Liberal commentary on the Cho matter

The latest is Marc Fisher's piece in yesterday's New York Post, for the sheer inner workings of the liberal mind it can't be beat. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine's review panel charged with investigating the Virginia-Tech shootings came out, apparently heads are not gonna roll over this one. Is everyone mental? I mean there's a real crisis going on and they're talking about the, get this, the e-mails should have gone out faster. I'm sorry but if there's a psycho on campus getting ready to rock you get on the intercom, the loudspeaker, the bullhorn and get the people the hell out and lock the place down. Maybe we're too obsessed with the computer these days, it's like it's our only frame of reference even in an emergency ("Grandad's having a heart attack, e-mail your brother.")

But what I'm really getting at is the liberalism behind all the punditry. Now the reader may recall all the apocalyptic moral denunciations of Don Imus, you may have heard, but Cho was a sorry character who slipped through the cracks who didn't get the help he needed (kinda our fault as usual). At least he never chopped on black basketball players like Jimmy the Greek did once, a topic sportswriter Phil Mushnick is still obsessed with. And what's the deal with this quiet loner line already? Over 90% of whatever you want to call them probably wouldn't even shoot a deer, can we get over the defense of social cliques already? Few years ago criticism of cliques was all the rage, now it's a crime to not be in one.

Bottom line is Don Imus is still more evil than the Virginia-Tech killer, no talk of chemical-imbalance there. At worst Cho had issues, liberalism holds, as Mr. Fisher demonstrates, that he was mental but not evil. We reserve that phrase for the politically incorrect (Whoopie, watch your back).