	I'm in agreement with you, Anita.  The media during and after events 
like this tend to float around like ghouls, talking about 'the reason for the 
killings', like someone is going to pull some great reason out of their ass 
(all the while commanding large TV ratings).  These teenagers were frigging 
nuts, how's that for a good reason?

	It's logical enough to look at whys and wherefores; after all, if one 
can do anything to minimize the repetition of a tragedy, that's 
understandable enough (if, that is, the act of minimizing doesn't inconvience 
any large and vocal special interest groups, some of whom themselves lack a 
stranglehold on reality).  It then becomes a question in part of resources; 
do we have the time and money to spare in order to take action and effect 
change of a given sort?  And does the possibility of such an event repeating 
itself justify such an expenditure?  Lots of people panic during tragedies 
like this, which may grant impetus to correct injustices and stupid policies, 
but if there is no great wrong to be corrected, we get school counselors 
sending kids home for wearing trenchcoats and the like.  Or you get some 
outfit like the NPA (National Pipebomb Association) screaming about their 
rights, which usually translates into "You're going to interfere with *our* 
profit margins?  I don't *think* so!"

In a message dated 5/5/99 10:00:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
akilgour@thinkage.on.ca writes:

> Granted, whenever I bring forth this option in personal discussions with
>  folks, I get reminded that no one wants to consider that, because it means
>  it *was* random and chaotic.  While I'm used to that (known that this was
>  just the way life was for a long time now), it doesn't seem to sit well 
with
>  the rest of the world.
>  
>  Thoughts?
>  
>  --
>  Anita