A Relieved Reaction to the Sen. Craig Story

Today at work I saw the breaking news headline splashed across the top of the CNN.com website. "Sen. Larry Craig is stepping down from his committee assignments amid calls for his resignation from the Senate." I started frothing at the mouth in annoyance because I assumed that the partisan environment in Washington was driving these calls for Craig's head.

"How dare those Democrats who excused Bill Clinton's behavior peep a word about Senator Craig?"

I clicked on the first story, and to my immense relief, found that it was Republican senators--not Democrats as I initially assumed--calling Craig on the carpet. There is nothing in politics that bugs me more than excusing your own team's failings while condemning the same failings in your opponents. What a relief to see, at least in this instance, a departure from the usual partisan blinders.

Note: I don't know anything about Sen. Craig. I am making no defense of him here.

Smart Aleck Aside: I'll be waiting for those on the social left to be coming to Craig's defense with demands for tolerance of his alternative lifestyle. After all, who are the rest of us to tell a man it is wrong to cheat on his wife?

The Giuliani Dilemma

If Rudy Giuliani were the GOP nominee, I would have a difficult time pulling the lever for him. I'm totally creeped out by his personal life. There are those who would argue that the personal and the public are totally separate. I'd disagree with them.

Or maybe not. I've been watching the documentary "Liberty: The American Revolution" and I must admit that I'm not totally comfortable with all the things the patriots did and said. Benjamin Franklin is on our money, but fathered several illegitimate children. Would I vote for Ben Franklin if he were running today? I honestly don't know. I'm not sure where that leaves me with Giuliani either. I'll be watching and pondering.

KSL's confusing story about Israeli and Muslim Scouts

The headline: Israeli Scouts Don't Attend Planned Meeting with Muslim Scouts

A well-written headline--all the pertinent information present, right? There was a meeting planned, the Muslim Scouts showed up, the Israeli Scouts didn't.

The actual story under the headline is somewhat less well-written. Actually, it's rather confusing:

A very unique scouting event took place in Salt Lake this evening, but what was supposed to happen afterwards, didn't. Israeli Jewish scouts and Utah Muslim scouts did not meet.

Utah scout leaders had wanted the young people from Israel to meet a Salt Lake Valley troop of Muslims, but only their leaders came.

Utah Scouting stepped into international relations when members of the Friendship Caravan from Israel performed. The young men and women are Israeli scouts who tour the U.S. every summer.

These performances were supposed to take on interfaith importance, but they didn't. Apparently, this show of patriotism was a bit too much for the Muslims.

The Mulsim (sic) scout leaders, Palestinians, said it was nice to meet the Israeli scouts, but did not bring their young people.(emphasis added)

So, the style and construction of the headline seem to imply the Israelis didn't show. The second paragraph is just ambiguous. The last sentence makes it sound like it was the Muslim scouts that didn't show up. I'm still unclear on what happened, but apparently one scout group stood up another one.

Or something.

(I really don't care whether the Israelis or the Muslims were the no-shows--I have no comment about the religious/political subtext that probably underlies the event. All I know is the scout troops could have been Shakers and Wiccans, and it would still be a poorly written story.)

Hatch and Bennett on Immigration Bill Cloture

Tomorrow the U.S. Senate will revisit the immigration bill by voting on a cloture motion. If 60 senators vote "yes", then debate will resume and the bill comes ever closer to passing--a very bad idea in my opinion. The bill is long on rewards for illegal behavior and short on enforcement of current laws.

At any rate, Utah's senators haven't decided how they are going to vote in tomorrow's motion (as of Monday morning, when I spoke to their Washington office staff). If you are interested in this motion either passing or failing, you should consider giving them a call (or sending them an email) to register your opinion.

Senator Hatch: (202) 224-5251 email

Senator Bennett: (202) 224-5444 email

Trousers and Self-Deception

There is a judge suing a dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants. I'm sure you've heard about his $54 million suit against the dry cleaners. A blogger was interviewed on Olberman's show and MSN put up the video of the interview. He explained that the aggrieved party actually got emotional recounting his turmoil over the past two years, going so far as to ask for a recess whereupon he left the room with tears in his eyes.

Obviously, the emotions this man is feeling about his lost pants are real. But what is their root cause? I'm rereading C. Terry Warner's book Bonds That Make Us Free. It is one of those seminal works for me that changed the way I view the world and myself.

Warner teaches us that a lot of the feelings of anger and resentment that we have are evidence that we've deceived ourselves and are treating others inhumanely. As I listened to the blogger talk about watching this angry man in court talking about his pants, I couldn't help but conclude that he is trapped in negative emotions that he has unwittingly caused himself.

Early in the book (p. 23), Warner explains self-justifying stories.

We cannot betray ourselves without setting in motion all manner of emotional trouble. This is demonstrated by the experience of a businessman named Marty, in his early thirties, who told the following story:

The other night about 2:00 A.M. I awoke to hear the baby crying. At that moment I had a fleeting feeling, a feeling that if I got up quickly I might be able to see what was wrong before Carolyn would be awakened. It was a feeling that this was something I really ought to do. But I didn't get up to check on the baby.

The matter did not end there. Marty didn't quickly forget about this small episode. He couldn't have simply forgotten about it. Here he was, a man expecting himself to get up, thinking that his wife would benefit from his doing so, and knowing in his heart that it was the right thing for him to do. And yet not doing it. He had to deal with this dishonorable situation somehow. But how? How could someone like Marty get away with not doing what he knew he should do?

The answer to this question is very important to understand. Somehow, Marty had to minimize the obligation he was placing upon himself, or in some other way make it seem right not to do what he felt summoned to do. He had to find some other way to rationalize his self-betrayal.

Marty continued his story:

It bugged me that Carolyn wasn't waking up. I kept thinking it was her job to take care of the baby. She has her work and I have mine, and mine is hard. It starts early in the morning. She can sleep in. On top of that, I never know how to handle the baby anyway.

I wondered if Carolyn was lying there waiting for me to get up. Why did I have to feel so guilty that I couldn't sleep? The only think I wanted was to get to work fresh enough to do a good job. What was selfish about that?

From the instant he decided not to get up, Marty began to make it seem as if what he was doing wasn't his fault. ...He noticed irritating or difficult elements of his circumstances, such as Carolyn's failure to wake up. Maybe she was only pretending to be asleep, he thought, waiting for him to get up and take care of the problem. Such matters hadn't even crossed his mind before the self-betrayal. But now he suddenly could think of nothing else. He remembered things he would otherwise have forgotten entirely, such as Carolyn's not having changed the baby just before putting her to bed.

So here is the mental situation he created for himself: Just seconds before, as he had awakened to his infant daughter's crying, he had focused on the baby's need and , if only fleetingly, on the possibility of saving Carolyn from the inconvenience of having to get up. But now he focused on himself.

The feelings of frustration and anger that we feel are real, that's for sure. The surprise is that we are the cause of those feelings. The lie is that others are forcing us to feel that way. There are times when people abuse us, it is true. But we heap injury upon ourselves when we react in an accusing way. We only hurt ourselves more by hating!

I suspect the man suing over pants to the tune of $54 million is "stuck" in negative feelings and he probably doesn't know how to escape. If you talk to him, mention this book, would you?

Congressional Car Selection and Fuel Economy

Dana Milbank, in a Washington Post column last year, zinged several lawmakers for driving gas guzzling cars to events within easy walking distance of their offices. With gas prices back in the news this summer, I thought the article was worth digging up again.

Here are a few of the cars listed that Senators and Representatives had for trips across the street or a block away.

• Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chrysler LHS (18 mpg)
• House Republicans caucusing about gas prices, 8 Chevy Suburbans (14 mpg) idling outside the meeting
• Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.), GMC Yukon (14 mpg)
• Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Nissan Pathfinder (15 mpg)
• Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Ford Explorer (14 mpg)
• Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Lincoln Town Car (17 mpg)
• Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Chrysler minivan (18 mpg)
• Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Toyota Prius (60 mpg)
• Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Dodge Durango V8 (14 mpg)

There are lots more in the article, and Milbank has a lot of fun spinning them together.

Michael Moore Takes the High Road

I read that Michael Moore gave $12,000 to one of his biggest detractors. He even tried to do it anonymously. It was a really good reminder to me that we're all people with feelings and generous impulses--even on the internet where sometimes things get a little too mean.

Thanks, Michael Moore, for showing some class. No one's hat is totally black or white and that's always worth remembering.

NY Times: Democrats Cause Global Warming!

According to a Saturday editorial in the New York Times, Democrats are causing global warming! Who'd have thought? According to the Times, "Energy-gluttonous cities account for three-fourths of greenhouse gas emissions the world over." Hmmm. Which party is it that controls and populates most of the big cities...

But seriously, I wonder if the Times meant to say "three-fourths of man made greenhouse gas emissions." I don't know if we have hard numbers, but I've read that the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gases are naturally produced. (Even water vapor is a greenhouse gas.)

Who will fact check FactCheck?

I usually appreciate FactCheck.org's work in looking at the claims political candidates make. However, their latest report on the 2nd GOP presidential debate left me unsatisfied. It seemed to be sprinkled with an underlying viewpoint. Here are the two items in particular that bugged me.

Global Warming

During the debate Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado claimed that scientific studies were equally split on the existence of global warming and whether humans are responsible:

Tancredo: Okay. First of all, the whole issue of global warming, for every single scientist that tells you it's happening and that it's our fault — and they'll stack up to here in this reports — I can stack up another group of reports that say just the opposite.

Actually, we find that an overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees that global warming is taking place and that human activity is predominantly to blame. Most recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), overseen jointly by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, released a report representing the work of 600 authors from 40 countries and 113 government representatives, saying:

IPCC: The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution.

Also, the National Research Council, chief adviser to the U.S. government on science and technology, issued its own report as far back as 2001 that reads:

NRC: Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability.

It's true that there are dissenters to this consensus view. Among them are the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels, chief editor of the World Climate Report Blog, and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. But the split is by no means 50-50 as Tancredo claimed.

It appears that FactCheck.org has put words into Tancredo's mouth. The "50-50" split was not part of Tancredo's answer. He simply said their was a stack of reports that took a different view. He made no claim about the relative size or number of those reports.

Furthermore, the studies that have shown that the majority of scientists agree with human-caused global warming have been cast in serious doubt. (I wish I could find the link where I read about the flaws in that study. Perhaps you know where it is.) I get the sense that most measurements support the thesis that the globe is warming but that there is little to no evidence that points to the origin of that warming. I think people are making educated guesses.

I read one scientist who was on the IPCC. He disagreed with the way the work was proceeding and so he quit, yet his name still appears on the report. How many others of the "600 authors" don't agree with all or part of the resulting IPCC report?

Ron Bailey, a reporter and CATO scholar, has documented a lot of popular environmental "disasters" of the past that never actually materialized. Reid Bryson, who predicted the existence of the jet stream before it was discovered and is regarded as a father of climate science in the United States, has expressed his doubts about the human origins of global warming.

Yes, it seems that most scientists do believe that humans play a major role in global warming, but that is not the same as saying that most of the science supports the same thesis. Yes, there are reports that argue the anthropogenic nature of global warming. But there are also reports that argue the opposite, just as Tancredo asserted.

Sorry FactCheck, you missed this one. In so doing, you seemed to be pressing an agenda rather than merely checking the facts.

Giuliani Misquotes Giuliani

Giuliani claimed questioner Chris Wallace had misquoted him as saying some moderate Republicans were being "fundamentally irresponsible" for demanding progress in Iraq by September:

Wallace: Mayor Giuliani, in our interview the other day you said that congressional Republicans who say they must see progress by September are, quote, "fundamentally irresponsible," and that in effect they are giving a timetable for retreat to our enemies.

Is your commitment to winning in Iraq open-ended?

Giuliani: First of all, that isn't exactly what I said. I was talking about the timetable for retreat that the Democrats passed in Congress, in which they did something extraordinary and that I've never heard of in the history of war, which is to give your enemy a schedule of how a retreating army is going to retreat. That was irresponsible, highly irresponsible.

But what Giuliani actually said, in his May 13 interview on "Fox News Sunday," was this:

Wallace (May 13): Now you hear some Republicans saying September. We've got to know by then. So, what would you say to those people?

Giuliani: Anybody proposing giving the enemy a timetable of our retreat is proposing something that is fundamentally irresponsible.

The record is clear: Giuliani's use of the phrase "fundamentally irresponsible" was in response to a question about Republicans, not Democrats. He also criticized Democrats for proposing a 'timetable for retreat" in other portions of the May 13 interview, but not here.

This feels like an intentional misreading of Giuliani's original statement, which was precise. He said that "anybody" proposing timetables was irresponsible. His later paraphrase in the debate in plausibly in line with his first quote. If FactCheck can't read Giuliani's mind, then they have no choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt.

There is no factual blunder here unless you can show that Giuliani was talking about Republicans in his first quote. That would imply he was strictly answering the question he was asked by a reporter. We all know how rarely that happens. It seems more likely he was using that question to make a broader point about his foes, which is a common tactic used by politicians when they are interviewed by the press.

Smoke the Ratings

My eye rolling muscles are working overtime as I contemplate the new decision by the MPAA to push movies with smoking toward an R rating. As if the ratings weren't already useless enough, now we're going to slap an R rating on a movie when it features something that my kids see their friendly neighbor doing on his front porch? Oh, brother.

Tornadoes and the Guard

There has been much hand wringing about the shortage of equipment available in Kansas after the recent tornado because the national guard is "missing in action." Take Bob Aagard, a local blogger, for example.

However, the National Guard hasn't been involved in helping with some of the tornados in the midwest as they usually are.



It's because the troops and their equipment are in Iraq.

This is factually inaccurate based on the news reporting I heard on NPR, but it is an understandable misconception based on the way this natural disaster has been covered.



A head guy for the Kansas National Guard interviewed on NPR said that they have enough equipment for the current disaster. They are concerned about their capacity if they have another disaster. This is a legitimate concern, but is has clearly been misrepresented in the news.



The governor of Kansas came on in a subsequent interview and clarified that only 10% of Kansas guardsmen are overseas. 50% of their equipment is overseas. That is a lot of stuff that they are missing, but again, not as bad as we've been led to believe.



I heard a lot of complaints that Bush had failed to ask US citizens to sacrifice anything in the war against the terrorists. Why is that we must now complain when part of our sacrifice is made evident?



On a totally different point, I heard a few great personal stories from tornado survivors who recounted their blessings during the disaster. I'm so grateful for the good people of our country. We are so blessed.

Concerns about "Alternative Commencement"

I'll admit that I'm of two minds about the concept of an alternative commencement like the one recently staged for BYU grads. I'm in support of diverse opinions being expressed and I supported in spirit the students who wanted to protest against Vice President Cheney. I disagreed with them in substance, but I appreciated the fact that discussions were spurred that otherwise might not have happened.



I'm also pleased to see people taking initiative to organize events and make things happen. The student organizers were able to line up a slate of speakers that was swooned over by the some on the left.



My problem with the event was the presumptuousness of it. I read in one account that people were wearing caps and gowns. If that report is accurate, they were literally staging a fake commencement. There can be no "alternate" that is not sanctioned by the university because students don't have the power to grant themselves degrees. Nor do they have power to honor themselves. So in that sense, any alternative commencement is a sham and a fraud.



Of course, commencements mean less these days than they used to. I know that the commencement is not the place where you actually pick up your diploma. There is a separate event for that for each college within the university. Many students forgo commencement altogether; I did. I'm told that it used to be relatively mandatory. Knowing that times have changed, maybe the "fraudulentness" of an alternative commencement is less severe now that it was in the past. Even so, I wish the event had been framed as a commencement enhancement rather than an alternate.

Satan at the Convention

I'm a county delegate for my Republican precinct, and it's convention season--the Utah County Republican Convention is this Saturday April 28. In the mail today I got the information about the convention--when to be there, what's on the agenda, the proposed changes to the county platform, etc. Included in the envelope was a proposed resolution to be debated ("10 minutes total") and voted on at the convention. The title at the top fairly demanded that the entire resolution be read (the full text of the resolution is at the bottom of the post):

Resolution opposing Satan's plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion

Well! I'm definitely against Satan destroying the United States. (I imagine most people feel the same way.) But how is Satan scheming to invade the country?

Whereas, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9)

Whereas, in order for Satan to establish his “New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S. There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.

I don't like illegal immigration. I think it is dangerous for both the immigrants (not only the dangerous passage past our borders, but the exploitation by unscrupulous businesses, among other things) and the country (at a minimum, having an influx of people here because they broke the law is bad for the "rule of law"). I really doubt the illegal immigration problem will be helped, however, by attributing to Satan the actions of (mostly) well-meaning people looking for a better way of life.

The addition of the biblical scripture is disconcerting as well. The Book of Revelation is full of imagery, allusion, and poetic metaphor (dragons, anyone?) that I would be careful making dogmatic statements concerning it in a church class, much less a political venue.

Whereas, it is obvious that most promoters of massive immigration and open borders do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity, sovereignty, our Christian culture and freedom. Many consider themselves cosmopolitans or world citizens. Their religion is atheistic humanism. They are found primarily among the elite of foundations, universities, big business, left-wing politicians, Hollywood, ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union), CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the American power elite and the liberal media. They prefer a world without borders ruled by a one world tyrannical government.

I don't think that it is helpful to generalize all opponents to a tougher immigration standard to people who "do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity," etc. Lumping those same people in with Satan and his minions is even more distasteful. Although I'm fairly right-leaning on the immigration issue, I can actually understand the perspective of those on the other side. I truly believe that most on the "amnesty, open-border" side truly want to help. We just have different ideas of what, exactly, will help the most. And, although I have to admit the "Anti-Christian Lawyers Union" jab made me chuckle, such name-calling in a public, political document to be endorsed by the delegates is inappropriate.

Now therefore, because we support the “Rule of Law,” the Constitution and the principals [sic] that made America the greatest and freest nation in history, the Utah County Republican Party supports the closing of our national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.

Submitted by: Don Larsen, District 65 Chairman

I support better enforcement of our immigration laws. But there is no way I can vote for this resolution. I think the inflammatory language, the rhetoric, and the over-the-top discussion of the devil are, in the least, inappropriate in a political document and, at the worst, a dangerous precedent to follow in our political system.

(full text of resolution below)

Resolution opposing Satan’s plan to destroy the U.S. by stealth invasion

Whereas, “And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.” (Revelation 12:9)
Whereas, in order for Satan to establish his “New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S. There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does, but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness.
Whereas, Americans will have to make a choice: either close our borders to illegal immigration, which is now vastly greater than any time in the past, or witness the passing country [sic]. The proof of this statement is the record of history. It is a history littered with the gravestones of great nations and civilizations which allowed invaders to overrun them. If we fail to learn from the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them.
Whereas, all polls show that the American people overwhelmingly want limited immigration, reform and control of our borders as mandated by the Constitution. But many do not realize the extent of the dangers ahead because of the lack of accurate media coverage and public debate. An important reason for the lack of understanding is that the powerful commercial, political, ethnic, and the godless globalist elites who control the major media do not want the issues of illegal immigration to come to national attention.
Whereas, it is obvious that most promoters of massive immigration and open borders do not like the ideas of patriotism, national identity, sovereignty, our Christian culture and freedom. Many consider themselves cosmopolitans or world citizens. Their religion is atheistic humanism. They are found primarily among the elite of foundations, universities, big business, left-wing politicians, Hollywood, ACLU (Anti-Christian Lawyers Union [sic]), CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), the American power elite and the liberal media. They prefer a world without borders ruled by a one world tyrannical government.
Whereas, we cannot benefit the world by eliminating our borders and sovereignty as advocated by Satan’s “axis of evil”, if we do, the world will pull us down to its lowest common level and we will have committed national suicide. In that case, the U.S. will no longer be a free and prosperous land or light of liberty for all nations. Once he has destroyed the U.S., Satan will be able to establish his “Satanic New World Order” and destroy the freedom of all people.
Whereas, the national security and the future of the nation and the American people depends upon how well we do our job and defend our borders. We must control our borders to illegal immigration, have a well regulated temporary worker program, as needed, or face extinction. The destruction of the U.S. by the forces of evil is a top priority of Satan.
Now therefore, we (delegates) are obligated to support the Utah State and Utah County Republicans Platforms regarding the mandates to support the “Rule of Law” and the Constitutional mandate to protect and secure our national borders.
Now therefore, because we support the “Rule of Law,” the Constitution and the principals that made America the greatest and freest nation in history, the Utah County Republican Party supports the closing of our national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion.

Submitted by: Don Larsen, District 65 Chairman

Go Gwen!

Gwen Ifill was a guest on Meet the Press this week. The reporters' roundtable was supposed to cover three different topics, but the first topic, the Don Imus firing, occupied the entire time. As I watched the show, I could almost see the fire dancing behind Gwen's eyes, even while she maintained her graceful and professional composure.

Tim Russert was hosting the show as usual. His guests were David Brooks, Gwen Ifill, John Harwood, and Eugene Robinson.

Ifill has apparently had enough of the hypocrisy of people condemning Imus now who once appeared on his show--a show where Imus has always made the same sorts of incendiary remarks. She specifically calls out two of her fellow panelists.

There’s been radio silence from a lot of people who’ve done this program who could’ve spoken up and said, “I find this offensive” or “I didn’t know.” These people didn’t speak up.

Tim, we didn’t hear that much from you.

David, we didn’t hear from you.

What was missing in this debate was someone saying, “You know, I understand that this is offensive.” ...people will say, “I didn’t know,” or people will say, “I wasn’t listening.” A lot of people did know, and a lot of people were listening, and they just decided it was OK. They decided this culture of meanness was fine until they got caught. My concern about Mr. Imus and a lot of people and, and a lot of the debate in the society is not that people are sorry that they say these things. They’re sorry that someone catches them.

...David’s right, about the culture of meanness, about the culture of racial complaint, about the internal culture in our community, about the way we talk to one another. But this week, just this week, it was finally saying “Enough.”

Ifill is a lady in every way. No shouting or demeaning. She just pointed out that her colleagues have tried to play both sides. They appear on Imus's show and then try to distance themselves from the things that go on immediately before and immediately after their appearance.

I concur with Gwen Ifill. A heck of a lot of people had an opportunity to ignore Imus. They failed to insist on a culture of civility and kindness. They are complicit in his public offenses.

I don't endorse a culture that polices thought that speech with external forces. (I am soooooo grateful for the 1st amendment protections we enjoy in this country.) I endorse a culture that encourages self control. I hope for a culture that refuses to support hateful speech. We can allow people to saw those things, but we don't have to support or subsidize them.

"Join in the national healing"?

At the top of CNN.com this afternoon, a blue banner read: "Watch Now>>Virginia Tech convocation. Join in the national healing."

I hope I can explain why this rubbed me the wrong way without offending anyone touched by this tragedy. Make no mistake, this is a terrible tragedy. I feel shocked and sickened just thinking about it.

But my life isn't changed in any measurable way by these events. I don't think I need healing.

The "nation" certainly does need "healing". However, I'm pretty sure that healing will not be brought about by the small measure of comfort afforded by mourning with those that mourn. The healing our nation needs will come about through changes in the individual, not by passively listening in on a memorial.

In a way, it seems to me that this attitude broadens the grief surrounding the killings so much as to almost dispel it. To compare the tinge of sadness felt by Holly Housewife in Spanish Fork, Utah to the gaping hole of wrenching grief felt by those who truly NEED healing--victims, families, students, alumni--is just wrong.

Allowing the general public to watch the Virginia Tech memorial for free is a wonderful thing for CNN to have done. Calling it a "national healing", however, is a bit much.