Archived with permission of the creator. Original Source: Slowpoke Comics by Jen Sorensen http://www.slowpokecomics.com/strips/shooterPR.gif
Our View is prepared by the Editorial Board which operates independently from the newsroom. By The Editorial Board On April 20, 1999, the United States watched in horror as the shootings at Columbine High School unfolded and sparked a series of high school violence that has ensued in the years after. As the shock of the initial shooting subsided, educators and students across the country scrambled to both understand and prepare themselves for this new and horrifying threat in American education. In the wake of last week's tragedy at Virginia Tech we can relate the emotion and logic of our response to Columbine as we struggle with the processes of grieving, understanding and preparing ourselves to trudge forward. While we will never entirely understand Seung-Hui Cho's motivation, feelings of anguish flood our mind as we try to comprehend the progression of his deadly thought-process. Although it is extremely difficult to find comfort following the deaths of so many, we can see as we did eight years ago that perhaps our best tools in the grieving process are overcoming and preparing as best we can for such events. Key to our understanding of these tragedies, is our attention to their most obvious similarities. The gunmen of Columbine, Virginia Tech and other schools across the country all felt they were waging a personal war with the world. While we are angry at them for their actions, if we can set aside those emotions and view them as victims of psychological disorders and an increasingly impersonal society, we can better grasp what led to these horrors. In doing such, we form a deep respect for our individual ability to prevent these atrocities by consciously guiding ourselves in being more aware, respectful and interactive with people we see on a daily basis. Our generation and the generations that will follow, live in a world where technological advancements allow us to move so rapidly that we can leave individuals behind and not even notice. While preventing these events must be our priority, we must also prepare for our reaction if they occur. Here at UMD for example, we can install locks on our classroom doors, public address systems, electronic command stations, etc. We can also publish lock-down procedures and ensure every campus community member knows what to do if anything were to happen. As we grieve for the victims of Virginia Tech, let us also move forward by devoting our individual and collective selves to preventing and preparing for a similar disaster. The most effective tool in ensuring our health and safety, which should be our number one priority, is not any piece of technology. Rather, it is our own attention to the people in the world around us. EDITORIAL BOARD: Karin Gelschus ~ Content Editor Joshua Newville ~ Editorial Writer Anna Woodwick ~ New Writers Editor -- Original Source:The Statesman - April 26, 2007
Statesman Editor-in-Chief Desk - Suraj Rambhia <eic@sbstatesman.org>
These are part of the 32 stones for the victims near Burruss Hall.
The story behind the Hokies Thank The World project
(PDF, 6.9 MB) by Hart Fowler Photos by Christina O'Connor From concept to design to action, Peter Sforza was the man behind the scenes orchestrating Virginia Tech's message of gratitude, making this Thanksgiving one of positive reflection. Provided courtesy of Hart Fowler and 16 Blocks http://www.myspace.com/16blocksmagazine
Hart Fowler and 16 Blocks Magazine 16blocksmagazine@gmail.com
The Tangled Thicket of Cho seung-hui, Don Imus, YouTube and American Idol
April 21st, 2007 Cho seung-hui, the Rutgers University women's basketball team, the students and Virginia Tech all form a tangled thicket nourished by the American media, overgrown with too many words, too many pictures and too many answers to too many bad questions. We, the American people struggle to navigate this thicket, for during the last few weeks we have only become more confused as if we have lost our sense of direction. You can enter any of these words in a search engine and lose all hope of finding any rationality, any thread that will lead you out. Technorati lists 152,000 blog selections for Virginia Tech, 23,000 for Cho and 4,788 for the Rutgers' team. With new posts on all of these each day, there are enough words that it would take a person probably a year to read them all. And yet we all seek a way out of this thicket of information, a clear path, a why that puts the last few weeks all in perspective. That the media have become such a tangled thicket rather than a clear voice represents perhaps the only generalization we can draw from these events and an indication of what has happened to America's sources and ideas about information. During past tragedies-the Kennedy assassination, Jonestown, the space shuttle explosion-somehow the media brought us together and enabled us to not only have a common source of information but also a shared sense of perspective. Just the opposite has occurred over the last few weeks. Instead of coming together we have thousands of information sources; instead of a shared sense of perspective we have something resembling a cubist painting crafted by a random group each with their own paints, brushes and sense of reality. Trying to come together has become an exercise in frustration, disappointment and even anger. The equilibrium many have found may even be misleading, for it comes from linking with a group of like-minded people who share their own prejudices and views of the world. So instead of finding a way out of the thicket they only wander in circles, going round and round in the same place, but thinking they have found the true path. The gun control people, the gun nuts, the racists, each have their own sources, each of which views the events through a different set of glasses. It is as if one saw green where another saw red. It is ironic that as the mainstream media have become more concentrated, the rest of our information sources have fragmented becoming the equivalent of those drug store magazine racks with titles and content that remain a mystery to those who are not part of whatever group to which that publication caters. We have an information system that in a metaphorical way reminds me of our increasing income gap, with a small amount at one end who have a lot and a lot at the other end who have only a small amount. The concentration of the American media has had what systems people would call an unintended consequence, for with that concentration has come increasing distrust produced by that very concentration. When you are so concentrated and so big it is very hard to hear disparate opinions, harder to evaluate them, and all but impossible to find a insightful analysis. That distrust in turn fuels the alternative media, for when people feel they are not listened to they turn to other sources. Those sources are most likely to be those whose web pages reflect their own minds. And because of our natural diversity, those alternative sources continue to multiply. Other factors also are at work. One I term the American Idol myth. That show exists in part because of the first premise-that the media are so concentrated they can no longer truly connect with people and so they neglect natural talents that in another time would have been stars. But it also exists because more and more people hunger for their thirty minutes of fame in a society that gives people little personal reinforcement. Then there is the most troubling part of it all: egos that drive many to think they ARE good. You can find all these themes in Cho's video and writings. Now transfer the previous paragraph to the world of information rather than entertainment. Our information sources no longer connect with people. People in turn think their information or research is as good as the experts. Pretty soon information and misinformation, truth and rumor become quickly entangled. You can find these themes in coverage of the shootings. In a society without any common definitions of what is good and what is trash, what is valid and what is fantasy, it is not surprising that people should often wander over the line between them. And it should also not be a surprise that when they wander over that line they should also wander over the line between what is moral and what is hellish, what are values and what are prejudices. Don Imus, Cho, certain blogs and YouTube videos all have that in common, for their minds were in themselves tangles of their own egos, a false reality, and ultimately a lack of values. Another factor is that the line between public and private no longer exists any more than the line between talent and trash, information and garbage. One of the most fascinating parts of both the Rutgers and Virginia Tech stories is that for the victims the media became almost as serious a problem as the perpetrators. In a story in this week's Sports Illustrated, the Rutgers women speak of being harassed by so many microphones and cameras that they were unable to lead normal lives. They talk about having to find ways to sneak to class so the media would not catch them or trying to escape the media in various way only to find the microphones have again invaded their privacy. One picture that sticks in my mind from Virginia Tech is of a banner hanging from a dorm saying "Media Stay Away," for those students, especially anyone with even the remotest connection to the shootings or the killer was hounded unmercifully. Think of each of these as maps that could help lead us out of the tangle. The lines between expertise and trash, information and misinformation, public and private have blurred as if someone spilled water on the map so everything ran together. That is what we have to guide us out of that thicket. The good news is that history tells us this information chaos is characteristic of changing times, especially times of large changes in how we understand and organize information. Marshall McLuhan saw this as driven by changes in media, so as we move from print to Internet just as we moved from oral sources to print, there is a period of unrest. Such periods, though, by their vary nature produce a flowering of creativity, some of which is not recognized until long after. So in that thicket lie geniuses. The message, then, of chaotic times is paradoxical for it asks that instead of closing our minds and walling off alternative realities we need to remain open to them. As anyone who has been in the woods can tell you, the way out of a confusing thicket is not to keep walking circles, but to carefully mark where you are and then explore various alternatives. It would be tragic if after the last two weeks America was to become more suspicious, more rigid, more judgmental. Posted by liberalamerican -- Original Source: http://thestrangedeathofliberalamerica.com/2007/04/21/the-tangled-thicket-of-cho-seung-hui-don-imus-youtube-and-american-idol/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
The tragedy of Virginia Tech is partly a tragedy of bureaucracy
From the Editor May/June 2007 by Kathrin Day Lassila '81 The tragedy of Virginia Tech is partly a tragedy of bureaucracy. I don't mean the sort of complaint people usually make about bureaucracy -- too much paperwork and red tape. I mean the opposite. Too few records. Too little discussion and sharing of information. Too few staff, perhaps. I'm not blaming the state of Virginia or Virginia Tech for failing to stop a determined murderer. But enough bureaucracy, of the right kind, would have given them a chance. The gun salesman would have known Seung-Hui Cho had a history of mental illness and wasn't entitled to buy guns. The associate dean who told a worried professor last fall that she hadn't heard of any previous problems would have known about the two complaints to the police and the judge's ruling that Cho was a danger to himself. The competing needs for privacy and protection can't be perfectly balanced. Colleges and universities serve a vulnerable demographic. Usually, "major mental illness first shows itself somewhere between the ages of 17 to around 25," says Lorraine Siggins, chief psychiatrist at Yale Health Services. Against those rare but terrible events, universities need discreet and careful systems. If a student has trouble and the trouble is resolved, the university has to leave the student alone to live the ordinary turbulent life of a young adult, in privacy, without stigma. But if trouble recurs, the right administrator has to be able to find out fast that this isn't the first time. The competing needs for privacy and protection can't be perfectly balanced. After VT, says Betty Trachtenberg, dean of student affairs at Yale College, university officials everywhere thought, There, but for the grace of God . . . But it's easier to have good systems and enough staff at a wealthy, relatively small private institution than a large public institution. Siggins speaks of a "web" of people at Yale who act as a safety net. Medical privacy rules prevent her staff from taking action or sharing information on any patient unless that patient is an immediate "threat to self or others." (She wouldn't comment on how often that happens and said Health Services doesn't give out statistics.) Instead, "what most frequently happens is that the person comes to people's attention in lots of different ways." The campus police report any incident involving a student to the disciplinary committee and the student's dean. In Yale College, the 12 residential college deans are the people who, says Trachtenberg, "notice when somebody's in trouble." In the professional schools, relationships with teachers and fellow students serve this need, as most schools have small student bodies (from 120 art students to 670 law students). The Graduate School has only two associate deans of student affairs for 2,600 students. But Graduate School dean Jon Butler says the 50-plus department directors of graduate studies are the people who call his office when a student is in trouble. Once the warning flags go up, administrators can, for instance, suspend a student or require the student to seek treatment. In a meeting after the VT massacre, Trachtenberg and the deans of the colleges agreed that Cho's multiple episodes of stalking and frightening students -- "behavior that is not consistent with living in a community" -- would have triggered action. Not that they can be certain. "It's very hard to think that something like this would fall through the cracks" at Yale, says Trachtenberg. "Nevertheless, I am knocking wood as I talk to you." -- Original Source: http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/current/editor.html
Permission granted by author Kathrin Lassila, kathrin.lassila@yale.edu
The vanity of reason: making sense of the Virginia Tech tragedy
Gene Koo - Thursday, April 19th, 2007 @ 5:52 pm Soon after an initial outpouring of shock and grief at the senseless murder of 32 members of the Virginia Tech community, we began seeking explanations for the tragedy. By all accounts Seung-Hui Cho, perpetrator and 33rd victim of this rampage, was a severely disturbed young man; the snippets of video released so far by NBC reveal profound paranoia. Inevitably our questions turn to what would lead him to commit such a heinous crime. We yearn for insight into his motives. Why did he do it? What was he thinking? These questions are familiar to me. I have asked them myself about my own mother, who probably developed paranoid schizophrenia some 15 years ago. I write "probably" because, like water filling a tub, the disease crept over her, imperceptibly, until suddenly it spilled forth in a flood. And somewhere in that tub, the loving woman who had been my mother drowned. I cannot know, but looking at the face in the video aired by NBC, I would guess that the real Seung-Hui Cho, someone capable of the kind of laughter and anger you and I would understand, perished long before he pulled the trigger on himself. People of sound mind often assume that individuals with mental illness think like we do: therefore, they must be misinformed, wrong-headed, or just pretending. We are, essentially, in denial. We delude ourselves into believing that we can figure these people out, and in so doing, learn how to "fix" them. In the first few years of my mother's illness, I challenged her claims that the "Chinese mafia" were spying on and stealing from her. Using lawyer's logic, I repeatedly demonstrated why it made no sense for criminals to go to such great lengths to inflict such petty wounds upon her. She would always win these fights, because madness is not susceptible to reason. What I lacked in communicating with her was not logic, but rather imagination. -- "Did you want to inject as much misery in our lives as you can," asks Mr. Cho in one video segment, "just because you can?" My mother asks these sorts of questions, too. She believes that clerks at the local store overcharge her and divert the money to her oppressors. Pedestrians stare at and spy on her. (The first part, at least, is now true due to her disheveled clothing and behavior). Vandals break into her home and move her papers around to prevent her from working. The invisible device in my ear tells her I am aiding and abetting "them." These ludicrous accusations infuriated me, but my logical counterattacks could not breach the walls around her mind. Exhausted, I learned to stop fighting her reality and to accept that she truly believes what she says. Only through imagination - a willing suspension of disbelief - could I see her world. A few years ago my mother was driving her brother around town when she unexpectedly pulled over so that the three black town cars following them would drive past. There was no one behind them, my uncle reports. But I no longer doubt that she indeed saw, in her mind, enemy agents in hostile pursuit. -- In responding to the tragic massacre Mr. Cho wrought, the public seeks criminal intent, a "motive." The media presume they can understand and explain him; the FBI believes the hateful package sent to NBC will shed insight into his motivations. I have given up that quest. The search is vanity, a misplaced faith in reason. Our criminal justice system assumes we can peer into mens rea, the criminal mind, and presumably extract thoughts and motives. Mental illness and the "insanity plea" have never fit well into this system because crimes committed by the mentally ill defy reason - and reason, it turns out, underlies our concept of justice. Like Job's entourage, our pundits and lawyers see tragedy and deduce the presence of sin. For if there is justice on Earth, then evil must have a logical human cause. But we cannot seek solace in reason when dealing with mental illness. My mother is as logical as you or I, maybe more so. Her stratagems for thwarting the spies and thieves and vandals who plague her life are subtle, cunning, and carefully executed. The only piece out of place is that you and I cannot see these tormenters. They are entirely in her own mind. -- Insanity is not stupidity, incompetence, or folly. Neither should we confuse it with evil. An important factor distinguishes my mother from Mr. Cho: while she manifests her paranoia through fear, he chose mass murder. Or is "choice" a concept that we cannot ascribe to Mr. Cho? Perhaps one day science will answer that question, reveal the origins of madness, and demonstrate which faulty wires put voices in my mother's head, or what lethal mix of hormones induced Mr. Cho to massacre. Science may yet strip the faÃƒï¿½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ãƒï¿½Ã‚Â§ade of free will from every one of us, revealing nothing but seething masses of neurons. And we would be farther than ever from finding the source of evil. Lawyers have a formula for calculating guilt that accounts for mitigations like provocation or insanity. That formula may be readjusted now and then, but its ultimate function is to balance the equation of justice and ensure that criminal debts are paid. But we cannot so easily cancel the pain we all feel when a man guns down innocents, or when a mother neglects her family. It is more than the pain of our immediate loss. We suffer because we are separated from mortal understanding; we have peered over the edge of reason and seen the whirlwind beyond. -- Original Source: Anderkoo - The vanity of reason Permissions: CreativeCommons-Attribution-Sharealike 2.5
CreativeCommons-Attribution-Sharealike 2.5
The Virginia Tech massacre: Ed Board doesn't agree with the crisis policy or the media coverage
By: The Daily Campus Ed Board Posted: 4/17/07 The worst recorded shooting spree in American history occurred on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Va., yesterday. Thirty-three people were murdered, dozens suffered injuries and the entire campus now must deal with grief. How does someone begin to digest the incomprehensible evil exhibited by this shooter and the needless loss of innocent lives? Our thoughts are with the families of the victims and the entire Virginia Tech community. This is the natural reaction people should have. We were shocked when we saw how politicians, such as John McCain, a Bush administration spokesperson and the media turned this event into a discussion about the right to bear arms. Political policy should not be a part of the discourse and coverage of the massacre at this early stage. It is entirely inappropriate to even mention political policy right now, when families are still being notified of their relatives' deaths. This is a time for mourning, not campaigning. If people need something to talk about, rather than just trying to cope, the discussion should be about why officials took two hours to close down the campus after the first shooting in the dorm. When a murder-suicide occurred at the University of Washington April 2, the entire campus was locked down. Rather than close down the entire campus immediately, Virginia Tech officials did not give students elsewhere on campus any information or warning for two hours. By this time, the gunman had closed off the exits to the engineering building and had begun his killing spree. Furthermore, students were first notified via e-mail about the incident. Ed Board does not think e-mail communication is sufficient for such a drastically dangerous event. Police should have been in every building within minutes of the dorm shooting, going into classrooms and locking down the campus. We wonder how officials here at SMU would react to such an event and hope that they would take better precautionary measures, leaving nothing to chance. In such cases, it's better to overreact than to sit by and do nothing. However, in SMU's emergency "Lockdown/Take Cover" guidelines, there is no indication of what officials, such as the SMU police, would do to protect students. The plan states that, in such an event, "emergency alarms should not be sounded" (dare they draw attention to the police instead of those in classrooms) and that information would be relayed via "e-mail, phone calls or word of mouth." Ed Board does not believe that this is an adequate means to alert the campus. A better solution would be to install a silent alarm system throughout campus, where flashing lights could indicate that something is wrong. Once again, we are shocked and saddened by this tragedy, and we encourage students to show their support by attending the prayer vigil at the Flagpole at 1:15 p.m. today. -- Original Source:SMU Daily Campus - April 17, 2007
"Norris, Mark William" <mnorris@mail.smu.edu>
Thursday, April 19, 2007 College is supposed to be an overall positive experience. You're finally getting to sort everything out in terms of what you want to do in life, where you're headed and learning and growing as a young adult while having some fun in the process. For many peeps it's the first time you get to step out, live away from home and get your first taste of adulthood. It's the last time in your life when the only responsibilities you have are to get up, go to class and study your butt off unless you also have a job you're juggling to help pay your tuition. I guess it's why I enjoy walking around on various college campuses when I do follow Dawn to various fencing tournaments. It takes me back to my own college days in that respect. It's hard for me to imagine what it would have been like to have that peace of mind shattered by a gunman suddenly popping up in one of my classes, firing shots at me and my classmates, then to discover a day or so later that he was a classsmate that peeps had been seeing disturbing behavior patterns about for two years leading up to that horrific incident. Even the folks who weren't in those Norris Hall classrooms that morning are haunted by 'That could have been me' thoughts. I can only imagine what was going through people's minds as their buildings were on lockdown wondering if the incident was over of if their building was next on the shooter's target list. What about the peeps who for some reason decided not to go to class that morning? I know they feel just as hurt as the gun shop owner who sold Cho the weapons he used. How would I feel about that? How do you put that behind you and move on with llfe, if you ever do? It's also tough at that age to lose a classmate because up until you get past your college years and your ten-year high school reunion you have this false feeling of immortality. You walk around in your late teens and 20's with this attitude that you have plenty of time to accomplish the things you want to do or get your life together. There are 32 people that have been tragically taken from us including Cho. But to the Virginia Tech students who may be reading this blog, life does go on. In 1966 The University of Texas suffered a similar tragedy. It took a while but people eventually forgot until Monday that a deadly shooting occurred on its campus. It brought back the flood of memories in Austin and on the UT campus of what Charles Whitman had done almost 41 years earlier. It was interesting to read Nikki Giovanni's account of her 2005 encounter with Cho in her writing class she was teaching at Virginia Tech. I think what needs to happen in the wake of this tragedy is to strenghten the ability of college professors and administrators to compel folks with disturbing behavior patterns to undergo counseling once its verified. Would that have prevented the shooting? That's a debatable question. As far as the gun issue I'm going to deal with that another time. In this post I want to continue focusing on the 32 people we lost, the folks at Virginia Tech and their families who are grieving and trying to make sense out of an irrational situation. We will never know what types of contributions those fallen people would have made to our society and others around the world. We can only guess about that as we mourn them, memorialize them and sadly have to move on. Posted by Monica Roberts at 1:39 AM Originally posted on TransGriot blog: http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2007/04/virginia-tech-tragedy.html Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.
I'd been thinking about starting this blog up again for a few weeks now. I didn't think I'd have something so tragic to write about. Probably it goes without saying that my thoughts and best wishes go out to the students, faculty, and staff at my alma mater, Virginia Tech, and especially to the families and friends of the victims. I was working from home today, heads down with all my external inputs (radio, TV, email, IRC, RSS feeds, etc.) turned off, so it wasn't until mid-afternoon that I became aware of what had happened. It has shaken me up, more than I would have expected it would. It's disconcerting to see a community that you've been part of suffer an event like this, especially when you see so many images on the news of places you're quite familiar with. When I was a student at Virginia Tech, I had friends who lived on the 4th floor Ambler-Johnston Hall, where the first shooting took place. I had classes in Norris Hall, where the second shooting occurred. I know these places. They were my places. It was my community. Even though I've been gone from Tech for a long time, it still hits close to home. Back in '88-'89 I was one of the editors of the Collegiate Times, Virginia Tech's student newspaper. I've thought a lot about the students working at the Collegiate Times today. What was the biggest story we dealt with back in '88-'89? I think a steroids scandal on one of the sports teams. Nothing to compare to what happened today. What a time it must be for those young, aspiring journalists. How difficult it must be to cover what will probably be the biggest story of your life when you are just twenty or twenty-one. Doubly difficult since it is the slaughter of your classmates that you have to cover. As young journalists they must feel a great deal of excitement at The Big Story . . . and, at the same time, a great deal of guilt and dread for being excited while their friends lay dead. I hope they sense the importance of their role of as the student voice of the Virginia Tech campus more than ever. (CollegiateTimes.com is down, and the server is re-directing to CollegeMedia.com, the parent site for the student media outlets at Tech. And I just noticed that the Collegiate Times Online Editor, who has been posting to http://www.collegemedia.com all afternoon is named Christopher Ritter. No relation, if you were wondering.) Besides my former professors, I only know a couple of people still at Virginia Tech. None of them were likely to have been in either of the buildings where the shootings took place, but I've dropped them emails anyway. And I've been contacted today by former classmates who I haven't heard from in years. When something like this happens, you start thinking about the people who shared your life then and you want to reach out to them, even if you've been silent for years, because their the only ones who are going to understand your loss in the same way. The news reports are saying that this is the worst shooting on a college campus in American history. Oddly, one of the other campus massacres that has been mentioned repeatedly was a 1991 shooting rampage by a physics grad student (who also killed himself) at the University of Iowa, where I went to graduate school. My other alma mater. That took place just three months after I left Iowa City, and, unlike today's tragedy at VT, I knew many people who were on campus at that time. Then a few years back, in the fall of 2000, a student murdered one of his classmates at Gallaudet University, and went un-apprehended for months until he killed again in February. I had worked at Gallaudet for three years and left just a bit more than a year before the murders there. Again, I was gone, but, again, I knew many people affected by this. It wasn't the kind of rampage like at Iowa or Virginia Tech, but it held the campus hostage to fear nonetheless. So this is the third time I've watched a campus where I have lived, studied, or worked be victimized by a murderer. It sucks. It sucks for me, it makes me cry to see a community -- my community -- ravaged, even after I've been absent from it for years And as miserable and helpless as I feel, I can't imagine how horrible it is for those living through it. Posted by Greg on April 16, 2007 10:48 PM -- Original Source: http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/archives/2007/04/thinking_about_1.html Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0.
Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0
Thoughts About Media Coverage of the Virginia Tech Tragedy
posted 5.01.07 Otto Wahl, Ph.D., University of Hartford The tragic death of 33 students at Virginia Tech has shocked and saddened us all. Given the mental health aspects of the situation, it is not surprising that there has been much in the coverage about mental illnesses and their treatment. Unfortunately, the articles and editorials that followed the shootings have often been troubling in what they convey to the public about mental illnesses and mental health interventions. One troubling aspect of the media coverage has been the frequent vilification and dehumanization of the troubled young man who perpetrated the killings. Appropriately sympathetic descriptions of the background and lives of the "32" victims were widespread, and such descriptions helped us to better appreciate the tragedy on a more personal level. However, descriptions of the 33rd person who died in the tragedy, Cho Seung-Hui, focused almost exclusively on his pathology, his anger, and his menacing manner. Some media sources characterized Cho as motivated by "meanness;" others labeled him as a "fiend," a "psychopath," or "just plain "evil." Such coverage ignored the fact that Cho's deathâ€”and much of his lifeâ€”was also a tragedy. His alienation, isolation, anger, and ultimate suicide are probably not the life goals he set out for himself. Much of the media coverage did discuss Cho's mental health, but mostly without notable empathy for his difficulties. Related is the mistaken implication in coverage of Cho's actions that mental illness and violence are synonymous. The widespread images of Cho brandishing weapons epitomized the already prevalent public image of the "menacing madman," and that image was underscored further by the fear-inducing labels Cho was given in many media accounts, such as "maniac" and "psycho" and worse. Likewise, the repeated discussions of the need to protect the college communityâ€”and the larger communityâ€”from such individuals served to reinforce unwarranted public fears of people with mental illnesses. The vast majority of people with mental illnesses, including severe mental illnesses, are neither violent nor criminal. The vast majority of students on campus who are living with mental illnesses are not threatening others, but working and studying to make better lives for themselves. I saw little discussion of this in media coverage. The events at Virginia Tech were truly horrendous. The media, like the public, searched to make sense of the tragedy and to find clues as to how future tragedies could be prevented. However, there was a tendency to focus on mental illness as the sole or primary explanation for the horrific outcome at Virginia Tech. Many reporters and even mental health professionals seemed to commit what social scientists have dubbed the "fundamental attribution error." This term refers to our tendency to attribute the actions of others, particularly unacceptable actions, to their inner, psychological attributes and to neglect potential situational influences. If we succumb to this error and focus mainly on the possible internal causes of behavior, the mental health of Cho Seung-Hui in this case, we may overlook other potential contributors to the event and, thus, other potential and important avenues for prevention. Often overlooked, then, were questions about how we engage or do not engage students on our college campuses or how we do or do not integrate diverse students to better create a sense of community, questions about what gaps in understanding and education about cultural differences might have contributed to Cho's apparent isolation and to the ultimate outcome, and questions about the extent to which stigma and negative attitudes about mental health problems could have contributed to Cho's apparent reluctance to accept counseling assistance despite the recommendations of Virginia Tech faculty. Instead of looking at the factors above, many media reports impliedâ€”directly or indirectlyâ€”that the major preventive solution is the lessening of restrictions on involuntary hospitalization. After horrific events like the Virginia Tech deaths, it is easy to forget that the current criteria for involuntary psychiatric commitment result from a long history of indiscriminate and abusive use of forced hospitalization and from a belated recognition that the individual civil rights of people with mental illnesses need protection. Just as the tragic events of 9/11 should not have allowed us to dismantle the basic civil liberties on which our country is founded, a tragic event like Virginia Tech should not serve as justification for diminishing the hard won civil protections of the millions of people with mental illnesses. But it may, and some of the news coverage is suggesting that it should. Also, it is not clear that involuntary commitment for Cho would have been the appropriate solution. Coerced treatment may have poorer long term outcomes than voluntary treatment if it creates trauma and fuels antagonism and poorer treatment compliance. For a person like Cho, who already felt persecuted and angry, this may have been likely. So hospitalization might have only postponed the tragic outcome. Outpatient treatment may have had a better chance of succeeding in helping Cho and preventing the lethal outcome. In hindsight, we know it was not successful, but we do not know that involuntary hospitalization would have had more success. The events at Virginia Tech have led to calls for greater security on campuses and for a better ability of campus authorities to exclude people with serious mental illnesses from the campus. Again, this represents a troubling inclination to further restrict the rights and opportunities of people living with mental illnesses. Easier hospitalization and campus restrictions are not what is needed for preventing tragedies such as the one at Virginia Tech. Instead, we need better training of service providers to deal with individuals who are reluctant to accept treatment, and therapeutic alternatives that are more attractive, less aversive, and better funded. We also need reduced stigma for seeking and accepting treatment, along with greater outreach and prevention efforts. I do not mean to suggest that there was no sensitive and appropriate media coverage of the events. Many stories were sympathetic to the needs of troubled youth on campuses, urging improvements and cautioning against attempts to exclude students. Former Rosalynn Carter Journalism Fellow, John Head, for example, wrote, in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, "A policy that punishes students for enduring emotional and mental disturbances will only discourage them from seeking help." Articles and editorials have called for expanded suicide prevention programs and improvements in culturally competent services, as well. An article in the Washington Post, by another former Carter Fellow, Shankar Vedantam looked "beyond the shooter," to consider social factors that may have contributed to the fatal outcome. And there did emerge a number a number of pieces that looked more fully and sympathetically at the life of Cho Seung-Hui and at his family's pain and suffering. Media coverage also brought to light the archaic and offensive language of the federal statutes for regulation of gun purchases. I am referring to the prohibition against selling guns to "mental defectives,' a category which, for the federal government, apparently includes persons with mental illnesses. I am amazed that such a reference to mental illnessâ€”language that was discarded decades ago because of its pejorative nature and its connection to eugenics and Nazi cleansingâ€”could still be the chosen terminology in the laws of our country.I can only hope that the wide exposure of this language in the press may lead to sufficient embarrassment and/or outrage as to generate an appropriate updating. I am, however, cautiously optimistic. Despite the great deal of stigmatizing coverage that has surrounded the tragic loss of life at Virginia Tech, the discussions that are occurring have the potential to generate important changes. Chief among these are greater understanding of and improved responsiveness to mental health needs on campuses. I do not mean to suggest, as some media coverage has, that these are needed primarily to protect the student body from unstable shooters, but rather that they are needed so that universities can enhance their abilities to support the learning and accomplishment of all students, including the many who experience mental health problems. -- Archived with permission of the author. Original Source: MIWatch.org http://www.miwatch.org/Wahl.htm
Threat scrawled on desk chair found in Hyer Hall
By: Mark Norris, Editor In Chief, mnorris@smu.edu Posted: 4/25/07 A message scrawled on the back of a desk chair by an unknown person has prompted an investigation by SMU Police. The note says "I'm going to shoot up SMU on 8-06-07." The message was discovered Monday but was not reported to SMU Police until Tuesday morning. Authorities promptly responded, said Interim Police Chief Richard Shafer. "We have no leads and don't know who did it or why," Shafer said. The threat was discovered in Room 111 of Hyer Hall some time Monday. The professor of the class that meets there at that time reported the message to SMU Police. The message was written in pencil and still "looks fairly fresh," according to police. Shafer said the date of the threat is odd since classes are not in session at the time. The Summer II session is completed by then and the 2007-2008 school year has not begun yet. Police are looking at what classes meet in the room to determine if any names of interest appear on the class rosters. Shafer said the person who wrote the message probably has a warped sense of humor. "We don't think it's a viable or credible threat, but you never know," he said. The police investigation into the matter is still ongoing. This is the first threat made at the SMU community after the shootings at Virginia Tech. "Three weeks ago they probably wouldn't have thought about it," Shafer said. He said the police department is glad that the professor and students took the time to report the threat. He encouraged members of the SMU community to report anything they believe is suspicious. "Give us a call and someone will look into it," Shafer said. This story is exclusive to 'The Daily Campus.' Mention of this story by other media organizations must credit the paper. -- Original Source:SMU Daily Campus - April 25, 2007
Threats to Civil Liberties arising from the fallout of the Virginia Tech Forcible-disarmament Frenzy
May 1, 2007 4:51 pm An article from a new contributor: Loren Bliss THERE ARE TWO EXCEPTIONALLY grave dangers to American liberty arising from the present, post-Virginia-Tech forcible-disarmament frenzy. These are: (1)-The criminalization of even the mildest forms of mental illness, as proposed by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), in HR 297. (2)-The criminalization of political protest and dissent, as proposed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, (D-NJ), in S 1237. Each of these measures is enthusiastically supported by the Bush Regime. The Lautenberg bill was written at White House/Justice Department request â€” a leading Democratic senator serving as the mouthpiece for a despised Republican administration â€” an unprecedented act of collaboration with the most corrupt regime in U.S. history. Once again, opposition to the Second Amendment is being used as a diversion behind which to conceal an all-out, bipartisan attack on the entire Bill of Rights- including, via S 1237, repeal of the presumption of innocence that is the cornerstone of all English-language jurisprudence. Meanwhile, welcome to the New American Reich, where (if McCarthy, Lautenberg and Bush have their way), anybody deemed a mental case, an effective labor activist or a disruptive political nonconformist will soon be forcibly disarmed, denied all rational means of self defense and thereby condemned to perpetual victimhood. ********* Modern efforts to criminalize mental dysfunction have a long history dating back to Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and are typically part of a broader right-wing agenda of oppression and euthanasia. But in the United States, the primary advocates of criminalization are the forcible disarmament cult and the Communitarian movement, members of which universally (and often vehemently) claim to be leftists and/or "progressives." The Communitarians have argued for at least two decades that diagnosis of mental illness should instantly terminate not only all one's civil rights but also strip one of all privileges as well, driver's licenses included, after which the victim of such determination could then theoretically earn back the abolished rights and privileges in carefully supervised increments. Toward this end the Communitarians â€” who despite their leftist disguise and innocuous-sounding name are radical Skinnerian fascists of the harshest sort â€” are demanding creation of a national registry of mental patients. Deliberately established and maintained as a powerfully oppressive tool of social control, this roster of official pariahdom would include the names of anyone now or ever in any form of mental health treatment, regardless of the relative mildness or severity of the condition for which they are being treated. (Google "communitarians" and scroll at will for additional information.) Despite its huge contempt for the Constitution, the Communitarian faction is but one small portion of the forcible disarmament cult, but it is probably disproportionately powerful. Its intellectual prowess is considerable, and it often assumes a behind-the-scenes leadership role, focusing on the development of strategy, tactics and ideology. Another venue of profound Communitarian influence is the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. It was the Communitarians who provided the Clintons and their cronies with the ideological justification for the Democratic Party's abandonment of New Deal principles and its subsequent wholesale betrayal of the working class. The Communitarians' grasp of Orwellian principles is also very evident in the present-day effort to redefine forcible disarmament as "gun safety" and the present tactic of concealing disarmament schemes behind apparently friendly but patently false gestures toward firearms owners. All this dovetails neatly with the broader forcible-disarmament-cult agenda of reducing legal firearms ownership by any means possible. Since it is credibly estimated as many as 50 percent of all U.S. citizens will at some time require some form of mental health treatment ("treatment" defined in the broadest sense, to include grief counseling, post-divorce therapy and even self-esteem classes or remedial reading for dyslexics), a favorite ploy of forcible disarmament fanatics is to demand closure of "the mental health loophole" in such a way that participation in any treatment process is penalized by automatic forcible disarmament: either turn in your guns before you see the professional caregiver, or the police will soon be there to kick in your front door, shoot your dogs, wreck the interior of your house by violent search and terrorize your spouse and children into lifelong bouts of shivering catatonia. Typically â€” and the forcible disarmament advocates make no secret of the fact they are obscenely aroused by the prospect of unleashing such police brutality against firearms owners â€” this means criminalizing all forms of mental illness or mental dysfunction and thereby forcibly disarming anyone who is or ever has been in any sort of therapy or formalized healing, permanently abolishing their gun rights, no appeal allowed. This is already the law in New York City â€” if you consult a mental health professional even once in NYC (no matter the nature of your problem), your name is reported to the police and you lose your gun rights forever. Indeed, the Democrats attempted to impose a similar restriction on Washington state residents in 1994, but it was vigorously resisted there by a coalition of mental health professionals, who recognize in such criminalization a huge disincentive to voluntary treatment. Which brings us to the present "mental health loophole" bill pending in Congress. As originally written, it was called the "Our Lady of Peace Act" (Google for details), and it would have permanently denied firearms ownership to anyone "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution," which is further defined as occurring whenever "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority determines that an individual is mentally retarded or of marked subnormal intelligence, mentally ill, or mentally incompetent" (HR 4757, 2002, Sec. 103 and 103:c). By including the phrase "other lawful authority," the measure would have empowered any psychiatrist, psychologist or even guidance counselor to deny someone their gun rights forever, merely by declaring that person "mentally ill" â€” a designation that covers everything from definitively murderous Andrea Yates/Cho Seung Hui psychosis to the mildest cases of neurotic nail-biting and low-self-esteem fidgets. The generic designation "mentally ill" would also have allowed the forcible disarmament of anyone ever found to be "mentally disabled" â€” never mind that "mental disability" is a very specifically focused evaluation of one's employability or lack thereof, typically for purposes of granting welfare stipends or Social Security disability payments. Thus a finding of "mental disability" has absolutely nothing to do with one's suitability to own firearms, vote or exercise any other Constitutional right. But the Our Lady of Peace Act, which McCarthy has introduced in every Congress since 2002, would nevertheless require the Social Security Administration and every state welfare agency to add to the federal government's computerized catalogue of criminals the name and dossier of every individual who had ever been found to be even temporarily "mentally disabled" â€” resulting in a permanent loss of Second Amendment rights against which there would be no possibility of defense or appeal. Thus criminalizing "mental disability" (or any other mental disorder in even the mildest forms) would clearly further the forcible disarmament cult's long range objective of making the requirements for legal firearms ownership increasingly prohibitive â€” ultimately reducing the number of legal firearms owners by the aforementioned 50 percent. The cult's triumph would be all the greater for the fact the imposition of "prohibited person" status would allow disarmament by outright seizure, thereby exempting government from any compensatory (buy-back) costs. Under extreme pressure from mental health professionals, McCarthy has slightly modified her present proposal, HR 297, so that those denied their Second Amendment rights on the basis of mental health considerations would be specifically limited to persons who have been "adjudicated as mentally defective or...committed to mental institutions." Alas, the term "mental defective" remains undefined â€” leaving unanswered whether it includes those who have been found to be "mentally disabled." It also leaves a number of other questions as to its scope, such as whether a child diagnosed as suffering from attention deficit disorder is to be branded "mentally defective" and therefore â€” after reaching adulthood â€” denied firearms ownership for life. Apparently â€” though this is not clear either â€” McCarthy has meanwhile broadened the term "committed" to make it as prohibitive as possible: that is, to permanently deny gun rights to anyone formally committed to a mental institution of any kind (including out-patient clinics) regardless of whether the commitment was mandatory (court ordered) or voluntary. (Present federal law allows those who undergo voluntary commitment to retain their Second Amendment rights unless other specific prohibitions apply.) Furthermore, McCarthy â€” who formerly made no secret of her froth-at-the-mouth hatred of firearms and firearms owners but now (in service to the Democrats' new deception policy) speaks much more softly â€” recently told ABC News that in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, she would amend the bill back to its original, criminalize-all-mental-disorder wording except for the fact "the NRA...is holding everybody hostage." Given that the National Rifle Association has supported the Our Lady of Peace Act from the very beginning, HR 297 included, McCarthy's accusation is not only false but is an especially misleading, hypocritical and even malicious claim: no surprise given the infinite maliciousness that is the forcible disarmament hysteric's most notorious characteristic. But on the HR 297 issue, the NRA (to which I have belonged since 1951) is equally treacherous and hypocritical, especially given its demonstrably false claim to be a defender of the entire Bill of Rights. Indeed the NRA's opposition to the civil rights of mental patients reveals the frustrating extent to which the organization has deteriorated into nothing more than an instrument of the Republican Party. (And the Republican Party â€” especially since Big Business America's 1930s alliance with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco â€” is itself the U.S. equivalent of the fascist parties that formerly dominated Europe.) Thus the NRA implicitly embraces the right wing position that "mental defectives" should be savagely oppressed if not actually euthanized. Not that the NRA is out of step with American opinion: most U.S. citizens â€” though they are loathe to admit it â€” emphatically agree that "mental defectives" deserve the harshest treatment possible. As a consequence, the U.S. has long been infamous for the industrial world's most superstitiously ignorant fear of mental affliction and its most violent rejection of anyone so afflicted, attitudes that have been credibly traced to the enduring influence of Abrahamic religion and the grave extent to which our society remains a defacto theocracy. (Anyone who doubts this assessment of our national values need look no further than our officially murderous hatred of those who are homeless.) Meanwhile other Second Amendment advocacy groups remain stonily silent on the patient-rights implications of forcible disarmament,* understandably (given these selfsame U.S. attitudes) terrified they will be accused of supporting "guns for crazies." Never mind that study after study proves mental patients are statistically no more dangerous than any other group of Americans â€” and far less dangerous than some. _________ *Gun Owners of America has vehemently opposed the Our Lady of Peace Act and HR 297, and it has done so for the very best of reasons: these measures could "bar mentally stable people from buying guns" merely because they had sought mental health treatment, and it is "morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they can exercise their rights â€” whether it's Second Amendment rights, First Amendment rights, or any other right." Alas, GOA â€” which based on its rhetoric seems to be very closely tied to the Christian Theocracy faction of the Republican Party â€” also opposes such legislation for the very worst of reasons: it echoes the traditional Jewish/Christian/Islamic stance that the husband is god's representative in the household and, as god's enforcer, has unlimited god-given right to beat his wife and children. Thus GOA protests that denying guns to family patriarchs convicted of domestic violence is inflicting punishment for "very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or...merely yelling at a family member" â€” never mind the bloody testimony of Crystal Brame's death and far too many other murders just as bad or worse. ********* The criminalization of labor activism, political agitation and effective dissent is not the stated purpose of Lautenberg's newly introduced S 1237, which was dropped in the Senate hopper very late Friday 27 April 2007, the introduction obviously timed to minimize public disclosure and avoid press scrutiny. But given that the Republicans now and for a long while have condemned anyone who opposes FÃ¼hrer George Bush and his New American Reich, denouncing each opponent as a "terrorist" or "terrorist sympathizer," the impact of the measure is made obvious by its stated purpose: "to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists." Predictably, Bush himself has already demanded S 1237's immediate enactment. Just as predictably, Lautenberg â€” perhaps even more fanatical a forcible disarmament advocate than McCarthy â€” lauds its unprecedented subversion of the Constitutionally implied principle of presumed innocence as "too long" overdue. Absolute proof of the calculated political malevolence embodied in the Lautenberg proposal â€” proof too of how the Democrats have finally abandoned any pretense of being civil libertarians and now (in the name of forcible disarmament) fully and even gleefully embrace the Bush Regime's agenda of totally nullifying the Bill of Rights â€” is found in the federal government's post-9/11 redefinition of the term "terrorism" to include any form of political protest that is genuinely disruptive. Participants in a legitimate strike or a protest that blocks or even slows vehicular traffic could thus be persecuted as "terrorists." Quoth the American Civil Liberties Union in an analysis disseminated on 6 December 2002: "The definition of domestic terrorism is broad enough to encompass the activities of several prominent activist campaigns and organizations. Greenpeace, Operation Rescue, Vieques Island and World Trade Organization protesters and the Environmental Liberation Front have all recently engaged in activities that could subject them to being investigated as engaging in domestic terrorism." Meanwhile Reason magazine, the official journal of the Libertarian Party, has repeatedly noted that in the eyes of the Bush Regime, "terrorist" and "enemy combatant" are synonymous In other words, any member of any labor union that participated in the Seattle WTO protests could be labeled a "terrorist" merely based on the union's presence there and â€” under Lautenberg's S 1237 â€” he or she could be forcibly disarmed forever. But the reality is far more chilling: given the criteria of disruptiveness, the participants in any effective strike or job action can now be subjugated as "terrorists." And given the Third Reich cloak of secrecy that now hides all U.S. security matters from judicial scrutiny, such subjugation could never be appealed. Indeed it is conceivable a labor activist (or any other opponent of the status quo) could be disappeared forever into the gulag of Guantanamo merely on the basis of the spurious argument that the (denied) attempt to purchase a firearm is absolute proof of "enemy combatant" intent. The law that would enable such outrages should more properly be labeled the Lautenberg/Bush/Alberto Gonzales Bill of Rights Nullification Act of 2007 because it would not only subject all future U.S. firearms ownership to the tyrannical whims of the modern-day incarnation of the dread Reich Security Service (RSHA), but it would but it would repeal the presumption of innocence that is the great wellspring of the American legal system. Thus, with active Democratic party collaboration, at the very least the Bush Regime is laying the groundwork to forcibly disarm every labor activist in the United States â€” and anyone else it chooses to put on its (secret) enemies list. Thus too another advance for the modern-day variant of fascism â€” not marching forward on hobnailed jackboots but sneaking past us on politically correct rubber soles. Note also how McCarthy's HR 297 undeniably anticipates enactment of S 1237: "The Secretary of Homeland Security shall make available to the Attorney General...records, updated not less than quarterly, which are relevant to a determination of whether a person is disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm..."(Sec. 101:b.1.A). Now the relationship between the two measures comes into sharp focus: Lautenberg abolishes the presumption of innocence and grants the government the unprecedented power to rule on our political reliability while McCarthy provides the infrastructure to make sure the secret police get every possible scrap of information. Suddenly I wonder if closing the alleged "mental health loophole" â€” though no doubt an egregious blow to our freedom â€” isn't maybe just another red herring to distract us from the genuinely fatal wound that would be dealt our liberty by Lautenberg's coup-de-grace against due process. ********* Predictions past and future: as some of you may remember, before I was booted off Progressive Independent for speaking tactless truth to tacky tyranny, I predicted that the Democrats would take back Congress in 2006, would founder pathetically in their efforts to accomplish any meaningful socioeconomic change, and would then cut a win-win deal with the Bush Regime to impose forcible disarmament and further subvert the Bill of Rights in general, thereby enabling each side to claim accomplishments dearest to its ideologues' alleged hearts. Though the onslaught is not developing exactly the way I imagined it would, there is no doubt such an offensive is underway. But just as I foresaw the betrayal of our electoral hopes for Medicare reform and the restoration of labor rights, I can no longer doubt this new Democrat/Republican collaboration to abolish the presumption of innocence and grant the Homeland Security apparatus the ultimate power of approval or disapproval over all individual civilian firearms purchases is (A) the beginning of the final assault on the Constitution by representatives of the corporate ruling class and (B) the beginning of a Bush Regime effort to co-opt public reaction to the Virginia Tech massacre and thus rehabilitate its public image by launching its own forcible disarmament campaign â€” not out of the craven hoplophobia that so agitates the Democrats and alienates so many voters, but in the name of the same self-proclaimed robust patriotism that seduced us into cheering the (failed) conquest of Iraq. I can hear it now: "if y'all love your country, you'll give us the common-sense power to determine who's politically reliable enough to have a gun." The last time the politicians said something like that, the language was German. ********* NOTES: The text of HR 297 and the unfolding details of S 1237 are available through the excellent and superbly useful Thomas legislative search engine: http://thomas.loc.gov/ I am posting this same essay on my blog, Wolfgang von Skeptik, http://wolfgangvonskeptik.mu.nu/ -- Original Source: http://www.midwest-populistamerica.com/articles/threats-to-civil-liberties-arising-from-virginia-tech/ Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5.
Ticket for the Yankees vs. Hokies exhibition game at Virginia Tech on March 18, 2008. Photo by Tarish Smith. -- Original Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarish/2342818995/
2007.04.17. Virginia's Governor Tim Kaine addresses Convocation.
The media are once again turning into the public's whipping boys By: The Daily Campus Ed Board Posted: 4/20/07 The nation is still focused on Blacksburg, Va. as all Americans honor the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings. But as the initial shock wears off, news organizations need to be weary of hyping a story that doesn't need the standard cable news sensationalism. This story has been sent across the globe since it occurred at the beginning of the week. People in Australia, London, India, South Korea and more are all discussing the matter. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun offered condolences to victims for a third time and, among the South Korean public, a sense of despair prevailed. "I and our people cannot contain our feelings of huge shock and grief," said President Roh Moo-hyun. "I pray for the souls of those killed and offer words of comfort from my heart for those injured, the bereaved families and the U.S. people." Hundreds left messages on the country's top Web site, Naver. "I'm too shameful that I'm a South Korean," wrote an Internet user identified only by the ID iknijmik. "As a South Korean, I feel apologetic to the Virginia Tech victims." Ed Board understands that the Koreans are apologizing for Seung-Hiu because they do not want any race-related retaliation to occur. Asian-American groups have released similar statements for the same reason. But this is an angle of the story not worth the time devoted to it. There have been no retributions and there is no need for the Korean peninsula to apologize for a killer. Seung-Hiu wasn't acting on behalf of his country, he was only carrying out his personal desires. Not to mention the flap about NBC's airing of the controversial video made by the killer. As (amateur) members of the media, we appreciate that the network has to walk a careful line between letting people know the whole truth and not offending its viewership. We know that many don't want to pay the killer attention. But we also know that the families who want to see the man who killed their children have a right to do so. We know that after an event like this, people have a driving desire to understand why. Even though there's never going to be a definitive answer, the media have an obligation to report on as much of what happened as possible. -- Original Source:SMU Daily Press - April 20, 2007
Por Thomas Sowell 28 de abril de 2007 Â¿CuÃ¡ndo ha abierto fuego un asesino mÃºltiple contra una reuniÃ³n de la AsociaciÃ³n Nacional del Rifle o contra un grupo de cazadores? Alguien decÃ­a recientemente que masacres como las de Virginia Tech o la del instituto Columbine son, en gran medida, un fenÃ³meno propio de la dÃ©cada de los sesenta y posteriores. De ser asÃ­, estas tragedias pueden aÃ±adirse a la larga lista de desastrosas consecuencias de las excitantes ideas y extravagante retÃ³rica propias de aquellos aÃ±os. Â¿QuÃ© habÃ­a en la visiÃ³n del mundo de la dÃ©cada de los sesenta que pudiera hacer concluir a alguien que es correcto disparar a personas que no le habÃ­an hecho nada? La culpa colectiva es uno de los legados de los aÃ±os sesenta que aÃºn permanece con nosotros. AÃºn estamos viendo cÃ³mo se intenta hacer sentir culpable por la esclavitud a personas que nunca fueron propietarias de un esclavo en su vida, y a las que la mera idea de poseer uno les repele. AllÃ¡ por la dÃ©cada de los sesenta, se consideraba el colmo de la sofisticaciÃ³n entre la intelligentsia izquierdista decir que la sociedad norteamericana -todos nosotros, colectivamente- Ã©ramos en cierto modo responsables de los asesinatos de los hermanos Kennedy o de Martin Luther King. Durante los aÃ±os sesenta se extendiÃ³ como la pÃ³lvora la idea de que la culpa de que le faltara a alguien cualquier cosa la tenÃ­a otro, en concreto, la sociedad. Los pobres, ya fueran en Estados Unidos o en algÃºn paÃ­s del Tercer Mundo, eran "los desposeÃ­dos", aunque nunca hubieran tenido nada que se les pudiera haber quitado. Los disturbios en los suburbios que proliferaron por el paÃ­s durante los sesenta fueron todos achacados a la sociedad. Esta visiÃ³n se formalizÃ³ en un informe ampliamente elogiado sobre la violencia urbana por una comisiÃ³n nacional "oficiosa" encabezada por el gobernador de Illinois, Otto Kerner. El presidente Lyndon Johnson tambiÃ©n culpÃ³ a las condiciones sociales de la violencia urbana, afirmando: "Todos nosotros sabemos cuÃ¡les son esas condiciones: ignorancia, discriminaciÃ³n, pobreza, barrios bajos, enfermedades, insuficientes puestos de trabajo." Esta generalizada y excitante visiÃ³n hacÃ­a innecesario rebajarse a examinar algo tan mundano como los datos, los cuales habrÃ­an incluido el hecho de que los disturbios urbanos tenÃ­an lugar con mayor frecuencia y violencia cuando y donde imperaba esta visiÃ³n de culpa colectiva. Las ciudades sureÃ±as, que en aquellos dÃ­as padecÃ­an la discriminaciÃ³n y la pobreza mÃ¡s graves del paÃ­s, no sufrieron ni de lejos tantos tumultos, ni tan graves, como las ciudades alejadas del sur. Detroit, que sufriÃ³ el mÃ¡s letal de todos los disturbios de los aÃ±os sesenta, con 43 muertos, tenÃ­a una tasa de paro entre los negros del 3,4%, inferior a la tasa de paro nacional entre los blancos. Chicago, cuyo alcalde, Richard J. Daley, no se tragÃ³ los intentos progresistas de hacernos sentir culpables colectivamente, fue una de las pocas grandes ciudades del norte en escapar de la oleada de disturbios que recorriÃ³ el paÃ­s en 1967. Este tipo de disturbios urbanos masivos que tuvieron lugar por todo Estados Unidos durante la administraciÃ³n de Lyndon Johnson pasaron a ser virtualmente desconocidos durante los ocho aÃ±os de la de Reagan, que proyectaba una visiÃ³n del mundo completamente distinta. Pero tanto entonces como ahora los hechos quedaban en un discreto segundo plano frente a trasnochadas visiones y su retÃ³rica radical. Si resulta que fueran otros los responsables de lo que quiera que estÃ© ausente en su vida, arremeter indiscriminadamente contra gentes que no le han hecho nada personalmente puede sonarle razonable a muchos. Ya sean o no los asesinatos de Virginia Tech resultado de una demencia mÃ©dicamente comprobable, lo cierto es que siempre ha habido personas dementes, pero nunca han tenido lugar masacres de este tipo con la frecuencia con que las llevamos sufriendo desde los sesenta. El control de las armas tampoco es la respuesta mÃ¡gica, como sugieren con frecuencia el mismo tipo de personas que creen en la responsabilidad colectiva en lugar de la responsabilidad individual. Puesto que el asesinato es ilegal en todas partes, Â¿por quÃ© iba a obedecer una ley en contra de obtener armas -que son fÃ¡ciles de conseguir ilegalmente- una persona que no estÃ¡ dispuesta a obedecer la ley en contra del asesinato? Uno de los muchos hechos obvios que pasan voluntariamente por alto las personas impresionadas por las visiones y la retÃ³rica es que las masacres tienen lugar casi siempre en zonas libres de armas, como escuelas, lugares de trabajo o casas de oraciÃ³n. Â¿CuÃ¡ndo ha abierto fuego un asesino mÃºltiple contra una reuniÃ³n de la AsociaciÃ³n Nacional del Rifle o contra un grupo de cazadores? En lugar de prohibir las armas, tal vez deberÃ­amos volver a evaluar crÃ­ticamente los dogmas que nos dejaron en herencia los aÃ±os sesenta. Thomas Sowell es doctor en EconomÃ­a y escritor. Es especialista del Instituto Hoover. -- Fuente Original: El Instituto Independiente http://independent.typepad.com/elindependent/2007/04/tiroteos_otra_h.html
Gabriel Gasave Reasearch Analyst Center On Global Prosperity The Independent Institute ggasave@independent.org august 01, 2007
Toal: Sensible gun laws only way to secure a safe future for US
This is a piece written by Gerard Toal, the NOVA-based Virginia Tech Professor. It was published in the Irish Times 28/04/07. The Irish Times 28/04/2007 Author: Gerard Toal Title: Sensible gun laws only way to secure a safe future for US The majority of students of Virginia Tech are doing something ordinary yet also remarkable this week: they are studying hard for their final exams. Working through the horrific murders of 27 of their fellow students and 5 of their faculty at the hands of a disturbed class mate, Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech community is refusing to be defined by a violent rampage that has shocked the United States and caused sorrow across the world. Virginia Tech is an institution of higher learning, a place where young people can realize their potential and, as the university slogan puts it, 'invent the future.' The return of students in large numbers after such a terrible crime is re-affirming this to the world. The loss of so many young lives on April 16th has shaken us all. A flotilla of media decamped to our main university campus in Blacksburg and recorded our shock and our tears. It has also encountered, in conversations with our students and faculty, our capacity to rally and persevere. As a Virginia Tech faculty member for eighteen years, I was gratified by two aspects of our response. First, Virginia Tech faculty and students correctly challenged the widespread use of the multi-media images produced by Cho Seung-Hui himself which were integral to enacting his fantasy of heroic 're-masculinization' through brutal violence. The complicity of the media in producing murder as fascinating spectacle is widespread across the globe. Second, amidst our pain, there was also human empathy for Cho's family and for those beyond our campus who suffer from structural and direct violence every day. The death toll in Baghdad last week was horrific. The Iraq war continues to claim the lives of young American soldiers, some tragically former Virginia Tech students. The daily death toll from gun violence across the United States is also horrific. In 2004, the New York Times reported this last weekend, an average of about 81 people per day died from gunfire across the United States. Some were suicides, others 'accidents' and the rest classified as homicides. In Washington D.C. in 2005, according to public statistics, there were 195 murders, the lowest number in recent years yet still a grim total for a city of only 550,521 people. Look for a rise in the future if the staunchly conservative US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has its way. Last month, it struck down the District's restrictive handgun law opening the door to a broad roll-back of gun control laws across the United States, especially in its major cities (the decision is on appeal, and may come before the US Supreme Court). Marginalized by last Monday's horror at Virginia Tech was a large demonstration in Washington DC for congressional voting rights. Despite having a population almost as numerous as states like North Dakota (636,677), Alaska (663,661), South Dakota (775,933), and larger than Wyoming (509,294), this overwhelmingly African-American city has no Senators or Representatives with political voting power in the Congress seated within it. This matters significantly when it comes to gun control laws to promote public safety and freedom from random acts of madness. All of the states comparable to DC in population are power centers for those forces glamorizing guns and undermining existing gun control laws. National Rifle Association constructions of 'tradition' and 'rights' (words familiar to Irish ears) are blended with frontier mythology to sell guns, and lots of them, as necessary accessories of a supposedly 'free' lifestyle. Paranoid fantasies revolving around government conspiracies and invading outsiders are used to mobilize gun owners into political projects as single issue voters backing NRA-endorsed candidates. Gun laws are for sissies; real men pack heat. But there is no conspiracy, only the organized effort of the gun lobby, deeply entrenched in Congress, to thwart cities suing gun manufacturers for the devastation caused by their products, and to let the Clinton era assault weapons ban lapse. Under the Bush administration, a plethora of semi-automatic assault weapons are now available for sale to the general public. Last Friday, in the wake of the Virginia Tech rampage, the Democratic controlled House of Representatives passed a bill creating a new Congressional seat for Washington DC and, to attract Republican support, for Republican-leaning Utah also (most Republicans still voted against the measure). The measure was previously stalled by Republican efforts to attach a provision formally overturning the District's 31 year old ban on hand guns. The bill moves forward into the Senate where the over representation of rural states and the under representation of the interests of America's cities is most pronounced. It also faces a potential White House veto. Beyond this modest gesture, the Virginia Tech massacre has generated no serious political response. Politicians have run from the issue rather than face it, blaming university officials and campus security rather than their own complicity with making deadly semi-automatic weapons easily available. The Virginia Tech community reacted strongly against an initial media-driven desire to blame the university and its police force for the absence of a 'lockdown' of campus (as if an open campus should be like a prison). Petitions of support for the university president and police chief made it clear we were not accepting this easy 'blame-the-local-officials' strategy. Contrast this to how the Australian government reacted in 1996 to the massacre of 35 people in Port Arthur Tasmania by a deranged killer using a semi-automatic rifle. Within 12 days, the federal and state government agreed a ban on semi-automatic rifles and placed strict controls on other guns. The government also launched a large gun buy-back program. The result? Suicides and homicides have declined. In the decade before Port Arthur, there were 10 separate mass-shooting incidents; since, zero. The United States faces many difficult challenges today. Can the US state extract itself with dignity from Iraq and rebuild its international standing to more effectively thwart terrorism? Can it meet the challenge of global climate change after ignoring it for so long? Can the federal government create legislative solutions that provide adequate health care for all its citizens, as its population ages? And, while its leading politicians may not want to acknowledge it, the Virginia Tech killings renew the question: can the federal government establish meaningful control on handguns and assault weapons? These are profound challenges for the future. My hope and feeling is that some of those students studying hard at Virginia Tech, in the wake of a horrible tragedy, will be involved in inventing a better future for the United States of America, one where security is grounded in sensible gun laws and Virginia Tech is the name of an excellent university not a citation in a continuing list of murderous rampages. -- Archived with permission of the author.
"Schools across Virginia and around the nation are supporting Virginia Tech during this difficult time. I only wish I could include them all in this illustration. My hope is that this illustration will indicate that, no matter what school we attend, today we are all Hokies." - Ben Lansing http://lansingcartoons.com/
While the images on this website cannot be reproduced without permission, permission is granted to send the above image for non-profit purposes to anyone that might be comforted by it under the condition that the image is not altered and credit is given to the artist. For other uses including media communications, please contact me at benjaminlansing@yahoo.com http://lansingcartoons.com/
Wednesday, April 18. 2007 The blog has not been on my mind these past few days. My son is a senior at Virginia Tech. He's OK. We have spent most of the past two days staying in touch with him and answering phone calls and emails from friends and family. I watched the coverage knowing he was safe, and saw his freshman dormitory as the site of the first shooting, and his main classroom building as the site of the others. I've walked that campus, gone to football games, chanted Hokie chants, been in those buildings, and still I can't grasp what it must be to be that community. He called his mom as soon as he knew about the first shootings. He had a class in Norris Hall at 10:30 and planned to be there at 9:30 to work on his senior project. Professor Kevin Granata was their project adviser in the Engineering Science and Mechanics department. Their research is in muscle and reflex response and robotics. Dr. Granata is one of the top biomechanics researchers in the country and is known for his work on movement dynamics in cerebral palsy. If he had gone in as planned, he would have been exactly at the wrong place at the wrong time. Dr. Granata was one of the thirty in Norris Hall that was killed. I've been on the Tech campus a number of times, gone to a Hokie football game and have a sense of this spirit you hear students and staff talk about on the news. But I don't think we can understand it in the way that they do. The students and staff I saw on the news all served Tech well. The professors who were killed all died trying to protect their students in some way. They serve our profession well. I listened to poet Nikki Giovanni at the Convocation read "We Are Virginia Tech" and thought that some listeners must have thought it odd for a poet to talk about "We are Hokies." I would have thought the same before my son started Tech. I associated Hokies with sports, especially football, and the overwhelming volume of fans at the stadium. But it is more than that. When the students chanted "Let's Go Hokies" or just the word Hokie, that too must have seemed odd, perhaps irreverent, to some given the circumstances. It absolutely was not that. I work on a college campus and know that it could happen at any school. I have no wise healing words, no poem of my own, no pointing finger of blame or visionary hindsight. "We are better than we think, not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imagination and the possibility we will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears, through all this sadness. We are the Hokies. We will prevail, we will prevail. We are Virginia Tech." Posted by Ken Ronkowitz in About Us at 07:38 -- Original Source: http://devel2.njit.edu/serendipity/index.php?/archives/303-Today-We-Are-All-Hokies.html Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 1.0.