Thanks, NBC

So as the controversy regarding NBC showing the clips and pictures sent in by the Virginia Tech shooter continues to heat up faster than a born-again Christian at an abortion clinic, we are forced to ponder the following: What effect does showing these things really have? NBC has stated that it has helped answer the question as to why this act took place, and what was really happening inside the mind of young Cho Sueng-Hui. So that’s the reason? Like we didn’t know already he was a little crazy?Lets, just for a second, be honest. It was about one thing: ratings. That’s it. The FBI had asked that it not be aired, and if you really cared about the reasons behind the massacre, you would have complied. If your reason was anything other than ratings, why did you not share your little videos with your competing networks? I am sure Ms. Couric would have had no trouble airing them at all. Instead, CBS led Wednesday nights broadcast with the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, not that anyone watched anyway. You can certainly count your lucky stars that this nutjob decided to send you this little “package”, and while you were certainly free to use it as you wish, lets not pretend you give a damn about anything other that the Nielsons. All you did was give a bunch of grieving families a little more stress and agony, and delay their grieving process even further. Does anyone feel better after seeing this? What do we know now that we didn’t know before? What was so wrong with waiting a while before pounding this killers ugly face down our throats? Even so, after seeing this, what do we gain? Just this: The knowledge that there is no way at all to stop this from happening again. This boy had the attention of the legal system, had teachers recommending assistance, spent time with a psychiatrist, and showed, in writing through his scripts, his innermost thoughts. So all these clues were out there, but with no way to connect them, the puzzle was never complete enough to act apon. Haven’t we heard this before? The worst terrorist attact in our nations history could have been avoided if there had not been such an inability or unwillingness to share information between agencies. If a teacher goes to school authorities with a concern for a student, shouldn’t their investigation involve questioning other teachers as well? Or maybe even check with his roommates and classmates? Should a psychiatrist, concerned enough to realize suicidal tendencies, take at least a few minutes to check the opinions of others that know the individual? How many times can the buck be passed? While we cannot imply that this was the fault of anyone other than the shooter, certainly if we are charged with the responsibility with deciding the mental stability of a patient, or with the well-being of a student body, should that not involve a little more than checking a box on a medical form? A judge actually ordered outpatient mental health treatment for Mr. Sueng-Hui. Enforced by whom? We allow an obviously troubled individual back on the street, with no one responsible at all for the repercussions. If a doctor were to prescribe the wrong medication for a patient, causing perhaps one’s death, would they be responsible? Of course. But what if they prescribed no medication or treatment when it was needed? Are they now without blame? As long as there is a system, there will be cracks in the system. There will always be another Cho Sueng-Hui to fall between them. So, thanks NBC, for telling us what we already knew. I just could have waited a few days for the reminder.

Is this really what we have come to?

It is just 2 days following the horrific events of Mondays Virginia Tech events, and it seems we have already moved on. This morning the headlines on yahoo.com had to do with tax extensions and presidential candidates, with hardly a mention of our troubled shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, and the tragedy. Perhaps, as we delve deeper into his life, we are afraid of what we will find. Stories of teachers pulling him from class and directing him to counseling after some admittedly deranged writing, the fact that he had few friends and signed his name with a question mark, and the ever present query as to why a man wanting to take his own life felt compelled to take so many others with him. It seems so incomprehensible, but is it really? The English major wrote of mothers with chainsaws and step-fathers killing step-sons, and an overwhelming desire by students to kill a teacher in his plays. This is shocking? If you were a teacher, and a student had turned in “Pulp Fiction” as a homework assignment, what would you think? Would you run to a counselor to get a young Mr. Tarantino help, or pay $10 bucks to go see the movie? Last weekend, “300”, a movie based a Frank Miller graphic novel, passed the $200 million mark in the US and has grossed over $400 million worldwide, despite some of the more deranged killings ever seen on screen. Did we miss the “warning signs”? And this is just the start. Every weekend features a new horror movie with more torture to “push the limits”, with lines, usually made up of, say, 18-24 year old males, stretching around the block to buy tickets. Are we really shocked that a 22 year old college student would write this way? No. We will hear those that will sadly state that they should have said something, or could have done more to help. He obviously had some serious issues which called for professional help. We know that now. But could we have admitted that beforehand? How could we sit through and be entertained by a movie like “Hostel”, which features clients paying upwards of $25,000 to torture and kill Americans with chainsaws for sport, and then question Mr. Seung-Hui’s writings that feature similar themes? These may just be movies, but they all started in someone’s mind, and that someone in now holding millions of our dollars for having “entertained” us. And is the fact that he was a loner bothersome? Living in a age of severely diminished social skills, where are best friends are Sanjaya and Jack Bauer, and Friday night is spent huddled over a laptop with an oversized cup of coffee, why are we surprised? The fact is, we’re not. There is no way to forsee this happening, especially when the line is so blurred. All the “warning signs” show us is that we can’t tell anymore the difference between a brilliant director or a serial killer, an incredibly creative mind or a student on the edge. If we really want to notice the warning signs, we have to change the way we are entertained, the way we look at art and creativity. Perhaps the recent events in Virginia will do that, but it is unlikely. This, for a while, may change the way we look at others, the way we look for warning signs. But for real change, we need to change the way we look……..in the mirror.