But Mary,
do axioms really get us anywhere?
It doesn't take much to accuse all mankind of corruption (since the person uttering the accusation would be assumed in the accusation) considering that all of mankind is indeed corrupt.
And that's certainly no reason to call a terrible act for what it truly is.... since it would be 'corrupt' to act as if it was something it wasn't.

"He that accuses all mankind of corruption ought to remember that he is sure to convict only one." Burke

Some people have ways of telling you about themselves: liars think that everyone lies; cheaters think that everyone cheats; thieves think that everyone steals; and bigots think that "everyone is a bigot".

Off-topic, undocumented inflammatory comments are in violation of Da Rulz.
Reston: Look up "bigot" and rethink your idea that "everyone is a bigot" and so it is all right.
I forget, has Reston been disinvited to participate on the blog? If he hasn't, he easily could be if he continues on his present course.

RULE 1 VIOLATION REMOVED

It's been quite a while since reston dropped by to enlighten us with his hatred, bigotry, and lies.

RULE 1 VIOLATION REMOVED

In a sign that the Obama honeymoon truly is over, I began to hear this week the first stirrings of a wistfulness about Mr Bush. "I never thought I'd hear myself say it," one Democrat told me. "But Obama makes you feel that at least with Bush you knew where he was on something."

article here

but since he was there it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have some introductory comments to the people there for that purpose
Bush did not know of the attacks until the middle of his interaction with the school kids. O, apparently, knew about this before beginning his speechifying. The proper thing for him to do would have been to open up with something like "Before I begin my comments regarding this conference, as many of you are aware, a tragedy has recently occurred at Ft. Hood....." Then, after making his comments regarding Ft. Hood, he could move on to the conference.

He wants to downplay it and brush it aside because of what it is: the first terrorist attack to occur on US soil since 9-11. Many of us gave Bush a pass on some questionable domestic policy decisions because he put the security of this country at the forefront of his administration's policies. And it worked. For 7+ years, he kept the war thousands of miles from our shore. And now, as many of us predicted, our soft Commander in Chief has encouraged, through a projection of weakness, the war to once again return to our shores. Portraying this as a simple case of a nut-job gives Obama two things: (1)the ability to claim that he has prevented any domestic terrorism, and (2)a nice segue into a gun-control debate that is most certainly in our near future.
Hope and Change.....

The state owned media will never ever call Obama to task for this.

Obama: a man utterly, utterly lost without a prompter.

FYI The "Medal of Honor" winner who was "shouted out" wasn't a recipient of that medal and honor. He had received the Medal of Freedom. That a BIG difference. See below for story links.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-bates/2009/11/06...
“Obama Gives Shout Out to 'Congressional Medal of Honor Winner' Who Isn't
By Mike Bates (Bio | Archive)
November 6, 2009 - 01:18 ET
The Washington Post this afternoon reported "President Obama delivers remarks on Ft. Hood shooting at end of tribal leaders conference." The transcript begins:
SPEAKER: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
[*] OBAMA: Please, everybody, have a seat. Let me first of all just thank Ken and the entire Department of the Interior staff for organizing just an extraordinary conference.
I want to thank my Cabinet members and senior administration officials who participated today. I hear that Dr. Joe Medicine Crow (ph) was around, and so I want to give a shout out to that Congressional Medal of Honor winner. It's good to see you."
Ah, the dangers of giving shout outs without a teleprompter. Crow is not a Medal of Honor recipient. As noted by the Congressional Medal of Honor Society:
The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.
Crow's name is not included on the Society's Medal of Honor recipient list. He was, however, awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in August.
Obama, often described as "cerebral" by the mainstream media, should know the difference between the Medal of Honor and the Medal of Freedom, especially since he personally awarded the latter to Crow. Don't expect his blunder to receive wide coverage. It's not something he can blame George Bush for.”
http://www.cmohs.org/
The Medal of Honor is the highest award for valor in action against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name of Congress, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Quasi-
There was also nothing to be gained by President Bush leaving the classroom, since arrangements to get all the security for him to leave ahead of schedule had to be put in place.
The most charitable interpretation I can come up with for Obama's pattern of response to military folks being shot here, at home, is that he's simply not comfortable with military folks-- basically, he believes he doesn't "get" how "they" feel and react, so he's a bit at loss on how to communicate effectively.

I don't consider this a pet goat moment.
The President Bush was already engaged with the children and chose to bring that event to a graceful end rather that jump up and leave in panic.
Obama, on the other hand had already been briefed before he took the podium and ignored the topic for several minutes to engage in shout outs and patting adults on the head before he addressed the shootings.
I suppose the teleprompter had to be programmed to tall him what his immediate thoughts were.

From this morning's "tribute"-- a whole, what, 30 seconds for the dead?-- I'd say he wants to downplay it.

"I don't understand this statement. Are you saying the President should have announced that the solider had a disgruntled Muslim? What purpose would that have served in the short time after the incident? It is an important discussion, but at such a sensitive moment?"
I don't see Jimmy's statement as insisting that the President should have announced that the man was a disgruntled Muslim, just a recognition that the President should have understood, even from the sketchy information available, that this shooting might likely be much more than just a matter of another kook with a rifle... that it was part of a broader narrative within the current struggle against radical Islamic jihad. Knowing that, he definitely should have dealt with the shooting first and foremost, as a matter of concern to all Americans, and then addressed other matters in a low-key, parenthetical fashion.
Unless he WANTS to downplay the dangerous reality of Islamic jihad on American soil, which he very well might.

I can't tell whether it is a blessing or a curse that I no longer watch tv (never bought a converter box and stopped watching years earlier, anyways). I get all of my news via Internet, which means that there is much less emotional content and it is much more narrowly focused, per article.
As such, I have to wait for information in driblets.
I cannot speak to the president's motivation in putting his announcement at the end, so, I'm pretty much useless in this thread. However, I would caution people to wait with the, "Muslims in the military = bad," until we have more information about this particular individual. In other words, don't skip from the individual to the group without proper cause, otherwise that is the fallacy of composition.
The Chicken

bklyn catholic
It may put Muslim soldiers at risk of accusations, but we should not be wandering around like sheep amidst a pack of wolves. Also, while Jimmy may not do so, I will do more than just suggest, I will state emphatically that all Muslim-American soldiers and civilians are a potential security risk?, One cannot read the Quran (Koran) and then view Muslims as a peaceful people who want to co-exist with the world. To do so is to ignore the the foundations of what their religion teaches. Which is convert or die. No matter how anyone tries to spin it, that is their belief. They don't care how you die. Quickly in an act of terrorism such as this, or slowly as you starve to death under their rule because you believe you are co-existing peacefully but they view you as a heretic with no rights to be alive. Islam does not have the same principles of Christianity, and the Muslims have had the same ideology since The Crusades, and yet somehow we Christians seem to shrug it off. It's time we take our heads out of the sand and face reality, and double our efforts to lead them to Christ. Because our choices are as follows.
1. Convert to Islam
2. Convert Muslims to Christianity
3. Die
Unlike the past, Evangelization has become important not only for the saving of souls, it has become important for the saving of lives.

*shrug* Tacky or tone-deaf, take your pick.
At least he responded on the same day, this time--didn't it take two or three days for the recruiting station shooting?

Agreed, Jim.
This merited an immediate response by Pres Obama, and from the White House. Instead, his remarks sounded like an afterthought ... at the end of the day, following scheduled remarks to a conference. "...some of you might have heard...."

"And it'll only look worse as the fact--which the president presumably knew (since it's one of the very first things he should have been told)--that the shooter was a disgruntled Muslim penetrates public consciousness."
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying the President should have announced that the solider had a disgruntled Muslim? What purpose would that have served in the short time after the incident? It is an important discussion, but at such a sensitive moment?
Couldn't it put other Muslim soldiers at risk of accusations or are you suggesting that all Muslim-American soldiers are a potential security risk? I'm not trying to put words into your mouth - I'm honestly not understanding what you are suggesting by the quoted statement.
As for your original concern - that he addressed people in the audience before the incident. Fine, he shouldn't have "shouted out" to a Medal of Honor winner. He probably shouldn't have addressed the conference at all, but since he was there it seems unlikely that he wouldn't have some introductory comments to the people there for that purpose. I think you are making a bigger deal of this than is necessary, which I think you are choosing to do. Much like the liberals that consistently (and with vitriol) went of their way to criticize George Bush.
In any case, I really enjoy your posts on theology and I completely understand this is your blog to do with as you like. That I don't agree with your characterization of the political environment won't keep me from coming to your website. I just won't always agree with you.