by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
U.N. Visitor’s Plaza, New York, New York
A gift from Luxembourg.
Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last forty-eight hours, you have no doubt seen the coverage concerning the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado. If you possess even a minimal level of empathy for your fellow human beings, twelve dead and fifty-eight wounded when their only crime was wanting to see a movie can only be properly described as tragic. Among the dead accounted for up to this point are a man who had been celebrating his twenty-seventh birthday (Alex Sullivan), a member of our Navy (Petty Officer Third Class John Larimer), a twenty-four year old aspiring sports journalist (Jessica Ghawi), and a six year-old girl. Some less responsible outlets are reporting this little girl’s name (Huffington Post, looking your direction), but other more responsible outlets are not. I will not post her name for the same reason others have declined: the little girl remains unidentified because her mother, also a victim of this horrific crime with gunshot wounds to the neck and abdomen, remains paralyzed in hospital and has not yet been told of her daughter’s death. Even in reporting on events, sometimes a little discretion goes a long way and does not impair the “public’s right to know” in any substantive manner.
Over the next few days, you will see many attempts by people with various political agendas trying to monopolize on this shooting to promote their pet causes. In fact, it has already started and in a most heinous manner. During a radio interview on The Heritage Foundation’s “Istook Live!” show, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings were a result of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs” . . . and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter. Gohmert in one fell swoop illustrated that not only is he a base political opportunist, but that he apparently doesn’t understand the 1st or 2nd Amendments very well – a common affliction among Texas pols. Others pols are already using this as a way to promote their anti-gun agendas, their pro-gun agendas and the Twitter-verse is filling with statements from “our leaders” about this tragic event and all of them in some way self-serving.
I urge you to ignore these opportunists for a moment and to think about something else related to the Aurora shooting.
Multiple outlets are reporting that the accused gunman, James Holmes, had dyed his hair red and told the police he “was the Joker”.
There is the fantasy of violence. There is the reality of violence. They could not be more different in outcome. This presents the issue of instances like this where the line between fantasy and reality have clearly been crossed in some meaningful manner. Does this problem exist in the individual or in society itself? I submit the answer might be “a little of both”.
Consider this: one of the elements of drama is that the hero (or something or someone the hero holds dear) must be in peril. It creates tension, it moves the story. You cannot have drama without an element of danger or risk and very often that danger or risk is portrayed in the form of physical violence. As a species, we are wired to find this entertaining. There is nothing wrong with a bit of wish fulfilment in seeing the hero overcome adversity as entertaining.
The reality is starkly different. Witness real heroes like Jon Blunk who was killed defending his girlfriend Jansen Young during this rampage. Witness Jarell Brooks, a 19-year-old from Aurora, who put himself at risk to help Patricia Legarreta and her two young children escape, but not before he and Legarreta were wounded. Witness Eric Hunter, a 23-year-old from Aurora, who found two wounded girls and dragged them to safety in an adjoining theater before blocking the door to Theater 8 and preventing the alleged gunman from spreading his gunfire in to a new room of innocent theater goers.
All three possible outcomes. Death, wounding, escape from physical harm. All three equally heroic in that other lives were saved, some of them strangers with nothing in common but a love of the same kind of cinema and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s a funny thing about heroism though. As F. Scott Fitzgerald famously quipped, “Show me a hero and I’ll write you a tragedy.” In real life, the tragedies and the heroics are real and have real consequences. The hero does not always win the day as they are prone to do in fiction.
Does our propensity for dramatic entertainment, let alone dramas involving violence, feed a propensity for violence? This is a question as old as drama itself. On one side of the argument is the catharsis argument put forth by Aristotle in Poetics; that in viewing tragic events, the audience’s negative feelings like fear and pity are purged. This line of reasoning was later supported by psychologists and psychiatrists such as Sigmund Freud and A.A. Brill. On the other side are modern researchers who have found correlations between watching violence and the rate of violence in society, but causal connections between the two in the general population have been difficult to pin down. What is clear is that “exposure to media violence does not produce violent criminals out of all viewers, just as cigarette smoking does not produce lung cancer victims out of all smokers. This lack of perfect correspondence between heavy media violence exposure and violent behavior simply means that media violence exposure is not a necessary and sufficient cause of violence.” (“Media Violence and the American Public” by Brad J. Bushman and Craig A. Anderson, Iowa State University, American Psychologist, June/July issue, p. 482, 2001.) That a small segment of society seems particularly susceptible to being prodded in to violence through the consumption of media violence though seems undeniable. To me, this seems to comport with the rate in society of people with mental problems revolving around empathy like sociopaths and psychopaths. People who lack empathy would naturally not connect the actuality of violence with the fantasy of violence as they don’t care about the impact of their actions on others to begin with. Correlation is not causation and the root causes of violence are more complex than just a person’s entertainment choices. There are also environmental, social, economic, and personal history to consider. Some people in certain situations are simply going to be more prone to violence. While causation in the general population has been found in desensitization toward violence and violent entertainment, causation of real life violence with fictional violence has been more elusive although desensitization in itself has been can “[increase] aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal and aggressive behaviors, and decreases helpful behaviors.”
As a society, do we have a duty to mitigate all factors that can induce violent behavior in individuals? Even if that susceptible segment of society is a very small percentage of society? With complex compound causation, this is a practically impossible task, and even if “perfect mitigation” of contributing factors was had there are a certain percentage of society that are going to be violent psychopaths no matter what their environment is like. Where to do we draw the line a social inputs that can encourage violence and personal responsibility for individual action? Consider this as well: do we have the same duty to mitigate when the violence perpetrated by sociopaths and psychopaths is economic (as in the banking industry shenanigans that birthed the OWS movement), is purely psychological (as seen in pathologically verbally abusive spouses) or is purely political (as in the religious far right attempting to trample history and the Constitution to institute theocratic laws if not outright theocracy)?
Perfection is not possible. Evil cannot be eliminated in the world for without it we have no definition of good. The perfect removal of error from complex systems is a mathematical impossibility. Does that mean we should not try?
What do you think?
Source(s): ABCNews.go.com (1, 2), NBCNews.com (1, 2), Huffington Post (1, 2, 3)
~ submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
UPDATE: The names of all the victims have been officially released by the Arapahoe County coroner’s office. These are the names it is important to remember. Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6, Jessica Ghawi, 24, Alex Sullivan, 27, Jonathan Blunk, 26, John Larimer, 27, Matt McQuinn, 27, Micayla Medek, 23, Jesse Childress, 29, Alexander Jonathan (AJ) Boik, 18, Alex Teves, 24, Rebecca Ann Wingo, 32, and Gordon W. Cowden, 51.
A Personal Note to the Aurora Victims and Their Families and Friends:
My sincerest condolences. May your loved ones lost live on in your memories and may your memories be long, robust and full of happiness. May the wounded heal and take every advantage of their good fortune at surviving this senseless act of violence. May this harm done to you and yours not keep you in the depths of lament, but transform to a celebration of life – both theirs and yours. Peace, love and long life.
Gene H.
NOTE: For those of you waiting for the next Propaganda installment, I’ll either publish it tomorrow or publish next weekend depending upon time constraints. I thank you for your patience in the face of breaking news.
Well, here is a surprise, Bill-o getting soft in his old age?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/bill-oreilly-jason-chaffetz-gun-control_n_1701289.html?utm_hp_ref=media
Juris, the “gun show loophole” is a myth. Any reputable gun show only allows vendors with proper Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) to sell at the show, and they are required to run the usual background check before letting you walk off with a controlled firearm.
However, note the article refers to “unlicensed dealers.” That could refer to you or me. I can sell you a firearm perfectly legally out on the sidewalk near the gun show in almost any state. No difference if I ran an ad in the paper and you came over to my house to buy it. Inside the gun show, I cannot sell you a firearm. In fact, the way most gun shows operate, I could not sell you a soft drink or stick of gum, because it would be cutting into the sales of vendors who paid to have a concession stand.
The so called “gun show loophole” is one of those hyperbolic phrases developed in focus groups to scare hell out of the public who does not know better.
BTW, before anyone asks, I am not a member of the NRA. I gave up my lifetime membership well over thirty years ago when I started getting over-the-top right wing literature from the extremists who took over the organization. IMHO, the NRA is no longer about gun rights as it is about raising money and electing right wing people to office. This includes both Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats.
OS, your wife had really good sense!
Speaking of fighter planes on the open market, I once came close to buying a replica of a WW-1 SE5a. This was a British design and the airplane was the WW-1 equivalent of the P-51 Mustang of WW-II. It was fast, maneuverable and had a significant fear factor for the enemy. My wife had a fit because it only had one seat, and she could not go with me in it. BTW, the thing on the top wing is a Lewis machine gun. Disabled in order to make it legal. For the most part, only replicas are available on the open market,, because the small handful left in existence are national treasures and very fragile. This is a picture of an SE5a like the one I wanted. Keep in mind this is a fighter plane, and like all fighters, designed with the sole purpose of being a killing machine.
http://www.replicraft.us.fm/SE5a1.jpg
Juris, I was asked a question (sarcastically) by someone why they could not own a B-2 bomber or a tank. Actually, one cannot buy a B-2 because it is one of the most highly classified weapons systems in the world. It is possible to buy a bomber, however. Back during WW-II, the B-29 Superfortress was also a classified aircraft. Now at least two are in private hands. Somewhere around here, I have a photo of myself at the controls of the B-29 FIFI, owned by the Commemorative Air Force. There are a lot cheaper bombers out there as well, such as the B-25 Mitchell, the type that bombed Japan on the Doolittle mission. The B-25 is a lot cheaper to operate than a B-29, which costs millions to replace worn out engines. BTW, these are all fully operational bombers, with working bomb bays. The machine guns have been disabled.
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/Tanks_Trucks_Jeeps_for_sale_page.html
Did you know you can buy a Sukhoi SU-25 Flanker on the open market? This is a fighter plane the equivalent of our F-15.
http://prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm
BettyKath, thank you for that research. I need to read and re-read your last post. I need to draw several diagrams, too — wow, so much information! It’s like trying to follow the family trees in HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE — can’t be done w/o pencil and paper.
This confused me: In any event, if the Batman movies are now serving as a newer version of J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” subliminal messaging triggering mechanism, — Salinger’s novel was of interest to a number of American political assassins — keep in mind that August 10 is the opening date of The Bourne Legacy. It may be wise to skip that film in the theater for a while.
I have to figure out what all these movies are! Of course I read JD Salinger’s CATCHER but don’t remember the reference to the subliminal messaging triggering mechanism — my memory is more shot than a movie theater!
And OS, thank you for pointing out my ignorance in federal control of automatic weapons. I have not had any time to devote to researching the issues myself, but apparently I have a lot to be learned. I did briefly search about the so-called “gun show loophole.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-10-07-gun-show-stings_N.htm.
If I didn’t have to bill hours I would have a lot more time to help solve all the world’s problems. (sarcasm).
OS and Tony C, thank you for pointing out my wreckless typo. My prior post should have stated “no civilian should be allowed (or needs) a firearm that is capable of shooting *600* bullets per minute.
And thank you OS for the videos – that is fast!
Tony C – your comment is exactly the sort of debate I think we should be having – well reasoned and rational thoughts on the issue of gun control.
Although the incident itself may have not been forestalled by controlling the rate of fire, it may very well have been a different outcome in number killed and wounded. For example, if he was using an assault rifle, as opposed to a handgun, I think it could make a whole lot of difference. Could he have killed 12 people and injured 57 others with a handgun? Maybe so, but not as easily and in the short amount of time as with an assault rifle capable of shooting more bullets per minute than I can comprehend. Also, we have heard of many heros as a result of this incident. Maybe one or more of those heros would have had an opportunity to tackle the gunman if he was shooting a handgun? Anyone know if it was reported which firearm he was using? All speculation of course, but I do think it can make a difference.
I do agree that fully automatic weapons should be banned, but am open to some reasonable exceptions. I think a ban all automatic weapons should also be discussed, but would again be open to some reasonable exceptions. Where that line would be drawn is a whole other debate.
As to your point of successfully outlawing certain products and activities, I agree. However, does the fact that we may not be able to stop all such activities and/or products mean we should not attempt to do so? We cannot stop all individuals from committing the activity of murder but I think we can all agree that we should still prosecute murderers. Sure, if there were a ban on all automatic weapons, the black market may increase and people will still own them illegally, but if that prevents just one massacre such as Aurora, I think it is well worth it.
Your points as to costs, enforcement capability, and ease of bypassing control are all well-taken. Those points go to the question of whether cost/benefit of more control is worth it? To me, saving innocent lives is the ultimate benefit and one I think would be accomplished.
For the record, I do believe in the right to own and possess firearms, but am for tougher regulations and more uniformity in control. I know nothing about guns but have numerous friends who are owners of all variety, even the 600 per minute rate of fire ones. I have shot some handguns and shotguns over the years and have kicked the idea around of purchasing one to protect the home, but would never conceal and carry. The horror stories of children finding mommy’s or daddy’s guns and shooting themselves or others always prevented me from pursuing ownership. Even if I could get past that, I would have to convince my wife to allow it, most likely a losing battle.
I also don’t know much about current gun regulations, but my very superficial understanding is that each state has its own regs and there are numerous loopholes in control (gun shows?). Pointing out my ignorance in these respects, or any other for that matter, are welcomed.
Some background on Holmes. from waynemadsenreport.com
It has also been revealed that Holmes spoke at the Salk Institute at the age of 18 on temporal illusions. Holmes explains that a temporal illusion is an illusion that allows one to change the past. One of slides shows the name of Terrence Sejnowski, Terrence Sejnowski, the Francis Crick Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the director of the Computational Neurobiology Laboratory. In 2008, Sejnowski wrote that since early brain research conducted by the RAND Corporation in 1980, “we now know a lot about the brain, perhaps more than we need to know.”
——————————–
July 23-24, 2012 — Aurora massacre: several links between James Holmes and U.S. government research
James Holmes, the 24-year old suspect in the mass shooting of Batman “The Dark Knight Rises” movie goers in Aurora, Colorado that left 12 people dead and 58 injured, has had a number of links to U.S. government-funded research centers. Holmes’s past association with government research projects has prompted police and federal law enforcement officials to order laboratories and schools with which Holmes has had a past association not to talk to the press about Holmes.
Holmes was one of six recipients of a National Institutes of Health Neuroscience Training Grant at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in Denver. Holme is a graduate of the University of California at Riverside with a Bachelor of Science degree in neuroscience. Although Holmes dropped out of the PhD neuroscience program at Anschutz in June, police evacuated two buildings at the Anschutz center after the massacre at the Aurora movie theater. Holmes reportedly gave a presentation at the Anschutz campus in May on Micro DNA Biomarkers in a class titled “Biological Basis of Psychiatric and Neurological Disorders.”
Initial reports of Holmes having an accomplice in the theater shooting have been discounted by the Aurora police. However, no explanation has been given by police why the Anschutz campus buildings were evacuated after Holmes was already in custody in the Arapahoe County jail.
The Anschutz Medical Campus is on the recently de-commisioned site of the U.S. Army’s Fitzsimons Army Medical Center and is named after Philip Anschutz, the billionaire Christian fundamentalist oil and railroad tycoon who also owns The Examiner newspaper chain and website and the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. The Anschutz Medical Campus was built by a $91 million grant from the Anschutz Foundation.
In 2006, at the age of 18, Holmes served as a research intern at the Salk Institute at the University of California at San Diego in La Jolla. It is noteworthy that for the previous two years before Holmes worked at the Salk Institute, the research center was partnered with the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Columbia University, University of California at San Francisco, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Wake Forest University, and the Mars Company (the manufacturers of Milky Way and Snickers bars) to prevent fatigue in combat troops through the enhanced use of epicatechina, a blood flow-increasing and blood vessel-dilating anti-oxidant flavanol found in cocoa and, particularly, in dark chocolate.
The research was part of a larger DARPA program known as the “Peak Soldier Performance Program,” which involved creating brain-machine interfaces for battlefield use, including human-robotic bionics for legs, arms, and eyes. DARPA works closely with the Defense Science Office on projects that include the medical research community. Fitzsimons was at the forefront of DARPA research on the use of brain-connected “neuroprosthetic” limbs for soldiers amputated or paralyzed in combat.
According to his LinkedIn profile, James Holmes’s father, Dr. Robert Holmes, who received a PhD in Statistics in 1981 from the University of California at Berkeley, worked for San Diego-based HNC Software, Inc. from 2000 to 2002. HNC, known as a “neural network” company, and DARPA, beginning in 1998, have worked on developing “cortronic neural networks,” which would allow machines to interpret aural and visual stimuli to think like humans. The cortronic concept was developed by HNC Software’s chief scientist and co-founder, Robert Hecht-Nielsen. HNC merged with the Minneapolis-based Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO), a computer analysis and decision-making company. Robert Holmes continues to work at FICO.
It has also emerged that Holmes, when he was 20, worked as a camp counselor at Camp Max Straus of the Jewish Big Brothers and Sister of Los Angeles. According to the Jewish Journal, among other tasks, Holmes helped to teach boys between the ages of 7 to 10 archery. In another unusual detail, the car Holmes used to drive to the Aurora movie theater had Tennessee plates. Holmes is originally from San Diego.
James Holmes is the grandson of Lt. Col. Robert Holmes, one of the first Turkish language graduates of the Army Language School, later the Defense Language Institute, in Monterey, California. Graduating from the Turkish language class in 1948, Holmes spent a career in the Army, which likely included more than a few intelligence-related assignments. Typically, U.S. military officers conversant in Turkish served with either the Defense Intelligence Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency at either the U.S. embassy in Ankara or the Consulate General in Istanbul, or both.
Terrence Sejnowski, the Francis Crick Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and the director of the Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, in an interview with Cognitive Science Online in 2008, had the following comment about recent studies of the human brain: “Alan Newell [cognitive psychology researcher at the intelligence community-linked RAND Corporation] once said that when AI [artificial intelligence] was founded not enough was known about the brain to be of any help and in the early 1980s, symbol processing was the only game in town. That has changed and we now know a lot about the brain, perhaps more than we need to know [emphasis added].”
More than we need to know!
The links between the younger and elder Holmes and U.S. government research on creating super-soldiers, human brain-machine interfaces, and human-like robots beg the question: “Was James Holmes engaged in a real-life Jason Bourne TREADSTONE project that broke down and resulted in deadly consequences in Aurora, Colorado?” In any event, if the Batman movies are now serving as a newer version of J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye” subliminal messaging triggering mechanism, — Salinger’s novel was of interest to a number of American political assassins — keep in mind that August 10 is the opening date of The Bourne Legacy. It may be wise to skip that film in the theater for a while.
@Juris: 60 per minute? That is one per second, and a forced delay of one second between shots would severely limit the defensive value and purpose of the gun in the first place; a second would be an eternity when under attack.
As Otteray Scribe showed, hand guns have been firing faster than that for over 150 years. Using a normal hand gun a normal person can learn to fire four to six rounds in a second with minimal training, just see how fast you can tap your finger on the table within one second.
I do not think controlling the timing of rounds would help in the least to forestall this kind of incident. I would not object to banning the sale of fully automatic weapons and limiting legal weaponry to semi-automatic (the trigger must be pulled for each shot), but the trigger can be pulled pretty fast, and I see no plausible way without electronics to limit the firing rate without introducing electronics or something. I would prefer, for defensive purposes, that my guns work without batteries.
The destructive power of the gun is both its value in defense and its value in offense. Limiting one limits the other. I do not think we can limit the power of people to do harm with guns without simultaneously limiting their power to defend themselves with guns.
I think that if you believe people have the right to firearms for self defense (as I do) then you are forced to accept that firearms will be used in crimes and for murders (as I accept).
One reason I accept that is I subscribe to the notion that some products and activities cannot be successfully outlawed; the worst elements of society are going to be users no matter what the cost. We saw that to be true for prohibition of alcohol; we see it is true for other intoxicants like pot, we have seen it true for sex (e.g. homosexuality, prostitution, pornography). Heck, we have seen it true for copyright laws; most people find those draconian and unfairly enforced.
I believe the same thing would be true for guns.
The law is just not an effective deterrent if too many people disagree with the law. It costs too much, citizens do not cooperate with enforcement, if they can get away with it they will thwart the police, and the law ends up pitting the government against the people it is supposed to be serving, it makes it an oppressor instead of a champion.
Guns are too easy to make, any control mechanism on them will be hacked in hours. They will not be controlled any more than pot is controlled. Just like you have a vast underground pot economy, you would have an equally large gun economy, impossible to stop, run by violent criminals, and putting people in greater danger than when guns were legal (just as pot users are in greater danger than they should be).
Juris, automatic weapons came under Federal control in 1934. If a civilian hobbyist wants a machine gun, they have to undergo a deep background check by the Feds, a lengthy waiting period, and if approved, pay a hefty tariff for the privilege of burning up a lot of very expensive ammunition in no time. The ATF defines an automatic weapon ; e.g., machine gun, as a firearm that shoots more than one round with a single pull of the trigger.
As for being able to unload sixty rounds in a minute, that can be done with an ordinary six-shooter revolver, given enough practice. Here is a short video of Jerry Miculek using a revolver to get off twelve rounds in three seconds. Jerry can do this all day, btw. The revolver he is using is not much different from those seen in old western movies. Anyone who is not a complete klutz can learn to do this. It just takes LOTS of practice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw
Here is Cpl. Travis Tomasie demonstrating speed reloading with a normal capacity magazine.
Gene H, while I appreciate the focus of your debate, and find it quite a fascinating one to have, I think it is the wrong (less important) debate to have. I think this is a great opportunity to have the gun control debate regardless of which side you are on. Unfortunately, true debate in this country (i.e., lengthy discussion supported by facts from various perspectives, without degrading, insulting, or despising one for his/her point of view) on complex issues is nonexistent.
IMHO, no civilian should be allowed (or needs) a firearm that is capable of shooting 60 bullets per minute.
I like how Jon Stewart addressed the focus of the debate last night: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-23-2012/aurora—gun-control.
Having been deeply depressed by OS’s argument being repeated about 100 times on NPR today that we have guns and we are always going to have guns and if we eliminate guns the determined will switch to IEDs or fire or nuclear bombs, I think I have come up with something of a solution and have moved from depression to acceptance.
First, do we all agree that given our situation we are bound to have another massacre in a school, hospital, sports event, McDonalds, church or movie sometime relatively soon? Some damn fool is going to bring his (or her) Glock and start pumping holes in us. Well, not to worry! Here is the answer….I call it the Louie Gohmert Solution.
As we pass through the lobbies of our public buildings, there will be bins of Glocks. Everyone must take one. In Florida and Texas, everyone needs to take two. (I’m pretty sure there is no law against this and the NRA will be thrilled about the rise in gun sales.) We can all now be reassured that while the crazed killer may kill two or three of us, THERE WON’T BE A MASSACRE! (You have to kill at least four adults, or three adults and one child before it is classed as a massacre. Smaller numbers are just classified as “incidents”.) He is sure to be brought down by one or another crack shot in the audience. And who knows…maybe your grandma could even be the one to get off the lucky shot.
You know what I’m looking forward to? When they implement the Louie Gohmert Solution at the next joint session of Congress.
I don’t think we know enough about James Holmes to figure out anything about his motivations or his mental state. HE may not know enough, either. I found his “look” remarkably vacant; he looked “out to lunch.” I only wish he had gone to lunch sooner, and gone farther FOR his lunch — like a deserted area where they test nuclear weapons.
I view Auroroa as just another “let’s scare the people into obedience and silence, as a way of dealing with the terror they experience from our trauma causing deeds.”
Another booster, at intervals after 9/11.
Finding and guiding the human tools is no problem. That they are lone wolves I find significant.
The “out of it” kids who go over the edge have been barraged by a society that has also been put “out of it” by way of its own self deceit:
(Noam Chomsky). Inundated with chemical poisons and propaganda, poison ideas, and constant violence in every form of media, one wonders how any of us can “maintain our sanity” sometimes.
Gene,
First of all thanks for that update on Holmes ‘ mother. That original snippet about her saying that’s him just didn’t ring true to me. In discussing what happened to TV news journalism I would go farther back then Iraq 1. TV news began to degenerate when Ed Murrow left CBS, Bill Paley died and the News Division was placed under the aegis of the Entertainment Division. The networks recognized that rather than being a public service, the “News” could be a profit center. As such the emphacis on making the news entertaining took precedence. “If it bleeds, it leads” is first an entertainment decision, even though that decision also affects bothe the people’s fear’s and bigotry.
Secondly, some have suggested this act might have been the work of a conspiracy. Even though I have not been loath to postulate conspiracies here in the past, see some of my guest blogs, in this terrible act Occam’s Razor suggests a simpler explanation. As I wrote in a comment above my belief is that 0.01% of the population is capable of such acts, which would play out to 35,000 people in the U.S. and 7,000,000 worldwide. In all but the most oppressive venues in the world, the means to commit such acts are available. See the mass murder in Norway. This act really serves little from a macro-conspiratorial perspective and that was true for Oklahoma City as well. This is in contrast to the effects from, for instance, the murders in the 60’s beginning with JFK.
…. continued ….:
(Mass Suicide & Murder Pact). The purveyors of mass killing are respected and extolled, which is a form of bully worship.
Those who tend to hang with bullies also tend to blame the victims, not the bullies.
Very sicko.