Although I write about stuff like this all the time, my recent ramblings on risk have not been enjoyable or satisfying. Perhaps part of the reason involves my penchant for trying to appear as though I have a command of the subject about which I’m writing, while deep down I suspect I’m not fooling anybody. Another reason involves my struggle with contemporary, conventional evangelical culture, in which I would be much more accepted and befriended, if I didn’t have so many problems with it!
A lot of cynics get labeled unrepentant pessimists because we refuse to conform with the myopic, generally-accepted standards the rest of a society or peer group embraces. We’re shunted to the side as troublemakers, pot-stirrers, and impediments to progress. And some of us are just those things.
Maybe it’s my own pride and self-deception, but I like to hope that the way I think has its benefits, even if conventional evangelicalism doesn’t want to see it that way. Part of my mindset has to do with the fact that I’ve always been a social misfit, to one degree or another, only in the church, other people are supposed to love me anyway. But it’s a two-way street, isn’t it? How much love and grace do I exemplify by the way I write, talk, and share my opinions? Not that just because I may be right gives me license to run roughshod over people who have yet to see the light in my viewpoint.
Which is why, even though I had told myself that Wednesday’s essay was enough for the risk topic, I’ve decided to broach the subject at least once more today. Well, that, and the fact that the totally random Bible passage I read this morning had the word “risk” emblazoned across it.
Thy Neck Sticketh Out
In Romans 16:1-16, the apostle Paul sends greetings to members of the Roman church, including Priscilla and Aquila, the tentmakers with whom Paul occasionally worked. He says in verse 3 that “for my life [they] risked their own necks…”
“Hmm…” I thought, as the verse kept slapping me in the face… “Why hasn’t this dawned on me before?” After all, I’ve known about Priscilla and Aquila since childhood. But for some reason, the fact that they risked their lives for Paul never hit home for me, until today.
Whenever somebody tells you to keep re-reading familiar passages of scripture, do it! I’m constantly amazed at how much stuff God tucks away in these holy texts.
After a quick Google search, I determined that nobody knows what sort of danger Priscilla and Aquila actually endured for Paul. And I suppose it doesn’t really matter anyway, otherwise Paul would have told us. The way he writes it, I can’t tell if he assumed the Roman church would know what event he was referencing, or if he simply wanted to clue them in as to the intimate value he held for them – after all, if somebody I knew risked their life for mine, we would have a unique personal bond thereafter, wouldn’t we?
Speaking of personal bonds – and things that hadn’t ever struck me before in the Bible – Paul also sends greetings to a relative of his in Rome, Herodion. He also sends greetings TO Rome from Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, relatives of Paul in Corinth, from where his letter to the Romans was written. I’ve always thought of Paul as a solitary figure, but he obviously stayed connected to his extended family.
Losing Your Life
But anyway; back to Priscilla and Aquila. Let’s not delve into suppositions and extrapolations on what, why, and how they did what they did for Paul. Let’s just allow the fact to sit by itself; that they risked their lives for Paul.
I’ve never risked my life for anybody before. Have you? I’ve tested the low limits of my reputation, employment, friendships, and finances, but never to significant degrees that could be called risk, and certainly not my life. And obviously, not many people risked their lives for Paul in the way Priscilla and Aquila did, otherwise he either wouldn’t have mentioned them, or he’d have included them in the longer list of his mortality benefactors. (Since I’ve already proven I’m don’t have an encyclopedic mastery of Bible references, I searched Google for other people who Paul may have similarly referenced, and didn’t find any).
Some commentators use the word “risk” here to say that believers should risk something for the kingdom, which of course isn’t a false statement.
But somehow, when Paul says a husband and wife almost died because of their friendship to Paul, I think something more significant happened than them just giving up comforts, other friendships, or good jobs.
This event involved their mortality.
Earlier in the Gospels, Christ says that people who try to save their lives will actually lose them (Luke 17:33, John 12;25). So we should not avoid risk simply because we might get injured, or suffer some sort of loss. But does that mean any risk is OK? Is speeding around Texas Motor Speedway in a Corvette an acceptable risk? (remember, that's where this all started...)
Christ isn't talking about living life in a bubble, is He? And He's not talking about getting one's kicks from thrill rides either, is He? Aren't Christ and Paul - albeit by inference from the Romans passage - telling us that if we're going to take risks, we'd better be sure they're worth it?
It doesn't sound like Priscilla and Aquila were taking Paul's place in the Corvette as it sped around the track, does it?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Theology of Risk
Risk - Part 3
OK, so maybe all of my rambling about risk simply proves I’m a timid little mouse. I readily admit that risk is not a word people immediately associate with me. And I’m OK with that.
But it’s not only my disjointed DNA and my sheltered upbringing that prejudice me against unnecessary risk. My brother, who was raised by the same parents as I, is a helicopter pilot today, so what does that say about nature and nurture? Of course, he’s an exceptional pilot – in fact, I prefer flying with him rather than riding when he’s driving.
When I lived in New York City, I remember coming home at the end of normal workdays and flopping down on my bed, recalling the numerous opportunities I had that day to be smashed by a speeding bus, run over by a crazy cabdriver, or sliced open by impatient subway doors. I’d take a deep breath and marvel that I was still alive and in one piece! I've since learned that other people who've lived in the Big Apple have had similar "mortality moments." Maybe that’s not the way most people would want to live life, but for me, it was oddly therapeutic and energizing, even though it was physically exhausting.
So again: let this prove that I don’t deny some risks are worth taking.
But… and there’s always a but, isn’t there?
How should evangelical people of faith view risk? What is the degree to which people of faith are called to take risks, and what types of risk should we take?
Pump (clap) You Up
At the risk (!) of unintentionally publicizing what has proven to be utter garbage, let me reference the blasphemous book Wild at Heart by John Eldridge, printed in 2001. Marketing material for this travesty of a “Christian” book included such dorky bylines as “Helping men rediscover their masculine heart” and “Discovering the secret of a man’s soul”.
Among the many fallacies of his book, Eldridge tries to posit the theory that men are basically wild animals with a lust for life that girlie-man theologians have stripped of virility and castrated with empathy, education, and – gasp! – selflessness. His book made a big splash in the evangelical world when it first came out, but aside from some pseudo-Colorado-mountainmen and a few closet metrosexuals, Eldridge’s fantasies about alpha-male primitiveness soon fizzled in the light of Biblical reality.
The reason I bring up this horrible book is to draw upon a major aspect of risk which Eldridge attempts to pawn off as truth: he claims God took risks with His creation, and so should we. Apparently, Eldridge considers that an aversion to risk should be the hallmark of any manly-man, for which God serves as the supreme prototype.
Without wading too far into the muck and mire of all that is wrong with such a theory, can we at least agree that God’s sovereignty, omnipotence, and omniscience automatically preclude the impossibility that God takes any risks? Of all that is possible with God, He cannot take risks, because risk implies He would not have ultimate control over something, or that He would lack intimate knowledge and understanding about something. So right away, even though a lot of people initially defended Wild at Heart by saying “you can’t criticize the book without reading it,” we can indeed and with full conviction proclaim that risk cannot be validated by God’s use of it Himself.
Eldridge Isn't All Wrong
Which leaves us with the remaining shards of Eldridge’s idea that evangelicals should engage in risk for God. Which, of course, is true to a certain extent. But not necessarily in all of the ways Eldridge thinks.
True, “he who loves his live will lose it,” and that we are to “count all things as nothing for the sake of the Gospel.” But that doesn’t mean we’re free to skydive out of a plane into a wildlife sanctuary, tiptoe along the third rail, or even push the legalistic envelope, does it?
As over-quoted as it is, martyred missionary Jim Elliot’s words still ring true: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." That's probably as good a definition of Biblical risk as I've ever heard. Because what did Elliot and his mission team really risk when they went to Ecuador to evangelize the Auca tribespeople? They knew their eternal reward was in Heaven, not here on Earth. In mankind’s way of thinking, perhaps going to jungles ruled by headhunters constituted a ridiculous risk, but if these missionaries were genuinely called by God to serve in the South America, what might they have risked by NOT going?
Taking Risk Further Than God Intends?
Now, I’m going to tread cautiously here: we still need to choose our "risk" ventures carefully, don't we? I’ve read some commentators who wonder if Jim Elliot had a streak of hard-headedness which virtually secured his fate at the hands of the Auca tribesmen. I bring up that theory not because it's been proven as credible, but to caution against misinterpreting foolish bravado for God's direction into danger. Whether Elliot - who has been practically enshrined by contemporary Christian culture - suffered from self-centered, unbiblical risk isn't for me to say, and again, I don't mean to impugn his memory by drawing the correlation between his genuine martyrdom and people with a mentality that justifies their own foolishness and embrace of risk. It's just that Elliot's story seems, um, downright swashbuckling compared with other stories of missionaries who have tread far more cautiously - yet still "successfully" - in their ministries.
Before you burn me at the stake as a heretic, let's move away from Elliot. You have to admit that some people claiming to be Christians seem compelled not by devotion to Christ, but simply because their acquiescence to their Type-A personalities makes it easy to scoff at risk and try to be the hero. It’s ego, pure and simple, to either deny the realities of risk or assume they don’t apply to you.
From my thin knowledge of 19th and 20th Century world missions, it seems like the evangelical fervor of the day tended to wink at risk and embrace the potential for glory that beckoned from distant shores. The terror that must have stalked every missionary upon their disembarking on those distant shores must have been excruciating, and far be it from me to judge their motives and hearts now, after so much Kingdom work has been advanced across the globe by these pioneers. But looking at how missions agencies today let insurance companies, health concerns, and other conventional bureaucratic considerations dictate ministry policies, has professional evangelical work become hog-tied by risk-aversion or simply more prudent and objective? Is less Kingdom work getting done because actuaries, lawyers, and accountants are calling more of the shots? Did God bless the proclamation of His Word because He says He would, despite the foolish risks His messengers took? Do the ends justify the means when it comes to the Gospel?
Which brings us to that thin line between ego and conviction, between risk for personal reward and trust in God despite the odds. Nobody really seems to know where that is.
God Is Sovereign Over Our Risks
The other day, I discussed the risks Carter BloodCare apparently absorbed into their business model by hosting a speedway event in which a guest was killed. Now obviously, people don’t get killed every time they get into a Corvette ripping through a closed speedway course. And all of the participants wore conventional protective gear that up until the crash probably seemed excessive, and after the crash proved inadequate. I’ve talked before about engineering a perfectly safe car, but that it would be so heavy and unwieldy nobody would want to buy or drive it. We take a certain amount of risk for granted every time we back out of our driveway, but should we simply ignore the extrapolation of that risk to a speeding car on a racetrack?
After reading my blog entry, a friend of mine mused that one freak accident shouldn’t necessarily force Carter BloodCare to scrap what otherwise is a novel and evocative way to recognize top blood donors and volunteers. After all, nobody was forced to participate, and by all accounts, proper procedures appear to have been followed. Just because I wouldn’t have participated, why should I say nobody else can?
And, since I'm a predestination Presbyterian, I believe that since God preordained that this person would die on this day, if he didn't get killed in a freak accident on a speedway, he would have died in some other way. But did the Lord allow this accident - no matter how freakish - to happen as a way to provoke some considerations of sensibility and prudence among the Carter BloodCare staff? Should risks that go wrong just be written off as the price of progress? Just because a few laps around a NASCAR speedway in a Corvette is fun, is the risk mitigated?
Perhaps my questions and opinions mean little to rogue risk-takers since I've admitted my sympathies lie with Prudence. Maybe since I believe that God will redeem His elect regardless of whether we invade indigenous habitats or nurture cross-cultural bridges, my musings about how non-ethnocentric missions is done mark me as a cynical second-guesser.
Somewhere, though, there exists that line that some evangelicals cross, and that some don't. Yet God uses it all - even the parts that seem so improperly executed.
Maybe the real risk is not doing anything for Him at all.
OK, so maybe all of my rambling about risk simply proves I’m a timid little mouse. I readily admit that risk is not a word people immediately associate with me. And I’m OK with that.
But it’s not only my disjointed DNA and my sheltered upbringing that prejudice me against unnecessary risk. My brother, who was raised by the same parents as I, is a helicopter pilot today, so what does that say about nature and nurture? Of course, he’s an exceptional pilot – in fact, I prefer flying with him rather than riding when he’s driving.
When I lived in New York City, I remember coming home at the end of normal workdays and flopping down on my bed, recalling the numerous opportunities I had that day to be smashed by a speeding bus, run over by a crazy cabdriver, or sliced open by impatient subway doors. I’d take a deep breath and marvel that I was still alive and in one piece! I've since learned that other people who've lived in the Big Apple have had similar "mortality moments." Maybe that’s not the way most people would want to live life, but for me, it was oddly therapeutic and energizing, even though it was physically exhausting.
So again: let this prove that I don’t deny some risks are worth taking.
But… and there’s always a but, isn’t there?
How should evangelical people of faith view risk? What is the degree to which people of faith are called to take risks, and what types of risk should we take?
Pump (clap) You Up
At the risk (!) of unintentionally publicizing what has proven to be utter garbage, let me reference the blasphemous book Wild at Heart by John Eldridge, printed in 2001. Marketing material for this travesty of a “Christian” book included such dorky bylines as “Helping men rediscover their masculine heart” and “Discovering the secret of a man’s soul”.
Among the many fallacies of his book, Eldridge tries to posit the theory that men are basically wild animals with a lust for life that girlie-man theologians have stripped of virility and castrated with empathy, education, and – gasp! – selflessness. His book made a big splash in the evangelical world when it first came out, but aside from some pseudo-Colorado-mountainmen and a few closet metrosexuals, Eldridge’s fantasies about alpha-male primitiveness soon fizzled in the light of Biblical reality.
The reason I bring up this horrible book is to draw upon a major aspect of risk which Eldridge attempts to pawn off as truth: he claims God took risks with His creation, and so should we. Apparently, Eldridge considers that an aversion to risk should be the hallmark of any manly-man, for which God serves as the supreme prototype.
Without wading too far into the muck and mire of all that is wrong with such a theory, can we at least agree that God’s sovereignty, omnipotence, and omniscience automatically preclude the impossibility that God takes any risks? Of all that is possible with God, He cannot take risks, because risk implies He would not have ultimate control over something, or that He would lack intimate knowledge and understanding about something. So right away, even though a lot of people initially defended Wild at Heart by saying “you can’t criticize the book without reading it,” we can indeed and with full conviction proclaim that risk cannot be validated by God’s use of it Himself.
Eldridge Isn't All Wrong
Which leaves us with the remaining shards of Eldridge’s idea that evangelicals should engage in risk for God. Which, of course, is true to a certain extent. But not necessarily in all of the ways Eldridge thinks.
True, “he who loves his live will lose it,” and that we are to “count all things as nothing for the sake of the Gospel.” But that doesn’t mean we’re free to skydive out of a plane into a wildlife sanctuary, tiptoe along the third rail, or even push the legalistic envelope, does it?
As over-quoted as it is, martyred missionary Jim Elliot’s words still ring true: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." That's probably as good a definition of Biblical risk as I've ever heard. Because what did Elliot and his mission team really risk when they went to Ecuador to evangelize the Auca tribespeople? They knew their eternal reward was in Heaven, not here on Earth. In mankind’s way of thinking, perhaps going to jungles ruled by headhunters constituted a ridiculous risk, but if these missionaries were genuinely called by God to serve in the South America, what might they have risked by NOT going?
Taking Risk Further Than God Intends?
Now, I’m going to tread cautiously here: we still need to choose our "risk" ventures carefully, don't we? I’ve read some commentators who wonder if Jim Elliot had a streak of hard-headedness which virtually secured his fate at the hands of the Auca tribesmen. I bring up that theory not because it's been proven as credible, but to caution against misinterpreting foolish bravado for God's direction into danger. Whether Elliot - who has been practically enshrined by contemporary Christian culture - suffered from self-centered, unbiblical risk isn't for me to say, and again, I don't mean to impugn his memory by drawing the correlation between his genuine martyrdom and people with a mentality that justifies their own foolishness and embrace of risk. It's just that Elliot's story seems, um, downright swashbuckling compared with other stories of missionaries who have tread far more cautiously - yet still "successfully" - in their ministries.
Before you burn me at the stake as a heretic, let's move away from Elliot. You have to admit that some people claiming to be Christians seem compelled not by devotion to Christ, but simply because their acquiescence to their Type-A personalities makes it easy to scoff at risk and try to be the hero. It’s ego, pure and simple, to either deny the realities of risk or assume they don’t apply to you.
From my thin knowledge of 19th and 20th Century world missions, it seems like the evangelical fervor of the day tended to wink at risk and embrace the potential for glory that beckoned from distant shores. The terror that must have stalked every missionary upon their disembarking on those distant shores must have been excruciating, and far be it from me to judge their motives and hearts now, after so much Kingdom work has been advanced across the globe by these pioneers. But looking at how missions agencies today let insurance companies, health concerns, and other conventional bureaucratic considerations dictate ministry policies, has professional evangelical work become hog-tied by risk-aversion or simply more prudent and objective? Is less Kingdom work getting done because actuaries, lawyers, and accountants are calling more of the shots? Did God bless the proclamation of His Word because He says He would, despite the foolish risks His messengers took? Do the ends justify the means when it comes to the Gospel?
Which brings us to that thin line between ego and conviction, between risk for personal reward and trust in God despite the odds. Nobody really seems to know where that is.
God Is Sovereign Over Our Risks
The other day, I discussed the risks Carter BloodCare apparently absorbed into their business model by hosting a speedway event in which a guest was killed. Now obviously, people don’t get killed every time they get into a Corvette ripping through a closed speedway course. And all of the participants wore conventional protective gear that up until the crash probably seemed excessive, and after the crash proved inadequate. I’ve talked before about engineering a perfectly safe car, but that it would be so heavy and unwieldy nobody would want to buy or drive it. We take a certain amount of risk for granted every time we back out of our driveway, but should we simply ignore the extrapolation of that risk to a speeding car on a racetrack?
After reading my blog entry, a friend of mine mused that one freak accident shouldn’t necessarily force Carter BloodCare to scrap what otherwise is a novel and evocative way to recognize top blood donors and volunteers. After all, nobody was forced to participate, and by all accounts, proper procedures appear to have been followed. Just because I wouldn’t have participated, why should I say nobody else can?
And, since I'm a predestination Presbyterian, I believe that since God preordained that this person would die on this day, if he didn't get killed in a freak accident on a speedway, he would have died in some other way. But did the Lord allow this accident - no matter how freakish - to happen as a way to provoke some considerations of sensibility and prudence among the Carter BloodCare staff? Should risks that go wrong just be written off as the price of progress? Just because a few laps around a NASCAR speedway in a Corvette is fun, is the risk mitigated?
Perhaps my questions and opinions mean little to rogue risk-takers since I've admitted my sympathies lie with Prudence. Maybe since I believe that God will redeem His elect regardless of whether we invade indigenous habitats or nurture cross-cultural bridges, my musings about how non-ethnocentric missions is done mark me as a cynical second-guesser.
Somewhere, though, there exists that line that some evangelicals cross, and that some don't. Yet God uses it all - even the parts that seem so improperly executed.
Maybe the real risk is not doing anything for Him at all.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Of Risk and Prudence
Risk - Part 2
To respect Risk's dangers seems to invite more disdain than support these days. Not that the adventurous American spirit has ever sustained a denial of Risk; or has ever groveled at the feminine feet of Prudence.
Risk has been a man’s game, glorified as the laugh-in-the-face-of-danger hard-charging fix-the-mess-later macho rough-rider mentality upon which all that is good about humanity has been staked by popular opinion.
Prudence is the quiet, apron-skirted motherly admonition to look both ways before crossing the street as ambition charges out the kitchen door, looking to prove or acquire something. Or just to have fun – that ambiguous goal Risk promises as a reward, and Prudence only quietly defers.
Risk is what banks like to avoid – or used to, anyway. Risk is what insurance companies want to quantify. Prudence, on the other hand, is the way both banks and insurance companies make their money. Like a fist-packing outdoorsman's gracious wife, it’s what makes cold, hard risk palpable.
That’s because as much as we glorify it, Risk rarely proves to be as benign as when it’s manipulated in the game of the same name.
Risk can be measured in levels of tolerance. Indeed, tolerance for Risk can fluctuate over time relative to its rewards. Sometimes new-found confidence and expertise can negate levels of Risk previous generations considered high. On the other hand, considerable levels of strife can negate certain risks such as starvation (compared with moving west from the Dust Bowl) or the Gestapo (compared with serving in the French Resistance).
Rarely do people start a business with little to no Risk. After all, if something didn’t involve Risk, hundreds of other people have probably already tried it, and probably haven’t made much money in the process.
People who don’t Risk something rarely become heroes or cultural icons. Society tends to admire people who – no matter how foolhardy – manage to beat the odds and subdue Risk. Conquering it is how most people most significantly acquire money and achieve status.
And what of Prudence, our erstwhile wallflower of a beneficial personality trait? She receives more lip-serviced respect regarding her benefits, as opposed to the wimps who respect the inherent dangers in Risk and back away from them. Risk champions itself, while Prudence demurs even after stating her case. You many not win if you take risks, but you’ll be thought better of than if you methodically practice Prudence.
So once again, the machismo machine sets the bar, claims its stake, and gets the girl; while the feminine starchiness doesn’t fail, but doesn’t win, either.
Which explains a lot, doesn't it?
To respect Risk's dangers seems to invite more disdain than support these days. Not that the adventurous American spirit has ever sustained a denial of Risk; or has ever groveled at the feminine feet of Prudence.
Risk has been a man’s game, glorified as the laugh-in-the-face-of-danger hard-charging fix-the-mess-later macho rough-rider mentality upon which all that is good about humanity has been staked by popular opinion.
Prudence is the quiet, apron-skirted motherly admonition to look both ways before crossing the street as ambition charges out the kitchen door, looking to prove or acquire something. Or just to have fun – that ambiguous goal Risk promises as a reward, and Prudence only quietly defers.
Risk is what banks like to avoid – or used to, anyway. Risk is what insurance companies want to quantify. Prudence, on the other hand, is the way both banks and insurance companies make their money. Like a fist-packing outdoorsman's gracious wife, it’s what makes cold, hard risk palpable.
That’s because as much as we glorify it, Risk rarely proves to be as benign as when it’s manipulated in the game of the same name.
Risk can be measured in levels of tolerance. Indeed, tolerance for Risk can fluctuate over time relative to its rewards. Sometimes new-found confidence and expertise can negate levels of Risk previous generations considered high. On the other hand, considerable levels of strife can negate certain risks such as starvation (compared with moving west from the Dust Bowl) or the Gestapo (compared with serving in the French Resistance).
Rarely do people start a business with little to no Risk. After all, if something didn’t involve Risk, hundreds of other people have probably already tried it, and probably haven’t made much money in the process.
People who don’t Risk something rarely become heroes or cultural icons. Society tends to admire people who – no matter how foolhardy – manage to beat the odds and subdue Risk. Conquering it is how most people most significantly acquire money and achieve status.
And what of Prudence, our erstwhile wallflower of a beneficial personality trait? She receives more lip-serviced respect regarding her benefits, as opposed to the wimps who respect the inherent dangers in Risk and back away from them. Risk champions itself, while Prudence demurs even after stating her case. You many not win if you take risks, but you’ll be thought better of than if you methodically practice Prudence.
So once again, the machismo machine sets the bar, claims its stake, and gets the girl; while the feminine starchiness doesn’t fail, but doesn’t win, either.
Which explains a lot, doesn't it?
Friday, May 21, 2010
Speed, Blood, and Risk
Risk - Part 1
From the "What Were They Thinking?" files:
This past week, Don Krusemark died when the Corvette in which he was riding blew a tire and hit a concrete wall.
Sad stuff, although not exactly newsworthy, except the Corvette was being driven by professional speed driver Andre Vandenberg on the NASCAR track at the 100,000-seat Texas Motor Speedway in Fort Worth. Vandenberg suffered significant injuries, but survived.
And, oh yeah: 87-year-old Krusemark was the guest of Carter BloodCare, one of the largest blood collection non-profits in North Texas. Carter BloodCare cooked up the idea of rewarding their top platelet donors with a trip around the speedway’s track in a fiberglass sportscar.
Which granted, to a lot of people would sound perfectly harmless. Except it’s not, is it? If it was perfectly harmless, it wouldn’t be fun to so many people. And yes, harmlessness is relative. Shucks, driving a Corvette on LBJ Freeway across North Dallas is probably more dangerous than screaming around the speedway's closed course at 100 mph.
But it took a zany PR wonk at Carter BloodCare to test the limits of common sense – and their liability insurance – by inviting over 100 of their volunteer donors to experience the sanitized thrills first conceived by moonshine runners in the deep South.
Yee-haw.
Now, I have friends who love NASCAR. Even the highly-esteemed music secretary at my Presbyterian church can’t get enough of it. So I’m not going to launch into what I think about a “sport” in which highly-modified vehicles hurtle around a track hundreds of times only to end up where they started. I’m just not going to spend the time to tell you what I think about that.
Although I can’t deny that "professional" speed car racing has given the driving public a lot of safety technology that might not otherwise have been invented. But even that fact speaks more to the inherent dangers of high-speed driving than its benefits.
Last year, Carter BloodCare hosted their first ride-along speedcar event, and it went off without a hitch. People were so pumped about it that doing it again seemed like a no-brainer. The drivers were certified, professional high-speed drivers; and the Corvettes, although they have fiberglass panels, are built for speed and performance. Texas Motor Speedway offers one of the most respected tracks in the NASCAR and IndyCar circuits, and the whole event is completely on a volunteer basis. Nobody forced these riders into the cars; indeed, witnesses said Krusemark was one of the most excited participants they had. Like all the other riders, he wore a helmet and other safety gear.
Unfortunately, even the best tires blow out, don’t they? I’m sure legions of lawyers have already begun descending on the TMS track and the garage housing the Corvette’s remaining shards to try and determine if the tire was defective or if there was debris on the pavement. And at speeds of 100 mph, even a professional driver can’t guarantee they’ll be able to maintain control of a vehicle whose tire has blown. So accidents happen. Tragic ones.
Which makes this whole tragedy that much more ironic. Not just that it was a volunteer affair, not that the victim was 87, but that a blood collection agency was its sponsor. Should their motto now be “If you crash, at least we’ll have plenty of blood on-hand?” How much donated blood did Vandenburg need so he could survive?
Isn’t Carter BloodCare an organization which usually encourages safety, prudence, and prevention?
Even if Krusemark hadn’t been killed this week, how much wisdom does it take to realize that safer and more prudent ways of rewarding people exist? What's the point of pushing the envelope in finding creative ways of saying "thank you" when the price could be so high? Carter BloodCare is in the life-saving business, not risking-life business.
I understand volunteer appreciation banquets can get stale and dull, and kudos to Carter BloodCare for trying to get a bit creative. But providing a full-scale real-life depiction of the need for donated blood should not have been a scenario which eluded their staffers when they were planning this event.
Don't trivialize risks. They exist for a reason.
From the "What Were They Thinking?" files:
This past week, Don Krusemark died when the Corvette in which he was riding blew a tire and hit a concrete wall.
Sad stuff, although not exactly newsworthy, except the Corvette was being driven by professional speed driver Andre Vandenberg on the NASCAR track at the 100,000-seat Texas Motor Speedway in Fort Worth. Vandenberg suffered significant injuries, but survived.
And, oh yeah: 87-year-old Krusemark was the guest of Carter BloodCare, one of the largest blood collection non-profits in North Texas. Carter BloodCare cooked up the idea of rewarding their top platelet donors with a trip around the speedway’s track in a fiberglass sportscar.
Which granted, to a lot of people would sound perfectly harmless. Except it’s not, is it? If it was perfectly harmless, it wouldn’t be fun to so many people. And yes, harmlessness is relative. Shucks, driving a Corvette on LBJ Freeway across North Dallas is probably more dangerous than screaming around the speedway's closed course at 100 mph.
But it took a zany PR wonk at Carter BloodCare to test the limits of common sense – and their liability insurance – by inviting over 100 of their volunteer donors to experience the sanitized thrills first conceived by moonshine runners in the deep South.
Yee-haw.
Now, I have friends who love NASCAR. Even the highly-esteemed music secretary at my Presbyterian church can’t get enough of it. So I’m not going to launch into what I think about a “sport” in which highly-modified vehicles hurtle around a track hundreds of times only to end up where they started. I’m just not going to spend the time to tell you what I think about that.
Although I can’t deny that "professional" speed car racing has given the driving public a lot of safety technology that might not otherwise have been invented. But even that fact speaks more to the inherent dangers of high-speed driving than its benefits.
Last year, Carter BloodCare hosted their first ride-along speedcar event, and it went off without a hitch. People were so pumped about it that doing it again seemed like a no-brainer. The drivers were certified, professional high-speed drivers; and the Corvettes, although they have fiberglass panels, are built for speed and performance. Texas Motor Speedway offers one of the most respected tracks in the NASCAR and IndyCar circuits, and the whole event is completely on a volunteer basis. Nobody forced these riders into the cars; indeed, witnesses said Krusemark was one of the most excited participants they had. Like all the other riders, he wore a helmet and other safety gear.
Unfortunately, even the best tires blow out, don’t they? I’m sure legions of lawyers have already begun descending on the TMS track and the garage housing the Corvette’s remaining shards to try and determine if the tire was defective or if there was debris on the pavement. And at speeds of 100 mph, even a professional driver can’t guarantee they’ll be able to maintain control of a vehicle whose tire has blown. So accidents happen. Tragic ones.
Which makes this whole tragedy that much more ironic. Not just that it was a volunteer affair, not that the victim was 87, but that a blood collection agency was its sponsor. Should their motto now be “If you crash, at least we’ll have plenty of blood on-hand?” How much donated blood did Vandenburg need so he could survive?
Isn’t Carter BloodCare an organization which usually encourages safety, prudence, and prevention?
Even if Krusemark hadn’t been killed this week, how much wisdom does it take to realize that safer and more prudent ways of rewarding people exist? What's the point of pushing the envelope in finding creative ways of saying "thank you" when the price could be so high? Carter BloodCare is in the life-saving business, not risking-life business.
I understand volunteer appreciation banquets can get stale and dull, and kudos to Carter BloodCare for trying to get a bit creative. But providing a full-scale real-life depiction of the need for donated blood should not have been a scenario which eluded their staffers when they were planning this event.
Don't trivialize risks. They exist for a reason.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Are Taser Users the Problem?
When Steve Consalvi got Tasered after running out onto the baseball field during a Philadelphia Phillies home game, he got the attention he sought, but maybe not the type. Attention from fans and the media focused not on the stupidity of teenaged Consalvi’s stunt, but on the fact that security officers at the game used a Taser to bring him down. Popular opinion thought the security officers had over-reacted.
This past week, city officials in Fort Worth, Texas, decided to take the easy way out and approved a $2 million settlement with the family of a mentally-disturbed man who died after being Tasered by a cop during a family dispute.
Sometimes it seems that law enforcement gets no breaks from the public or the press, doesn’t it? Cops that thought Tasers would be a kinder, less-lethal method for subduing troublemakers are now under the gun to prove they aren’t making these situations worse.
In the Fort Worth case, the family of Michael Jacobs called 911 to report that their son was acting uncontrollably. When they arrived, police discovered that he hadn’t been taking his psychiatric medicine and had a history of mental illness. When officers believed Jacobs’ violent behavior was escalating, they Tasered him. Tragically, Jacobs died soon thereafter.
I have to admit my sympathies for the Fort Worth cops and the security personnel in Philadelphia. These officers have been introduced to challenging situations without having been able to read the resumes of the participants, knowing the extent of their behavioral background, or being able to determine their thought processes. Yes, law enforcement professionals should be trained in how to react and apply logic in fast-moving, volatile, and dangerous situations, but don’t forget that their lives may also be on the line.
Also, what is the extent to which we should expect first responders to readily give up their own life at the hands of what looks like a maniac? Aren't cops usually only called out when societal norms and rules for lawful behavior have been violated? Not that I'm suggesting cops should shoot to death motorists pulled over for speeding. But isn't it usually true in these types of cases that hindsight really is 20/20?
Alternatively, do we want our law enforcement officers to be trained so rigorously that their humanity gets erased and they become gun-toting androids? How much safer would our society be if cops had all of their intrinsic safety fears scrubbed away, or they methodically entered life-threatening situations presuming the "alleged" perpetrator's life was worth more than theirs, meaning self-defense was inappropriate? Especially as our society continues to atrophy, and our police inevitably encounter increasingly complex criminal environments?
In Consalvi’s case, his defenders say he was just a kid behaving badly at a baseball game, and security officers unnecessarily Tasered him. But I agree with a number of other people who brought up the fact that security officers had no idea whether Consalvi was a terrorist or not. When you’re chasing a belligerent person who's displaying anti-social behavior around a stadium's outfield, with tens of thousands of people in close proximity, should you be running a racial profile check on the guy? OK, no long beard, no turban – he must be just some silly suburban goofball.
Hmmm… just like the Times Square bomber was, right?
Racial Profiling in Philly
Consalvi’s defenders may not realize it, but they’re playing the race/ethnicity card when they say cops should be able to tell by the color of a person’s skin or type of clothing whether or not the perpetrator is simply being foolish or posing an actual danger to the public. If Consalvi had been an Arab teenager, or black, would they be so forgiving of Consalvi and angry with the officers? Or would they be saying, “Oh yeah, with an Arab running around the field, who knows what would have happened. Those guys shouldn’t have Tasered him, they should have shot him.”
Jacobs’ case, while a bit more complicated, still paints cops unfairly. Jacobs died after an officer held the trigger, activating the shock mechanism for 54 seconds. The officer claims that in the tension of the moment, she forgot that the Taser doesn’t give just one quick jolt, no matter how long one depresses the trigger. The Taser’s darts also hit close to Jacobs’s chest, which probably contributed to his death.
I was not privy to the grand jury hearings on this incident, where the jurors declined to indict the police officer on any charges. The officer was also cleared by an internal affairs investigation by the police department, although the medical examiner ruled Jacobs’ death a homicide. It would be understandable if the subject officer was sent back to Taser class to have a refresher on how to handle the device, but it’s not clear if the Fort Worth Police Department has done so.
The Cops Are There; We Aren't
What people forget, however, is that police were called to a scene in which Jacobs had been threatening his family and had turned his aggression to the officers. When they learned that Jacobs hadn’t been taking his psychiatric medicine, the cops probably figured all bets were off concerning how rational his behavior was going to be. And how logical an assumption is that to make in that type of situation? How naïve is it to second-guess the officers’ Taser use when you’re not there with them, having this large, mentally-unstable man violently compromising the safety of everyone around him?
I have never been a cop, nor do I have any close friends or family members who serve in law enforcement at this time. I don’t own stock in or work for the company that manufactures Tasers. I simply don’t think that anybody who is acting properly and civilly has anything to fear from police or security officers carrying Tasers. People who do trigger the reaction of law enforcement personnel, however, should be wary of the possible consequences.
Including an inability of responding officers to read your mind.
This past week, city officials in Fort Worth, Texas, decided to take the easy way out and approved a $2 million settlement with the family of a mentally-disturbed man who died after being Tasered by a cop during a family dispute.
Sometimes it seems that law enforcement gets no breaks from the public or the press, doesn’t it? Cops that thought Tasers would be a kinder, less-lethal method for subduing troublemakers are now under the gun to prove they aren’t making these situations worse.
In the Fort Worth case, the family of Michael Jacobs called 911 to report that their son was acting uncontrollably. When they arrived, police discovered that he hadn’t been taking his psychiatric medicine and had a history of mental illness. When officers believed Jacobs’ violent behavior was escalating, they Tasered him. Tragically, Jacobs died soon thereafter.
I have to admit my sympathies for the Fort Worth cops and the security personnel in Philadelphia. These officers have been introduced to challenging situations without having been able to read the resumes of the participants, knowing the extent of their behavioral background, or being able to determine their thought processes. Yes, law enforcement professionals should be trained in how to react and apply logic in fast-moving, volatile, and dangerous situations, but don’t forget that their lives may also be on the line.
Also, what is the extent to which we should expect first responders to readily give up their own life at the hands of what looks like a maniac? Aren't cops usually only called out when societal norms and rules for lawful behavior have been violated? Not that I'm suggesting cops should shoot to death motorists pulled over for speeding. But isn't it usually true in these types of cases that hindsight really is 20/20?
Alternatively, do we want our law enforcement officers to be trained so rigorously that their humanity gets erased and they become gun-toting androids? How much safer would our society be if cops had all of their intrinsic safety fears scrubbed away, or they methodically entered life-threatening situations presuming the "alleged" perpetrator's life was worth more than theirs, meaning self-defense was inappropriate? Especially as our society continues to atrophy, and our police inevitably encounter increasingly complex criminal environments?
In Consalvi’s case, his defenders say he was just a kid behaving badly at a baseball game, and security officers unnecessarily Tasered him. But I agree with a number of other people who brought up the fact that security officers had no idea whether Consalvi was a terrorist or not. When you’re chasing a belligerent person who's displaying anti-social behavior around a stadium's outfield, with tens of thousands of people in close proximity, should you be running a racial profile check on the guy? OK, no long beard, no turban – he must be just some silly suburban goofball.
Hmmm… just like the Times Square bomber was, right?
Racial Profiling in Philly
Consalvi’s defenders may not realize it, but they’re playing the race/ethnicity card when they say cops should be able to tell by the color of a person’s skin or type of clothing whether or not the perpetrator is simply being foolish or posing an actual danger to the public. If Consalvi had been an Arab teenager, or black, would they be so forgiving of Consalvi and angry with the officers? Or would they be saying, “Oh yeah, with an Arab running around the field, who knows what would have happened. Those guys shouldn’t have Tasered him, they should have shot him.”
Jacobs’ case, while a bit more complicated, still paints cops unfairly. Jacobs died after an officer held the trigger, activating the shock mechanism for 54 seconds. The officer claims that in the tension of the moment, she forgot that the Taser doesn’t give just one quick jolt, no matter how long one depresses the trigger. The Taser’s darts also hit close to Jacobs’s chest, which probably contributed to his death.
I was not privy to the grand jury hearings on this incident, where the jurors declined to indict the police officer on any charges. The officer was also cleared by an internal affairs investigation by the police department, although the medical examiner ruled Jacobs’ death a homicide. It would be understandable if the subject officer was sent back to Taser class to have a refresher on how to handle the device, but it’s not clear if the Fort Worth Police Department has done so.
The Cops Are There; We Aren't
What people forget, however, is that police were called to a scene in which Jacobs had been threatening his family and had turned his aggression to the officers. When they learned that Jacobs hadn’t been taking his psychiatric medicine, the cops probably figured all bets were off concerning how rational his behavior was going to be. And how logical an assumption is that to make in that type of situation? How naïve is it to second-guess the officers’ Taser use when you’re not there with them, having this large, mentally-unstable man violently compromising the safety of everyone around him?
I have never been a cop, nor do I have any close friends or family members who serve in law enforcement at this time. I don’t own stock in or work for the company that manufactures Tasers. I simply don’t think that anybody who is acting properly and civilly has anything to fear from police or security officers carrying Tasers. People who do trigger the reaction of law enforcement personnel, however, should be wary of the possible consequences.
Including an inability of responding officers to read your mind.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Speak and Listen
Since today is the National Day of Prayer, instead of having you read something that I've written, let me encourage you to spend the time you would have spent on my blog in prayer.
Tomorrow, we'll have a Show & Tell about Dallas' new Winspear Opera House.
Tomorrow, we'll have a Show & Tell about Dallas' new Winspear Opera House.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Getting What You Pay For In Free Speech
Cynicism and satire have their limits, don’t they?
Not that I claim to be particularly erudite at writing with provoking cynicism or whimsical satire. But most of the essays I’ve written for this blog have been heavy on the cynicism, which makes for a decidedly negative weight, doesn’t it?
And a steady diet of satire can become tasteless, can’t it?
That realization has brought me to a conundrum, or at least a fork in the road, regarding this blog. For several months, I’ve pecked away at this keyboard on ideas and opinions that alternatively blast people I think are stupid or grumble against a society that in reality is only slightly more narcissistic than I am.
Without the cloak of specialized doctorates to hide behind, I’ve championed awkward and unpopular ideas, such as classical music in corporate worship. Even though I still strongly adhere to these convictions, I’m not sure I’ve been called to beat other people over the head with them like I have. I still think 1 Chronicles 16 gives me all the legitimacy I need to stand fast in my beliefs regarding corporate worship, but that oftentimes-pesky list of Fruits of the Spirit haunts the approach I’ve taken in sharing those beliefs with others.
She Whose Idea This Blog Was had a good idea when she suggested this project: use it as an online resume of my writing style and opinions. Tell people – prospective employers, mainly – who I am and how I think.
100-plus essays and blog posts later, though, I question the extent to which I’ve really provided a balanced perspective of who I am… or, if I have indeed succeeded in telling you who I am, I haven’t painted a very flattering picture of myself, have I?! I keep looking out my door, but I've yet to see publishers beating a path to it.
I suspect that many of my regular readers (not that I have many readers, but of the readers I have) have been friends of mine for years, and the fact that they’re still friends means they’ve developed either a crusty shell against my barbed thoughts or a gracious condescension for tolerating them. After all, they must think, we all have our faults. Tim just tells us his faults whenever he talks or writes!
Alternatively, I could currently be indulging in a bit of writer’s wallow and brooding nihilism. I wouldn’t be the first person trying to write who’s stumbled upon the realization that most people really don’t care what I think, or that what I think isn’t as important or essential as I imagine.
But even if that’s not the full story, I suspect that’s part of it. Even my blog’s numbers, as tracked by Google Analytics, are down. Total visits are down, and the length of time people stay on my site has declined from about six minutes to not quite two. And knowing how long it takes to read most of my essays, I’m not convinced my dwindling volume of visitors are all speed readers.
Not that I’m openly soliciting a flood of protestations from my readers saying how well I write and that my opinions are valuable. Indeed, whatever my readers are trying to do themselves to prove their worth, provide for their families, or exercise their abilities, you have your own seasons of angst and doubts, and we all have our seasons of success and failures. I've been blessed by the encouraging words and feedback from people who have read what I've been writing, I'm appreciative of every single person who has taken their time to read any of it, and I'm amazed at those of you who keep doing so! However, with no offense intended, that doesn't pay the bills, does it?
Is there a trick to successfully analyzing where we are, where we think we’re supposed to be going, and how we think we can get there? How long can people like me sit and listen to well-paid analysts blither about how the recession is easing and people are going back to work - without going insane? How much blithering like that have I committed?
There has to be a way for me to make what I write provide some sort of value to you, my readers. As nice as you may be, your graciousness in reading my stuff will only last so long. Plus, whether it's here in my blog, or in some other venue, I can't justify simply pontificating opinions day after day. What kind of contribution is that?
At some point, I could risk turning into the Rush Limbaugh of the disenfranchised evangelical set... which should send shivers up all our backbones.
Not that I claim to be particularly erudite at writing with provoking cynicism or whimsical satire. But most of the essays I’ve written for this blog have been heavy on the cynicism, which makes for a decidedly negative weight, doesn’t it?
And a steady diet of satire can become tasteless, can’t it?
That realization has brought me to a conundrum, or at least a fork in the road, regarding this blog. For several months, I’ve pecked away at this keyboard on ideas and opinions that alternatively blast people I think are stupid or grumble against a society that in reality is only slightly more narcissistic than I am.
Without the cloak of specialized doctorates to hide behind, I’ve championed awkward and unpopular ideas, such as classical music in corporate worship. Even though I still strongly adhere to these convictions, I’m not sure I’ve been called to beat other people over the head with them like I have. I still think 1 Chronicles 16 gives me all the legitimacy I need to stand fast in my beliefs regarding corporate worship, but that oftentimes-pesky list of Fruits of the Spirit haunts the approach I’ve taken in sharing those beliefs with others.
She Whose Idea This Blog Was had a good idea when she suggested this project: use it as an online resume of my writing style and opinions. Tell people – prospective employers, mainly – who I am and how I think.
100-plus essays and blog posts later, though, I question the extent to which I’ve really provided a balanced perspective of who I am… or, if I have indeed succeeded in telling you who I am, I haven’t painted a very flattering picture of myself, have I?! I keep looking out my door, but I've yet to see publishers beating a path to it.
I suspect that many of my regular readers (not that I have many readers, but of the readers I have) have been friends of mine for years, and the fact that they’re still friends means they’ve developed either a crusty shell against my barbed thoughts or a gracious condescension for tolerating them. After all, they must think, we all have our faults. Tim just tells us his faults whenever he talks or writes!
Alternatively, I could currently be indulging in a bit of writer’s wallow and brooding nihilism. I wouldn’t be the first person trying to write who’s stumbled upon the realization that most people really don’t care what I think, or that what I think isn’t as important or essential as I imagine.
But even if that’s not the full story, I suspect that’s part of it. Even my blog’s numbers, as tracked by Google Analytics, are down. Total visits are down, and the length of time people stay on my site has declined from about six minutes to not quite two. And knowing how long it takes to read most of my essays, I’m not convinced my dwindling volume of visitors are all speed readers.
Not that I’m openly soliciting a flood of protestations from my readers saying how well I write and that my opinions are valuable. Indeed, whatever my readers are trying to do themselves to prove their worth, provide for their families, or exercise their abilities, you have your own seasons of angst and doubts, and we all have our seasons of success and failures. I've been blessed by the encouraging words and feedback from people who have read what I've been writing, I'm appreciative of every single person who has taken their time to read any of it, and I'm amazed at those of you who keep doing so! However, with no offense intended, that doesn't pay the bills, does it?
Is there a trick to successfully analyzing where we are, where we think we’re supposed to be going, and how we think we can get there? How long can people like me sit and listen to well-paid analysts blither about how the recession is easing and people are going back to work - without going insane? How much blithering like that have I committed?
There has to be a way for me to make what I write provide some sort of value to you, my readers. As nice as you may be, your graciousness in reading my stuff will only last so long. Plus, whether it's here in my blog, or in some other venue, I can't justify simply pontificating opinions day after day. What kind of contribution is that?
At some point, I could risk turning into the Rush Limbaugh of the disenfranchised evangelical set... which should send shivers up all our backbones.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Don't Mess With Times Square
Faisal Shahzad obviously isn't into musicals. Otherwise, he'd have known that the optimum congestion in Times Square doesn't take place on Saturday nights, but on Wednesday afternoons, when Broadway has its matinees. Specifically, when the matinees let out, and the tour buses are already bringing in the throngs for the evening shows, and office workers start trying to make their way home.
He also apparently doesn't know how to parallel-park, because his poor parking skills were one feature which caught the attention of sidewalk vendors. But then, I guess when you think you've got enough explosive stuff in the back of your SUV to blow up half of "the crossroads of the world," trying to squeeze into a Manhattan parking space becomes even more nerve-wracking than normal.
Shahzad has been charged today with terrorism in connection with the foiled bombing of midtown Manhattan's 45th Street, and apparently, he's not denying it. While experts say his explosive contraption could have killed people and blown out windows, it wouldn't have destroyed any buildings. Some cops have also said that the evidence Shahzad left in his SUV, combined with his sloppy trail of clues leading all the way into Connecticut, portray him as woefully amateurish at the whole KaBoom! thing.
Which doesn't exactly instill people with confidence, does it? We all know that any idiot can blow stuff up. Such incidents may not topple the US government, or even a one-story building, but they can still inflict plenty of death, fear, and anxiety.
Nevertheless, you have to hand it to law enforcement agencies which took the case from smoky Pathfinder to a jet pulling away from the gate at Kennedy: about 48 hours from start to arrest. We won't count the time it took from the early-evening images police say capture the Pathfinder snaking through Times Square traffic to the time when the street vendors saw the smoke. What's amazing about having the SUV parked along the street is that Shahzad found a curbside spot at all in Midtown on a Saturday night, so who knows how long it took him to find it.
After our recent series of political stupidity with nationalizing healthcare, the dreary drumbeat of earthquake news from across the planet, the goofball who set his family jewels on fire during a flight to Detroit Christmas day, and the BP folly taking place in the Gulf of Mexico as you read this, isn't it strangely refreshing to see how some people can still work together and pull of an amazing bit of Find-The-Terrorist?
Mayor Bloomberg took the officer who first called in the smoldering SUV and his wife to dinner at the W hotel in Times Square Sunday to show his appreciation - and prove he felt safe in the neighborhood. But kudos - really, ladies and gentlemen: congratulations, and thank you! - to everybody involved in averting this calamity, including the street vendors who initially noticed the oddly-parked Nissan.
Have a warm, soft pretzel on me!
He also apparently doesn't know how to parallel-park, because his poor parking skills were one feature which caught the attention of sidewalk vendors. But then, I guess when you think you've got enough explosive stuff in the back of your SUV to blow up half of "the crossroads of the world," trying to squeeze into a Manhattan parking space becomes even more nerve-wracking than normal.
Shahzad has been charged today with terrorism in connection with the foiled bombing of midtown Manhattan's 45th Street, and apparently, he's not denying it. While experts say his explosive contraption could have killed people and blown out windows, it wouldn't have destroyed any buildings. Some cops have also said that the evidence Shahzad left in his SUV, combined with his sloppy trail of clues leading all the way into Connecticut, portray him as woefully amateurish at the whole KaBoom! thing.
Which doesn't exactly instill people with confidence, does it? We all know that any idiot can blow stuff up. Such incidents may not topple the US government, or even a one-story building, but they can still inflict plenty of death, fear, and anxiety.
Nevertheless, you have to hand it to law enforcement agencies which took the case from smoky Pathfinder to a jet pulling away from the gate at Kennedy: about 48 hours from start to arrest. We won't count the time it took from the early-evening images police say capture the Pathfinder snaking through Times Square traffic to the time when the street vendors saw the smoke. What's amazing about having the SUV parked along the street is that Shahzad found a curbside spot at all in Midtown on a Saturday night, so who knows how long it took him to find it.
After our recent series of political stupidity with nationalizing healthcare, the dreary drumbeat of earthquake news from across the planet, the goofball who set his family jewels on fire during a flight to Detroit Christmas day, and the BP folly taking place in the Gulf of Mexico as you read this, isn't it strangely refreshing to see how some people can still work together and pull of an amazing bit of Find-The-Terrorist?
Mayor Bloomberg took the officer who first called in the smoldering SUV and his wife to dinner at the W hotel in Times Square Sunday to show his appreciation - and prove he felt safe in the neighborhood. But kudos - really, ladies and gentlemen: congratulations, and thank you! - to everybody involved in averting this calamity, including the street vendors who initially noticed the oddly-parked Nissan.
Have a warm, soft pretzel on me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)