Rampage in Virginia...

[Chris Grieb]

Elizabeth; The last big scene in Atlas when Galt is being tortured. When Taggart is saying he hasn't screamed yet. The next scene is that Taggart starts screaming. Taggart has finally seen his own soul. I agree completely with Michael on this issue.

[Dodger]

I understand your views, but I do not agree with them. Personal issues and emotional attachment differs between us, it seems.

Let me elaborate.

Michael:

I am usually very tolerant and benevolent, and I do think forgiveness is vastly underrated in Objectivism, but I hate everything about how this kid thought and what he did. This was pure raw naked evil.

All well and good, but you have to remember that what may seem right and just to you may seem wrong and unjust to others. Any term of description is completely relative. What is evil is what goes against the moral standard, and what is good is what agrees with it. In an opposite world, what is evil would be considered good. It is my firm belief that emotional and mental detachment from situations of this level should be highly prioritized. While it may seem honorable to hate that which is morally evil and unjust, you do yourself injustice.

I do not believe in right and wrong. I believe in logic. I try the find the best, logical, and most beneficial and valuable solution to my problems. Sadly, this kid did not solve his problem in the best way he could. Call him evil, call him insane, call him whatever. I feel no sympathy for him and I believe that if he were alive he should be given the death penalty, effective immediately, not because I despise him, but because it is the morally right thing to do by our standards.

If further elaboration is needed please let me know.

Enonemaker:

Mitchell, NBC has aired some excerpts of material Cho sent them in between the shootings. The material included a "manifesto" of his rationale behind the violence. His reasons included hatred for the affluent, those who "have everything," and those "who have never felt an ounce of pain in their lives."

I saw the videos online, the pictures, and read some of the material. His rationale was completely illogical. His anger caused him to assume he knew that which he didnt, and he did not even attempt to socialize at all to solve his problems. He chose the worst possible action he could have taken in his situation.

And yet his shootings did not include specifically targeted people, those certain persons who had individually sparked that hatred within him. He went on a rampage, shooting at every body that moved, regardless and ignorant of their backgrounds and personal philosophies.

To him, everyone was a target. He felt victimized by everyone. If you listened, you should have heard him say something along the lines of 'backed me into a corner, left me no choice,' and 'stained your hands with blood.' He was speaking to everyone. He hated everyone. He was depressed, alone, and played the victim card. He did this all illogically and did not solve his problems in the best way he could have. It all could have been avoided only if he was willing to cooperate and at least see things from other perspectives.

And yes.

I hate him.

And no, I do not, and never would, forgive something like this. The idea is utterly repulsive to me.

That's fair, dont forgive him. But dont hate him. Detach your emotions from this topic, because it is really a waste of time. I understand your reasons behind your emotions but you have to remember that you should follow your mind and not your emotions. If you let your hatred for someone effect the way you think, it can be dangerous. It is best to remain detached, and as I said before, sympathize with those who lost friends and loved ones, and move on.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Dodger

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dodger,

You are wrong and I am right.

Seriously, I understand you not wanting to trust emotions during a biological time in life when hormones are doing some major ass-whomping, but an emotional reaction is not always a lack of objectivity. (And your instincts are correct in that objectivity is what is most needed for correct moral judgments.)

There is a lot of ground to cover with this. The best start is to say that one should never disown one's emotions. On the contrary, one should accept them when they come, then work from there. The best of all worlds is to fully understand an emotion, fully feel it and fully keep it in balance. You can't do it all the time, but you can do it enough to be happy.

Even when despising pure evil when it is encountered like that shooter.

More later as we go along.

Michael

[PalePower]

All well and good, but you have to remember that what may seem right and just to you may seem wrong and unjust to others.

Mitchell, I won't get into this too much - you've got a lot more of Rand to read; she addresses this topic. But in short, the whole basis behind Objectivism is just its name: it is a philosophy for living life objectively. Your premises, behavior, goals, and emotions are all derived from facts of reality and in that respect are more or less indisputable.

(Now there are many tibbits of Objectivism that I disagree with. Subjectivity is, to an extent, inextricable from some aspects of life.)

But the underlying tenets of Objectivism run thusly:

Life, as in physical survival, and anything which promotes it (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) = GOOD.

Death, as in physical death, and anything which promotes it (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) = BAD.

This is why Rand called Objectivism the philosophy for living on Earth.

You may talk about subjectivity and differing perspectives until you're blue in the face, but at some point you run into a blockade:

In an opposite world, what is evil would be considered good.

Until in that opposite world - where they consider our evil (death-promoting activity, such as murders) to be good - until in that opposite world, nobody exists anymore to call that evil good, because they have all fulfilled their good, because they are all Dead.

On another note, I agree that emotions do have the capacity to but should not overcome a person and blind their rational judgment. But emotions should never be completely cut off; in a healthy person, emotions are an immediate reaction to outside stimuli based on integral values. They are a valid, logical response -- not a random nuisance to be permitted or shoved away at random.

I will not remove my emotions from this topic, because I cannot do so; I am a human, my function is living, and my emotions indicate to me immediately what helps me live and what will harm me. For you to ask me not to hate, with every ounce and fiber of my being, what this man did is to ask me to shut down my entire capacity to live.

And that is not something I am too ready to accede to any time soon.

~Elizabeth

Edited April 20, 2007 by ENonemaker

[Dodger]

Dodger,

You are wrong and I am right.

Seriously, I understand you not wanting to trust emotions during a biological time in life when hormones are doing some major ass-whomping, but an emotional reaction is not always a lack of objectivity. (And your instincts are correct in that objectivity is what is most needed for correct moral judgments.)

There is a lot of ground to cover with this. The best start is to say that one should never disown one's emotions. On the contrary, one should accept them when they come, then work from there. The best of all worlds is to fully understand an emotion, fully feel it and fully keep it in balance. You can't do it all the time, but you can do it enough to be happy.

Even when despising pure evil when it is encountered like that shooter.

More later as we go along.

Michael

This post is probably what triggered my thoughts the most.

Forgive me, but I have not completely abandoned my stance. While it has been shaken, I still believe that there is something flawed in your arguement. You may not be entirely wrong, but I do not believe you are entirely right either. However, the case you just presented is enough to knock me off my feet, and I have staggered a bit.

I can't explain further, because I have not made sense of everything yet, but I feel as if in the short distance there lies a realization that is beckoning me. However, this realization is a bit different than what you are suggesting. I stand by my previous posts until I can sort out the thoughts that your post seemed to unlock.

[Judith]

I don't feel hatred for the guy. I feel a sort of detached revulsion, as though I were looking at a virulent, lethal microbe under a microscope. I think he was seriously disturbed and not capable of reasoning. He clearly should have been institutionalized long ago and should have been on some kind of medication(s).

Judith

[Victor Pross]

Elizabeth,

This is a quote from serial killer Richard Ramirez. This is a statement he made before he received sentencing at his trial.

“It's nothing you'd understand, but I do have something to say. In fact, I have a lot to say, but now is not the time or place. I don't know why I'm wasting my time or breath. But what the hell? As for what is said of my life, there have been lies in the past and there will be lies in the future. I don't believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society. I need not look beyond this room to see all the liars, haters, the killers, the crooks, the paranoid cowards, each one in his own legal profession. You maggots make me sick-- hypocrites one and all. And no one knows that better than those who kill for policy, clandestinely or openly, as do the governments of the world, which kill in the name of God and country or for whatever reason the deem appropriate. I don't need to hear all of society's rationalizations, I've heard them all before and the fact remains that what is, is. You don't understand me. You are not expected to. You are not capable of it. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil, Legions of the night--night breed--repeat not the errors of the Night Prowler and show no mercy. I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells within us all. That's it.”

You see, the man regards all of civilization as “evil”. Huh, but I am hardly morally or intellectually "paralyzed" because he does think that, and while considering himself beyond “good and evil.” Is this a man you would call “evil” without flinching and thinking yourself too harsh?

-Victor

[Barbara Branden]

What we have here is a conscious choice of a goal, a highly reasoned method and plan for achieving that goal and even rehearsal and practice to make sure it comes off correctly. So the "to think or not to think" argument falls pretty flat. All of those things (choosing goals, choosing methods, mentally practicing, etc.) are acts of reason....

This man chose his goal while in full possession and use of his rational faculty. How he carried out his plan was fully rational in terms of achieving his goal. he problem comes in defining evil. There are some heavy premises that need to be checked here.

Michael

Michael, we are speaking here of a mind so corrupted, so damaged, so filled with envy and hatred, that to say he was "thinking"-- clearly or not clearly -- is to grant him a status he no longer had. I see him, rather (with apologies to animals) as being like a wild beast who may seem extremely cunning in hunting down his prey and eluding those who would prey on him, but is certainly not thinking in any meaningful sense of that term. If any kind of rational thought were going on, this man would have realized the ineffectiveness of his actions, he would have realized that they would not bring him the martydom he sought, that his "enemies" would not regret their contempt for him, that the rich he hated would not become poor -- and that he had no hope of being recognized as a martyr like Jesus Christ, but only as a sick and evil coward.

Whatever objections there may be to the Objectivist concept of evil as the refusal to think -- and I'm not convinced that objections are valid -- the functioning of a mind like this madman's is not relevant. "Thinking" surely means examining one's self and one's actions realistically. Plotting and scheming in a contextual vacuum is not the same as thinking.

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

I do not believe in right and wrong. I believe in logic.

Dodger, Ayn Rand wrote several novels and even more non-fiction books to one end: to explain the logic of her concept of morality. Have you read any of her works?

Barbara.

[Victor Pross]

Barbara,

Excellent, you hit the nail on the head. Yes, yes, this evil bastard was indeed a human being—and I am referring to this in regard to the species he belongs to---and not any civilized or rational association the term may carry.

As a human being, of course he spoke a language! Of course he pinned his signature and played video games! Of course he cooked food and operated a car—and all the other things a “conceptual being” does—including the ability to handle weapons. But because of this....we are not to attribute the word “evil” or “irrational” to him? (!!) No, I just understand Michael’s post that you have quoted; I haven’t gotten a grip on his line of reasoning here myself. But I want to understand his thoughts on the subject.

The killer? This dude was irrational. He was evil. Now he's dead. Good.

-Victor

Edited April 20, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

In the sense of rationality you mentioned, of course this guy was not rational. What I was objecting to was the view that he somehow "snapped" emotionally and went on a rampage firing blindly all over the place. He didn't do that. He planned out the murders carefully over days and executed his plan with a great deal of precision.

I fully agree that his goal was so disconnected from reality as regards what he ultimately wanted to achieve with it that it was not rational. But once chosen, he was rational enough in the execution for me to not grant him the sanction of insanity. He was evil.

It warmed my heart to see his family to start disowning him.

WE ARE GLAD HE IS DEAD BY CHO'S FAMILY

April 20, 2007

Mirror

From the article:

THE grandad of university mass killer Cho Seung-Hui said last night: "Son of a bitch. He deserved to die.

"It's better not to have such a child in the family." And he dismissed Cho - diagnosed with autism as an eight-year-old - as "a trouble-causer who has destroyed his mother's life". Kim Hyang-Sik, 81, spoke at his home in South Korea after seeing the video Cho made of himself holding a gun to his head.

(btw - The autism diagnosis is debatable. For the rest, somehow I think we agree. We are just using different expressions.)

Michael

[Victor Pross]

Michael

In your first post that Barbara quoted, you make a big presentation of this guy’s “reasoned methods” and you point out that the application of “to think or not to think” is something that falls flat, and then you further go on to connect this to being troublesome in defining evil and that “some heavy premises need to be checked.” What premises need to be checked? What’s the problems we face in defining evil?

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Victor,

That's easy. Look at the results.

But we are using 2 meanings for rational here. One is medium term (strategy), where a goal has an intended result and the other is short term (tactics) where the method for achieving the goal is implemented.

His thinking was corrupted in choosing his strategy. It was not corrupted in tactics. He was extremely rational in implementing the method for carrying out the massacre and committing suicide. There was no emotional "snap" at all.

Back to the results. What was the worse evil? The strategy he chose irrationally or all those dead bodies he killed rationally?

The problem with language is when the same word is used with different meanings. I have no problem replacing the word "rational" for all that planning, practice and execution. But what word?

Even if it were replaced, that would only be in Objectivism. The rest of the world uses it that way.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael Prescott expressed well what I mean by rational in this restricted sense. He is an ex-Objectivist and writer of best-sellers about serial killers:

Modified dignified climbdown

From the blog entry:

... I'm now much less inclined to see Cho as an outright psychotic. I think it's more likely that he was a sociopath with perhaps some elements of paranoia and schizotypal thinking.

Why? For one thing, schizophrenia typically develops in the late teens or early to mid twenties. It appears, however, that Cho's behavior was seriously off-kilter for years, going back at least as far as his first year of high school. That's probably too young for the onset of schizophrenia.

For another thing, we now know that Cho had spent at least six days preparing an elaborate computer document including embedded videos and stills, and that he had sufficient presence of mind to mail this item to NBC before the rampage. This indicates that he was not totally detached from reality and was capable of thinking in an orderly fashion. A schizophrenic in the acute phase of the illness probably wouldn't be able to carry out that kind of detailed preparation.

Finally, in his statement to NBC, Cho referenced the Columbine killers, which indicates that he was consciously following in their footsteps and seeking the same media attention (which, needless to say, he obtained). This means he knew what he was doing. He wasn't just a psychotic on a mindless rampage; he was organized, he had a plan, and he implemented it in a coldblooded, efficient manner.

What difference does any of this make? If Cho was truly psychotic, he had no control over his actions and cannot be considered morally culpable. But if he was a sociopath who knew right from wrong but made a conscious decision to slaughter innocent people, then of course he is morally accountable.

Michael also says we should not hate him, but I do.

Michael

[SteveWolfer]

He chose an evil goal and put what was left of his rationalty in service of that goal. By the time he carried out the killings I doubt his corrupted mind could any longer untangle the lies he had been building and nurturing for years.

He had been choosing not to examine his loneliness, his insecurities, his fears, his anger, his alienation or the justice of his hatreds. He would have been letting himself believe more and more in his fictional world where everything was the fault of others. He would spend hours and hours living in fantasies where he vented his rages and each time he would let himself believe more deeply that the fantasy was justified. As time went on he would get more and more irrational in his stereotyping as he made others seem less like humans in his mind.

All of this time he would be choosing to ignore the other sides of the issues, the other choices available, the other ways of seeing things. Our minds always give us that chance. Each piece of unreality he committed to and refused to examine would warp and twist his rational faculty further and the internal pressures would build.

He built his evil step by step with years of evasions and self-made blindness. I'm just imagining that it was something like that. But certainly everyone's first responsibility is to listen when we ask ourselves if we are going the right direction. We get an unbelievable number of second chances on that. To become evil he had to ignore them all.

[Chris Grieb]

Steve; Thanks for your post on this topic. You made points I could not express. Thank you!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He chose an evil goal and put what was left of his rationalty in service of that goal.

. . .

He had been choosing not to examine his loneliness, his insecurities, his fears, his anger, his alienation or the justice of his hatreds.

. . .

He built his evil step by step with years of evasions and self-made blindness. I'm just imagining that it was something like that. But certainly everyone's first responsibility is to listen when we ask ourselves if we are going the right direction. We get an unbelievable number of second chances on that. To become evil he had to ignore them all.

Steve,

That is extremely well put. On this level, he actually did practice evasion on a humongous scale over a lifetime. Yet you said "what was left of his rationality" for the part of carrying out his plan. That is exactly the way I see it.

I guess what I have been arguing against since my first post (where I admit I was under an emotional impact of disgust when I wrote that) is the oversimplification of calling someone "irrational" and letting it go at that, as I have read time and time again in Objectivist discussions on evil. What I saw with this guy was a lethal mix of the irrational with the rational. Without the rational part, at which he was extremely competent within his means, his delusions would have remained delusions only. They would not have hurt anyone except himself.

Michael

[Dodger]

I do not believe in right and wrong. I believe in logic.

Dodger, Ayn Rand wrote several novels and even more non-fiction books to one end: to explain the logic of her concept of morality. Have you read any of her works?

Barbara.

No, sadly, I have not. Are there any specific books that you would like to suggest for reading materal?

I still have to sand down my views and beliefs--Im a bit unsure of things at the moment.

Michael:

I guess what I have been arguing against since my first post (where I admit I was under an emotional impact of disgust when I wrote that) is the oversimplification of calling someone "irrational" and letting it go at that, as I have read time and time again in Objectivist discussions on evil. What I saw with this guy was a lethal mix of the irrational with the rational. Without the rational part, at which he was extremely competent within his means, his delusions would have remained delusions only. They would not have hurt anyone except himself

Very good point you made there. Does this mean we can come to a comprimise and we can both win?

[Darrell Hougen]

I don't feel hatred for the guy. I feel a sort of detached revulsion, as though I were looking at a virulent, lethal microbe under a microscope. I think he was seriously disturbed and not capable of reasoning. He clearly should have been institutionalized long ago and should have been on some kind of medication(s).

I also feel a sort of detached revulsion, though not that detached. I think my detachment is partly a result of my distance from the events. My main source of anger is the fact that he has spurred a number of would be copycats and that makes me worry about my children in school. I was more affected by the 9/11 attacks, because I felt that they were more of an attack on me. However, if I were closer to the situation at Virginia Tech, I'm sure I would feel anger and hatred and justifiably so.

Darrell

Edited April 21, 2007 by Darrell Hougen

[Darrell Hougen]

I think Barbara and Steve have done a great job of illuminating this topic. Having listened to some of Cho's rantings, it has become obvious that he was totally consumed with envy and self pity. He blamed others for not helping him, but took no responsibility for himself. He saw himself as weak, but expected others to be strong --- strong enough to live their own lives and help him too. His claims on the lives of others were unjust on every level, yet that is what he used to justify the killings in his own mind.

One has to wonder to what extent he was affected by the prevailing philosophy that everyone is his brother's keeper. If the strong are responsible for helping the weak, wouldn't that give him a valid claim on the lives of others? And, if he could claim their time and their respect, why not their blood? If they weren't giving him what he believed he deserved for just being alive, wouldn't that justify his insane anger?

It seems to me that the best way to reduce the number of such incidents in the future is to return to a culture of personal responsibility. If a person is not succeeding in life, it is his responsbility to change and no one else's. No one else bears one ounce of responsibility for his murderous actions. The solution to a lack of material possessions is not envy, but action. The solution to a lack of attention from the opposite sex is not jealousy or stalking, but self improvement.

I know that it is sometimes difficult for people in highschool and college. I remember having feelings of envy and jealousy myself. But, I never blamed anyone else for my difficulties. Sometimes powerful emotions threaten to overwhelm a person. But, you can't give in. Being rejected by a person of the opposite sex can make you feel worthless. But that doesn't justify giving up.

On the subject of public policy: Even though no one was responsible for Cho but Cho, it is probably a good idea to institutionalize methods of helping such individuals if for no other reason then to try to prevent this kind of bloodbath from occurring again. That also means having proper response plans in place so that when one or two people are killed, the campus is locked down until the killer has been caught. Many of these killings start with the murder of one or two people who are often close to the killer (though they don't seem to have been close to the killer in this case).

Darrell

[PalePower]

Elizabeth,

This is a quote from serial killer Richard Ramirez. This is a statement he made before he received sentencing at his trial.

“It's nothing you'd understand, but I do have something to say. In fact, I have a lot to say, but now is not the time or place. I don't know why I'm wasting my time or breath. But what the hell? As for what is said of my life, there have been lies in the past and there will be lies in the future. I don't believe in the hypocritical, moralistic dogma of this so-called civilized society. I need not look beyond this room to see all the liars, haters, the killers, the crooks, the paranoid cowards, each one in his own legal profession. You maggots make me sick-- hypocrites one and all. And no one knows that better than those who kill for policy, clandestinely or openly, as do the governments of the world, which kill in the name of God and country or for whatever reason the deem appropriate. I don't need to hear all of society's rationalizations, I've heard them all before and the fact remains that what is, is. You don't understand me. You are not expected to. You are not capable of it. I am beyond your experience. I am beyond good and evil, Legions of the night--night breed--repeat not the errors of the Night Prowler and show no mercy. I will be avenged. Lucifer dwells within us all. That's it.”

You see, the man regards all of civilization as “evil”. Huh, but I am hardly morally or intellectually "paralyzed" because he does think that, and while considering himself beyond “good and evil.” Is this a man you would call “evil” without flinching and thinking yourself too harsh?

-Victor

Victor,

As you've probably seen, my take on the concept of evil has dramatically changed since these shootings. It's surprising, to think of it -- I don't believe that my former conviction that evil could not actually exist in true form was weak at all. I honestly did believe that with all of my heart.

But something like this? Like this?

I mentioned before that this tragedy has affected me much more dramatically than any other world catastrophe. You hear about bombings and murders and deaths every day. I'm used to it. What's one to expect? But I really do think that the Virginia Tech shootings have permanently altered my world view, probably because of my proximity to the situation, physically and mentally. Many of my friends attend or are going to attend Virginia Tech; the college environment is real and present to me with my sister off in college and bringing home stories of all of the new people she meets all of the time. Those people that died were not just names on the news, like stuff like this so often is, but real, living, breathing people, who are now dead. I feel their loss personally.

So to answer your question, and discussions that we'd just recently been having, yes, there is evil in the world; yes, Cho was an example of it; yes, that serial killer is one too.

It doesn't matter whether they think they're justified or not. What matters is the motivation behind that sense of justification: hatred of life. I didn't think that could be possible in a person. Apparently it is.

I guess maybe I should thank this Cho for allowing me to grow up a little bit faster?

Funny, somehow I don't feel that grateful.

~Elizabeth

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I moved this to the Living Room.

I just came across the following information on the shooter's English teacher (he was majoring in English). I found it very disturbing.

Cho’s Professor Nikki Giovanni: Teaching Hate At Virginia Tech

by Steve Sailer

VDARE

April 22, 2007

From the article:

Among the most celebrated figures of the Black Arts Movement of the 1960s and recipient of 21 honorary degrees, Giovanni has published poems strikingly similar to Cho's plays in both vileness and incompetence.

Quotes are given and this statement is true. Her stuff is awful, but it is just as violent as the shooter's plays if not more so.

Look at what he was learning in school to add to the mix of his scrambled mind and soul.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Jonathan Kellerman has an article in yesterday's WSJ about some of the public policy implications of the deinstutionalization of the mentally ill. While I don't think Libertarians and Objectivists would agree with all of it Kellerman has excellent discussion of some ideas that led to this policy.

It is worth noting Ms. Giovanna was one of the speakers at the Virginia Tech service.

[Wrighty]

It is worth noting Ms. Giovanni was one of the speakers at the Virginia Tech service.

Mmmm - It would be interesting to hear what she said at the service........

.....but not as illuminating as her own rationale for the poetry quoted in Steve Sailer's article in VDARE.

The views of the world have moved on 200+ years since the Marquis de Sade - Ms Giovanni seems to be something of a doyenne!

I can empathise with Elizabeth on the disturbing evil personified in Cho - much more close to home, next door, in the desk across the room, behind you in the queue, driving the car coming round the corner.....or even (heaven forbid) like Dr Shipman :-

Harold Frederick Shipman (14 January 1946–13 January 2004) was a British general practitioner who was the most prolific known serial killer in modern history.

He was convicted on 15 sample charges in 2000 and sentenced to 15 consecutive life sentences. He committed suicide in 2004 at HMP Wakefield, West Yorkshire, without admitting or explaining his crimes.

After his trial, an inquest decided that there was enough evidence to suggest that Shipman had killed a total of 215 people, mostly women. His youngest victim had been a 41-year-old woman. Some sources have suggested that Shipman may have killed over 400 people.

When I saw video footage of Shipman I understood in the eyes and mouth how the ordinary can be so disturbingly evil and vice versa. Since then I have met a few people with the same eye and mouth traits and have felt chilled, almost scared, in their presence. Are they more ordinary than they seem, I ask myself?

Cho was not ordinary though, but neither was he abnormal. You will see people like him in all the ordinary places. And yet - had he lived somewhere else and gone to another college (say) would the same course of history have ensued?

Seems these evil people all have a lust for fame/infamy as well (which is a curious kinship with suicide bombers) - and perhaps that is where their suicide comes in? Richard Ramirez, however, (no suicide) kills and then makes his statement to the world that he knows will not understand him.

So is it degrees of evil we are talking about - true, disturbing, sinister, et al......??

What links Cho, Shipman, Ramirez, Peter Sutcliffe and their ilk?

Is their lust for killing inevitable or a circumstantial cocktail awaiting that one catalyst?

[Chris Grieb]

I thought I knew about murder but missed Shipman completely.

The story Psycho was based on a man named Gein who in addition to being the inspiration for Norman Bates was also the inspiration for the other killer in Silence of the Lambs. Gein was I believe from Wisconsin but he had nothing on Shipman.

I have to believe that C-Span or Virginia Tech has the memorial service to be watched.

Edited April 25, 2007 by Chris Grieb