4 Replies to “A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, B.”

1. Andrea Harris says:

   July 4, 2002 at 2:01 am

   “The story of the Pakistani girl tells us nothing. Let’s leave it alone.”

   What the <i>hell</i>????

   “Ugh” is right. We shouldn’t talk about it because the only reason we do so is to figuratively “look down our noses” at a different culture and assert our “Western moral superiority”??? What-<i>ev</i>-er, Mr. O’Neill.

2. David Perron says:

   July 4, 2002 at 11:18 am

   Yes, this incident is just an isolated one.  So are the assorted deaths by stoning, deaths by crushing, amputations, etc.  All totally unrelated to each other.  Just anomalies, really.  Never to be repeated, not related to any human cause.  Move along, nothing to see here.

   It wasn’t until I saw Yellow Times among his favorite links that I was able to contextualize to what degree this person’s synapses are inhibited.

3. Ray Eckhart says:

   July 4, 2002 at 8:16 pm

   Mr. Valberg:

   Bravo.  Bravo.  Bravo.  Bravo. 

   Now that Mr. Staerk is taking a break, you get to be on my enlightened, rational Norwegian list.

   Thank you.

4. Dean says:

   July 5, 2002 at 4:54 am

   So, the decision by a court (admittedly, based on tribal rulings) is simply a one-off, a unique instance. And therefore, not worthy of particular note. Okay, I’ll buy that.

   Now, Mr. O’Neill, I’m curious: do incidents involving, for example, a mistaken bombing of a wedding (IF that is what happened) constitute a single incident, and are they ALSO not worthy of note? Each incident listed in your weblog was “individual,” after all. The conditions of each one were undoubtedly different, and the reasons provided by the pilots were no doubt different as well. At what point does it become a pattern?

   For that matter, you airily dismiss the repeated incidence of children in the Middle East (and elsewhere) being dressed up w/ toy guns and fake suicide bomb belts, so evidently, even repeated patterns are “no big deal,” even where it instills a certain nihilism.

   Evidently, what you conclude is important is different from what many, not just bloggers but readers of the news, find appalling. You may believe that this is a “lowest common denominator” approach to morality. Speaking only for myself, I’d say that it’s expecting minimum standards of behavior from my fellow human being.

Comments are closed.