The shootings at Virginia Tech have stunned me, but what what will surely follow is even more loathsome:

1. Administrators at other schools, leery of being accused of the alleged negligence displayed by Virginia Tech administrators will shut down their campuses after minor, violent incidents.
   
2. Jack Thompson or some other evangelical Christian will claim that the shooter(s) were propelled to violence because they played video games or listened to music.
3. Democratic presidential candidates, pandering to the "do something!" crowd, will call for tougher gun laws.
   
4. Alberto Gonzales' Tuesday appearance before Congress, Moqtada al Sadr's party quitting the Iraqi government on Monday, Karl Rove's 5 million missing emails from last week will all get swept off the front pages for the next week(s).
5. College campuses will begin stringent new security procedures and patrols including student searches and controlled access.
6. If the perpetrator was a student, two scenarios are possible.
   
1. The discourse around a native-born shooter will center around the competitiveness, exclusivity, and rejection he felt in the curriculum/school/etc.
   
2. The discourse around a foreign-born shooter will center around the need for tighter visa controls -- monitoring and screening of these students.
   

My responses:

1. How can you shut down and evacuate a 2,600 acre campus with 30,000 students and hundred of buildings after one violent incident? The same decision is made all the time by other public safety officers and administrators in response to other violent crimes on college campuses. Really, you can't stand there with 20/20 hindsight and double guess a decision made with the best information at the time. Nevertheless, I expect the ambulance-chasing lawyers are already drafting suits against the school for the families affected by this.
2. Are violent video games and music present and prevalent? Yes. Do they cause people to go out and shoot other people? No. Any person who claims they have not, even for the slightest second, contemplated causing bodily harm upon others in response to an intensely emotional/traumatic event is a liar. That the vast majority of us don't act on these impulses makes us human.
3. What, of the many gun laws already enacted and enforced prevented this tragedy? What law stopped this armed assailant from killing over 30 people? The right to self-defense is the most basic and primal. When you are face-to-face with an armed and deranged lunatic (or the agent of an invading power) and given the choice between firing back or waiting for the police to arrive, which would you prefer?
4. I'm sure some moonbat conspiracy theorist that will emerge in the coming hours will chalk this massacre up to some vast right-wing conspiracy to divert the nation's attention, but haven't Anna Nicole Smith and Imus already done this? Nevertheless, much will be said about the media in how they cover other news in the coming days as anything out of Virginia Tech will be unsubstantiated speculation (and macabre voyeurism) until any investigation is over.
5. Expect more cameras, limited access doors, security checkpoints, and other central authoritarian measures to be introduced as colleges scramble to cover their collective asses and parents demand more safety in loco parentis. Oh, guess what? It's also college decision season: I imagine VT is going to have a hell of a time convincing admitted seniors to come now.
6. This tragedy has nothing to do with high-intensity engineering/science curricula, international students, or any of the other discourses pundits are likely to invent to advance their own political agendas. Millions of both categories go through their education successfully every year without resorting to mass murder.
   

Suicidal ideologues

As though Bush administration apologists don't have enough on their plate to spin, Michelle Malkin - fresh off her racist John Doe screed - posted this:

I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.

VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

What's her point? That the British sailors are cowards and traitors or that US servicemen would have responded more aggressively? Would she have preferred these sailors to have died in a firefight and ignite the region's tinderbox to hasten her savior's second coming? Given her extensive military service, diplomatic experience, and overwhelming familiarity with the facts of the situation, to say nothing of her experience of being held at gunpoint by a foreign government, where does she have the moral authority to suggest sacrificing these sailors at the altar of partisan ideology?

Go West, Young Man

I am headed to Northwestern University's Media, Technology, and Society program this fall. I knew nothing about it before applying (struck my fancy off of a Google search in the fall), was flown out to interview there over a brutally cold February weekend, enjoyed the program and people, and was accepted a few weeks later.

Now being accepted is a big deal - I struck out 11 times with law school admissions the previous year and had already been rejected by Harvard and Stanford this year. Then, last week, MIT HASTS -- my alma mater and home department, the sure-thing, don't worry, slam dunk -- in a punch to the gut, rejected me. The usual post-rejection justifications or rationalizations of "I wouldn't be a good fit", "I wasn't well connected", "I wasn't well qualified" all fail -- I am so enmeshed with the program through research projects, faculty, and staff connections that outside people who know nothing about my interests or the program are shocked on the news. People who do know something are flabbergasted. And I'm just sort of numb.

So now I'm making lemonade: I realize this is a good opportunity to escape the cherished technocratic myopia of MIT, to move to a new city and learn from new people. I have to leave a lot behind; most important among them, my girlfriend already committed to a job outside of Boston will require us to commute to stay together. Plus, I have any number of friends still living or regularly visiting Boston. Plus I get 2 years of my life back, a 4-5 year Ph.D. versus 6-7 years at MIT. Living in this newly constructed perspective, I now wonder if I even would have gone to MIT had I been accepted... but everything works out in the end.