WSJ Columnist Asks if Women Saved by Boyfriends in Aurora Theater Shooting Were Worth It

[Hissyspit]

Source: New York Observer

WSJ Columnist Asks if Women Saved By Boyfriends in Aurora Theater Shooting Were Worth It

By Steve Huff 2:49am

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto’s bad Tuesday night on Twitter is a tale of two tweets. First, Mr. Taranto’s offending post, which started a firestorm. Referring to the three women whose boyfriends saved them from the bullets of a mass murderer in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater on July 20, Mr. Taranto wrote:

I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice.

— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) July 25, 2012

Yes, the columnist who helms WSJ‘s “Best of the Web Today” waded right in to the fray. The question many responding to his “challenging” tweet asked was why? Why even say such a thing?

Read more: http://observer.com/2012/07/wsj-columnist-asks-if-women-saved-by-boyfriends-in-aurora-theater-shooting-were-worth-it/

[hlthe2b]

1. What a low form of life to even ask that.

Uggh... I hope he faces plenty of repercussions for his total lack of humanity.

[valerief]

2. What do you expect from a Murdoch rag? nt

[yardwork]

3. Taranto has serious problems.

[tk2kewl]

4. These are the sort of douchebags that wield power in todays world

they truly believe their own humanity is so much more valuable than that of anyone else

[Botany]

5. And this man still has a job?

An act of bravery and self sacrifice that was done in heartbeat is used
to question the worth of the people they saved? This is salt into an open
wound by a really unthinking man.



Mr. Taranto .... beer gut and bad head rug too.

[UpInArms]

9. another rw pigbag

[Botany]

13. I wonder if any of those dead heros brothers, fathers, and or friends would like to ...

.... spend some time w/ Mr Taranto? I am not into violence but that man
really needs an attitude adjustment.

How long before a "they took my words out of context" from that dough ball?

[Sherman A1]

46. No

he would have to improve by several magnitudes to reach the level of rw pigbag.....

[bluedigger]

19. Is he using the flag as decoration?

[Judi Lynn]

34. He may put it there to block a clear view of his patch of weeds.

Or, maybe he uses it as his napkin, or shawl.

[hobbit709]

6. That rates more than one

[Liberalynn]

7. What a sick ass

[athenasatanjesus]

8. Go easy on him he was just trying to be funny...

..and he's a conservative,you know how hard it is for a conservative to be funny,that's like a guy with no legs trying to run...to the moon.

[MicaelS]

10. Utterly despicable n/t

[joeglow3]

11. Is it that different from this?

Granted, I don't agree with the manner in which he did it. It is a question best left for the women. I hope they take the opportunity afforded them and live great lives and make a difference.

[Hissyspit]

14. Um, yes. It is different.

And that movie mostly sucked, anyway. Full of war movie clichés.

[joeglow3]

15. I think you missed the point.

The movie "sucking" had nothing to do with the single point made at the end, that I am referencing. The character realized how many people sacrificed their own lives for his and he wanted assurances that he lived a good life, making their sacrifices more worthwhile. I would think that is a VERY reasonable question one would have of themselves in that situation and one that these women may find themselves asking a time or two.

[LanternWaste]

25. It's an absurd question

"I would think that is a VERY reasonable question ..." It's an absurd question. Who determines the value or worth of a person? The vast majority of us know people who, if asked that specific question, would answer that we are worth nothing. We also know people who would tell us that we are worth everything and more to them.


And I would think that is a most unreasonable question-- we do not save lives because they have more of, or less of an intrinsic value or worth , we save lives because it's the right thing to do. Period.


Anyone who believes of themselves it's even possible to determine that "ethical quotient" is either lying to themselves, not examined the question in and of itself very closely, or simply challenged in a most profound and absurd way re: human behavior.

[Hissyspit]

27. No, I didn't.

It is for the women to ask if they want, not Taranto. His asking it is presumptuous, arrogant, misogynist, insensitive, inappropriate, patriarchal, stupid and not just a little bit sick.

I really had to explain that to you?

[joeglow3]

40. So, it would have been an okay question if a woman jumped in front of her boyfriend?

[RoseMead]

45. No, that's not the point

It doesn't matter if a woman saved a man or if a man saved a woman. If a person who was saved by the heroic actions of another wants to ask *themselves* if they were worth the sacrifice, then that's up to them. But no one else needs to be asking that question. Not Mr. Taranto, not you. Nobody.

It comes across as something similar to victim blaming. It's not exactly the same, but close enough in my book to be extremely offensive.

[joeglow3]

48. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID

I said it is a valid question that the survivor could ask themselves, but he should not be. I was responding to the person who said his asking of the question was sexist. I agree with what you are saying about it, but I would not call it sexist.

[Hissyspit]

53. Of course it was.

Quit apologizing for Taranto. He absolutely meant it to be sexist. He could have Tweeted "I hope the people who were killed saving other people...," but he didn't, did he?

[Hissyspit]

54. No.

[progressivebydesign]

17. That's a Hollywood movie, not real life. This is real life. n/t

[joeglow3]

23. Really, that is your response?

You honestly think it is impossible for a movie to have circumstances similar to real life? You really think that a movie cannot show someone who had other people sacrifice their own lives so they can live question if they lived a life worthy of that sacrifice?

I honestly cannot believe you really think that.

[rtracey]

30. and what if they dont

And what if they don't live great lives, what if they curl up and die because they just saw their boyfriends, fiance's, whatever murdered in front of them. I believe the point is, these men who shielded their girlfriends are heros to them, and will be remembered by the girlfriends as that. I doesn't matter what they do with their lives. Everyone should strive to live better lives everyday, not just during an emergency or tragedy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

31. Beat you to it by an hour and a half

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1018425

[joeglow3]

41. It is a valid point

Again, I stated that it is not his place to judge that worth, but I think it is completely reasonable for someone who is the beneficiary of that sacrifice to ask that question. You can add all your laughing people you want, it does not change that fact.

[RoseMead]

47. But THEY are not asking that question

The people who were saved are not asking that question, or if they are, they are not currently doing so publicly.

Yes, if THEY want to ask that, they certainly can. But NOBODY should be asking that for them, or suggesting that they SHOULD be asking that of themselves.

Honestly, you're talking about people who lost people they, presumably, loved. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't trying to be heartless, but that is how you are coming across in this thread.

[joeglow3]

49. I agree it is not his place to ask that question

I have stated that multiple times. I am simply saying, given that this is the topic of the thread, that it is a reasonable question a survivor in those circumstances could ask themselves.

And frankly, I don't think my discussing this on a message board that I can damn near guarantee (99.99%) will never be shared with the survivor or their immediate family/friends is heartless. Now, if I discussed this on a television show, was a famous (or semi-famous) who tweeted it, etc. I agree it would be heartless.

[RoseMead]

56. "a reasonable question a survivor in those circumstances could ask themselves"

Yes, but you aren't one of those survivors, so its not for you or for Mr. Taranto to even be bringing that subject up in the first place. Sure, you can say what you want, nobody can stop you, it's just a message board, etc. But to broach the subject at this point is crass and unfeeling, imo. The bodies are barely cold, for heaven's sake.

If those women want to come out publicly and question whether they are worthy of the sacrifice of their boyfriends, and people then wish to comment on those statements, that would be a different story. But right now they are most likely traumatized and grieving. They may already be blaming themselves for the deaths of those they loved - I know I would probably be doing that, were I in their shoes. To turn around and question whether they are worthy of the lives lost, or to suggest they should be thinking about that right now, IS heartless.

You may feel there's no harm in your words, because the victims of the shooting will never see your words themselves. You're probably right about that. But this is a public setting, and your words are public, even if they are only aimed at a limited audience. It would be thoughtful, and compassionate, I think, to keep the question of whether people were worthy of saving to yourself, at least until the point that one of these women decides to discuss the matter publicly herself. And by "yourself," I mean you and anyone else who wants to address this particular question at this point in time.

[joeglow3]

61. Using that logic, how long after a war ends can I discuss the impact of it

Sorry, but I don't accept the logic that I am barred from discussing items surrounding a tragedy ANYWHERE for a period of time. How long do we have to wait? Is it similar to South Park saying it takes 22.3 years for something to be funny:

[RoseMead]

63. Please, don't try to be cute about this

First, we're not talking about "a war." We are talking about a specific event that occurred less than a week ago. Five days ago, to be exact.

You know very well there is no set time limit for something like this. But if YOU were involved in a horrible, traumatic event where your life was saved by the sacrifice of someone you cared for, how long would it take for you to become ready to face a question like that? How soon would you feel comfortable with strangers asking that question on your behalf? Is that something you are capable of imagining? Because I know that *I* would probably be a fucking basket case, and I would probably already be blaming myself - however unreasonably - for my loved one's death, and five days would NOT be enough.

You want to know when I think it will be appropriate to ask the question of whether they were worthy or discuss whether they should ask themselves the same? When THEY decide to discuss it. Whenever that is, even if it's never.

And, since you brought it up, AIDS still isn't funny, that South Park episode was stupid, and the time frame in which terrible things can be finally considered "funny" has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion, since as far as I know, no one is joking about this at all. At least I hope to gawd they're not.

[joeglow3]

66. Glad to know you can never discuss that until YOU are in that situation

I am just glad Doctors can operate on cancer without first having had cancer themselves.

[LanternWaste]

58. Who precisely, at the end of any given day, would believe themselves not worth it?

Who precisely, at the end of any given day, would judge themselves not worth it? Short answer-- no one.

Everyone would consider themselves worth it, regardless of whether there is indeed, some objective measure measure from which we base an answer (but there's not). Everyone. I'm quite certain Pres. Abbas of Syria believes he is worth the sacrifice of a dying country. I imagine Stalin thought himself worthy of the sacrifice of a generation of Russian men.

Someone that we may off-the-cuff want to say are not worth it would most likely lie to themselves and in fact, believe that they are worthy of the sacrifice. And those whom you may indeed believe to be worthy of sacrifice would most likely believe that too. No one, outside of the depressed or the psychotic would answer to themselves any differently.

So it's not a valid point-- in that the answer would be the same for every person asking the question.




What you appear to be missing is that the question is one we should all be asking ourselves every day-- regardless of whether or not someone saved our lives, presented us with a much needed job opportunity, or simply opened a door for us or cooked us dinner. There are forests and there are trees-- I realize it's difficult to see both sometimes.

So let's go easy on the ethical pontifications and ablative moral absolutes until we ourselves meet those qualifications.

[JaneQPublic]

12. They were to those men; and that's all that matters.

It appears Taranto is trying to rationalize his own cowardice.

[gopiscrap]

16. This asshole columnist needs to be fired

most likely he's an apologist for the nra!!!

[Judi Lynn]

18. Feeling protective toward another human being is a foreign concept to Republicans.

There must ALWAYS be a profit at the end, and a BIG profit to get them to move their porkbutts.

Motivation to spur them to action, other than greed, could be revenge, or hatred. Not much else.

First they would have to be able to contemplate the action with a satisfactory answer to "What's in it for me?"

[byeya]

21. His offensive question will no doubt be endorsed by Randians which

seem to have most of the positions of power in the repug party.

[Judi Lynn]

32. They all have become contortionists in embracing Rand,an atheist, & cherry-picked parts of the Bible

Without a doubt, Ayn Rand would be proud of them.

[zeemike]

38. You got it...it is all about self interest.

And that is the philosophy of Ayn Rand they follow....that selfishness is a virtue and self interest is all that matters.
It is a sick philosophy but one the right wing has embraced.
This turd if he had been in the theatre would have pushed his girl friend in front of him in self interest and justified it by the belief that he deserved to live more than her...the worst kind of coward

[wilt the stilt]

50. ding ding ding

we have a winner. The cry of the repub- I'm out for number 1

[gaspee]

20. Asshole

[thelordofhell]

22. I wonder what his wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband thinks of this?

What a pathetic piece of shit

[KamaAina]

44. Why don't you ask her?

[truthisfreedom]

24. I wonder if his fingers are worthy of his keyboard?

Or his ass worthy of his chair?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

26. I didn't find it offensive it at all...

But I wouldn't have said it myself. I found it as more of a commentary on relationships that are rarely long-lasting.

Dying to save someone you might break up with a few weeks or months down the road is kind of a bummer, but how would you know. A person that has passed on does not have the unfortunate regret that comes with hindsight.

In that moment, it may reveal more about your love for that person than you knew. Who knows? I'm sure his thoughts didn't run that deeply, but it's how I felt about it.

[frylock]

28. can't imagine that there's a lot of people lining up to take a bullet for this douche

[center rising]

33. Scum!!

[Doremus]

35. James Taranto is soul mates with Jamie Rohrs.

Rohrs is the one who put his baby on the floor and ran away like a frightened rabbit, leaving his wife and 2 children to fend for themselves.

James Taranto is cut from the same mold, I have no doubt.

[neeksgeek]

36. That does it, I'm no longer reading the WSJ ... oh wait...

Seriously, I would die to protect my wife, and I would have done so before she was my wife. Of course I would rather protect my wife and live to tell about it, but I would protect her regardless. I know I would do it and I wouldn't even have to think about it, it's built-in. When we walk down the street together I walk on the outside. I will not apologize if anybody thinks that is just corny or old-fashioned. It's part of being a man.

Something I'm sure this cretin doesn't understand.

[firenewt]

37. What? This is just what I would expect from WSJ and the shitbag puppets that work there. "Well

uh sputter, sputter, it is a question that needs to be asked cause people need to know, uh uh". Demeaning the value of women - they better be worth it - you know, cause they are just women. Listen fucker, their boyfriends thought so and that answers your question. However, in a civilized and just society that question would never be asked or even considered.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. He should be fired

[raccoon]

42. With an attitude like that, I'd be surprised if he has a wife/girlfriend/SO.

Unless maybe the SO is in it for the money.....

[Beacool]

43. Well, they were worthy to the men who gave their lives to save them.

What a jerk!!!!!!

[harun]

52. Classy

[ellenfl]

55. another rw misogynist. quelle surprise. eom

[LittleGirl]

57. He said that OUT LOUD

wtf?

[SDjack]

59. It is natural question for Taranto to ask, as he knows that he would never do that. It is

just too gallant to consider.

[KansDem]

60. Wall Street Urinal values...

1) How much is this person worth?
2) What's in it for me?

Very similar to Republican values...

[mikeytherat]

62. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

mikey_the_rat

[tanyev]

64. I'm guessing he can't name any woman worth sacrificing his own life for.

[JI7]

65. even people who are messed up can have people who love them

so even if these women were not "worthy" to this guy what does it matter ?

and many people save lives of those they don't even know. sometimes it just means the person risking their life maybe sees life in a different way than people like this columnist.

this is one of the stupidest things i have read

[mwrguy]

67. Fire him

He has no right to be spreading that filth.