http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/at-metropolitan-opera-support-for-paris-sounds-out-with-singing-of-frances-national-anthem/?_r=0

It's never sounded better!

Thanks for posting.


Jim.

Agreed!

Thanks, Bobbo

---

Paul D

Best rendition ever!

This one never fails to provide a little heart tug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTsg9i6lvqU

A real favorite.

Seems people have forgotten the protocol...if the national anthem of another country is played, then the anthem of the host country is played after. During recent week this has been not done many times. Even the NY Met opera (who ought to know better) did it.

If you watch an extended ceremony done by skilled diplomats, such as when Pope Francis visited, you'll see it done right.

With all due respect, in this instance screw the protocol.

If a foreign anthem is being played to honour a visiting head of state or some similar reason (ie an international sporting event), then fine. But that is not the case here. The anthem is being played to signify support for a beleaguered nation, just as the US national anthem was played all over the world in the aftermath of 9/11. I don't recall any such complaints then.

Protocols are guidelines, not rules. Here's a hypothetical. At the Olympic Games, the anthem of the gold medal country is played at the medal presentation for each event. So according to you, in Atlanta in 1996 the US national anthem should also have been played at every presentation where the gold medal was not won by an American.

---

Paul D

I totally agree Paul.

I'm a little surprised and disappointed there has been little comment or reaction on this forum to the atrocities perpetrated in Paris (and elsewhere in Europe).

After 9/11 I would have expected some concern that these jihadis may be already on US soil.

Why just in Europe?

In recent months ISIS has killed more Arabs in Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq than they have Westerners. ISIS aren't selective. They hate everyone.

---

Paul D

Quote:

QUOTE: They hate everyone.

A good reason to stay armed and aware :-)

Quote:

A good reason to stay armed and aware :-)

What a fantasy world you live in!

Aware? Of course one should stay aware, but it wouldn't have helped save those killed in Paris, nor most anyone else killed in mass shootings most anywhere else.

Armed? Fantasy, pure and simple. I have yet to read of a single instance of a "legally" armed person thwarting, or ending, a mass murdering spree. And even if the NRA can find an instance of two, it would still only be a fraction of 1 percent of the hundreds of mass shootings that have occurred.

God forbid it ever happens, but if you are ever involved in such a scenario as in Paris, a commentator, in the aftermath, will likely stand over your bullet-riddled body, and intone as to why a legally-armed man never even pulled his gun.

Jim.

Quote:

QUOTE: What a fantasy world you live in!

Last I checked I believe we live in the same world and it seems to be getting worse every day :-)

I'm beginning to believe you don't like the idea of law abiding citizens being allowed to carry a firearm.

Wow! You need a reason to be aware when you're packing?

I was wondering, Mize, are you one of those guys who scare the shit out of women and children when you wander into McDonald's bristling with artillery? Or do you carry that trusty six shooter in a concealed holster strapped over your Kevlar vest and bullet-proof long johns?

Quote:

QUOTE: are you one of those guys who scare the shit out of women and children when you wander into McDonald's bristling with artillery?

No

Quote:

QUOTE: Or do you carry that trusty six shooter in a concealed holster strapped over your Kevlar vest and bullet-proof long johns?

No need for a Kevlar vest......as for the bullet-proof long johns......gotta protect "Mr. Happy" some how :-)

I see nothing wrong with a responsible qualified citizen being armed. and everyone, armed or otherwise, should always be situationally aware.

Given that, I would give such a person only about a 10% chance of survival against terrorists in a street or ambush situation. A normal person would probably be dead long before he was even aware of being in danger.

Even in the situations in Paris, only a small fraction of the people being attacked were actually killed or wounded. if some of them had been armed they would have been singled out as prime targets. and many others could have been injured or killed in the resulting crossfire. In short, the end results could have been even worse.

In NY a few years ago several "highly trained" cops managed to wound each other in crossfire when they surrounded a car and opened fire. Crossfire is one reason I would worry about arming people like schoolteachers, or mass shooting attempts generally in public places. A bullet doesn't know who it is intended for.

---

Paul D

There's also the possibility that, in the confusion of the situation, a "good guy with a gun" responding to a "bad guy with a gun" could be mistaken for a second "bad guy" and shot by another "good guy with a gun." In fact, if you have a lot of people armed, this confusion could grow as multiple people are injured (or worse) by people who don't know who the original shooter is. After all, you don't get a big "I'm a good guy with a gun" badge.

To give an example, the movie theater shooting in 2012. The gunman released some smoke canisters and began shooting in the darkened room. As people scattered, screamed, and panicked, some people might have responded by pulling their own weapons, but would they have been able to see the shooter? Or would they have seen another person drawing his gun, thought that guy was the shooter (either the original shooter or in league with the original shooter) and fired on someone who was just trying to help?

And when the authorities intervene, how do they distinguish legitimate targets?

I agree 100% with what you, Paul, Jason, and James have said.

An armed person who pulls a weapon out during an attack like that is only asking for trouble.

You're getting to be no fun at all. You know that?

:-)