O'Reilly Dead Wrong on Cho Manifesto

It gives me no pleasure to take issue with the nation’s #1 cable news personality, but when Bill O’Reilly is wrong, he can be spectacularly wrong. In defending the media’s (including the O’Reilly Factor’s) airing of Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-hui’s videotaped “manifesto,” O’Reilly demonstrated an intellectual shallowness that was inconsistent with his usually erudite opinions.

O’Reilly would have done better to state the truth behind his decision to air portions of the “manifesto” provided by NBC: he was glad the killer sent the video to NBC rather than Fox, and relieved that NBC decided to air it, thus giving all other networks guilt-free reign to circulate the footage. I am sure the thought that viewers would be fascinated by the depraved ranting and disturbing images, thus leading to even higher ratings for his #1 rated program, never crossed O’Reilly’s mind!

It is difficult to describe O’Reilly’s Twister game-worthy contortions of logic while explaining why he chose to air the “manifesto” footage, so I will allow the following excerpt from his Talking Points to illustrate:

Many Americans believe the media was irresponsible, broadcasting the sick words of the Virginia Tech killer. They say that's what he wanted, that it might lead others to imitate him, that it brings even more pain to the families of the victims.

Now I respect and do not disagree with any of those points. But I ran the tape last night and I'd do it again. Here's why:

Evil must be exposed and Cho was evil. You can see it in his face, hear it in his voice. All of us who saw the tape will never forget it. And it made me and millions of others angry. Once evil is acknowledged, steps can be taken to contain it. And once anger is in the air, policy can change.

No matter how many laws we pass, you're never going to stop evil killers, they'll find a way. But public policy must make it more difficult for evil people. It's a lot harder for terrorists to kill Americans today than it was before 9/11. And that's because new laws and better security have been imposed. . . .

O’Reilly continued by demanding that two steps be taken due to the Cho case. The first, which will turn into a heated national debate over medical record privacy, was that anyone who has ever been deemed by a court as a “danger to himself or others” could never own a gun.

The second demand for action was even more controversial:

Second, any institution or work place that accepts a person for employment or education must have access to FBI records. Virginia Tech didn't tell Cho's roommates that he was considered dangerous, even though the university knew. Can you believe that?! What if you were the parents of his roommates?

Now I predict the Commonwealth of Virginia will have to pay a massive amount in damages, because it didn't protect the students from Cho. So if a videotape of this monster can spur Americans to demand Congress pass new laws to protect the folks, then the videotape accomplishes a positive thing.

His second demand was an apples-oranges comparison. Cho had no criminal history in the United States, thus checking FBI records would have yielded no information for the school or any employer. Additionally, having the ability to query criminal history databases (I don’t think O’Reilly actually meant “access”) maintained by the FBI, known as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), has been available to employers for many years. Many thriving database companies, such as Integrascan or Intelius, offer criminal background checks for a fee, a portion of which is filtered back to the state agencies that maintain those criminal history records. Arrests and court dispositions are public record, and like property records, can be obtained directly from states for a fee. For example, for $23 any citizen can obtain a Florida criminal history. Thus, O’Reilly’s indignant huff that all employers must have the ability to check these records demonstrated that his staff did not research the issue even superficially.

The flawed logic of O’Reilly’s argument here deepens, however, when one considers that medical records, unlike arrest and court records, are NOT public record, and thus cannot be purchased for a nominal fee by citizens. That, most would agree, is a good thing. Would you want your neighbor, or a stalker, or your business competitor to have the ability to pay a database company $30 to gain access to your medical history? Millions of Americans suffer varying degrees of diagnosed mental illness, and a high percentage of these can function in society, marry, raise children, and hold responsible employment with the help of medication. Imagine how that would change if all employers could purchase access to applicant medical records. The discrimination against applicants diagnosed even with treatable and common forms of mental illness, such as manic depression, would be immeasurable. What employer would ever take a chance by hiring an applicant after paying a fee and discovering that psychiatric treatment was listed in the applicant’s medical records?

The information about Cho known by Virginia Tech officials was not public record. It related to his psychological condition and school counseling referral, which under law are governed differently than criminal background information. Both are confidential, and it is unlawful to distribute such information without a subpoena or other form of legal order. Had school officials informed Cho’s roommates that he had been referred to counseling and was dangerous, they would have been violating Cho’s right to privacy in counseling. What student needing counseling would ever seek it if he or she knew that the school might disclose information obtained in confidential counseling to roommates? The integrity of counseling as a profession would be lost forever. This would not exclude administrators and counselors from notifying law enforcement of their concerns, but law enforcement cannot take action on what a person thinks about but hasn’t declared intent to do (sorry, Minority Report fans, there is no PreCrime yet).

The argument that evil must be exposed is questionable at best, but exposing evil can be accomplished without giving evil prime time fame. Evil exposed, more often than not, leads to further, more widespread evil. As I write this post, there have been 12 threats to schools nationwide today, including threats of carnage greater than Virginia Tech in Yuba City, CA, for example. Copycat killers have quite a standard to live up to now that they have seen and heard Cho’s demeanor, ideas, and ultimate success. Thanks to the video, others sharing Cho’s alienation and rage now know what violent cult film Cho mimicked during his slaughter preparations. Expect downloads and purchases of that film to receive a big boost.

O’Reilly wrote that viewing Cho’s video made him angry, and that he hoped it would make all viewers angry at evil. O’Reilly mistakenly believed that this anger would lead to action to eradicate evil. Unfortunately, the anger stirred up by the video has thus far not been directed at the killer or his evil but has instead targeted law enforcement, Virginia Tech administrators, and other innocent people who were deeply impacted by the event but receive no sympathy. Anger leads to blame, not solutions. When experiencing anger, it is conventional wisdom to take a few deep breaths, and calm down before speaking, writing, or taking action.

O’Reilly should have followed that advice and let his anger recede before deciding to air the killer’s video, which did in fact give Cho exactly what he wanted, to live in infamy. O’Reilly made a business decision knowing that NBC would take the brunt of the criticism as the recipient of the video and that the O’Reilly Factor could not be left as the only cable news program NOT broadcasting the warped ranting of a sick man. Fox’s claim to be “Fair and Balanced” seemed disingenuous, as “balance” would have been achieved by not airing the “manifesto” and delineating the reasons why.

NBC cited giving viewers a glimpse into the mind of a killer as the compelling reason for airing Cho’s video, and sadly, O’Reilly parroted that logic under the guise of exposing evil. The truth is another matter. The “manifesto” could have been analyzed by the FBI’s criminal psychologists and profilers, and we would have learned what, if anything could have been done to prevent another such tragedy from occurring. As Spook86 at In From the Cold reminded on Tuesday (“Guns and Schools”), the Secret Service established the National Threat Assessment Center, which specializes in studying school shootings. A review of Cho’s video and a summary of his stated motives by one of these agencies would have sufficed to answer the question of why Cho did what he did, and appropriate steps to minimize the possibility of another such tragedy could have been recommended.

There was no need to hear Cho’s voice, or watch him arming himself, or mimicking scenes from a horribly bloody movie he was obsessed with while he blamed everyone but himself for what he was about to do. That video was sensationalist journalism at its worst, and NBC proved an all too willing co conspirator. The other networks, once the line had been crossed, acted as greedy accomplices, desperate for any portion of the media ratings windfall they could capture from the tragedy.

Cho’s craving for attention was exceeded only by the media’s craving for ratings. O’Reilly proved, at least in this instance, to desire ratings and shock value more than taking the moral high ground out of respect for the victims’ families. He could have scheduled all of them for the interviews they cancelled with NBC had he not wallowed in the mud with the Natural Born Cruelty network. Instead, he intentionally added to the pain of those families and attempted to purge his guilt by insisting that he was serving the greater good. O’Reilly should have selected his own defense of airing the video as his trademark Ridiculous Item of the Day.

3% Approval But Media Back Him

President Bush’s job approval rating, currently reported to be 33%, seriously hampers his ability to unite the American people behind his policies and present the world with the image of a strong U.S. President. Imagine how tenuous his administration’s hold on power would be if his approval rating was only 3%! That embarrassingly low figure would doom any world leader, and one nuclear armed nation in the world is currently led by a man plagued by a 3% approval rating: Israel.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who expects to be roundly criticized in a scathing report by the Winograd Commission for failures in conducting the Lebanon War last summer, is, in boxing terms, on the ropes. The opponent delivering the heaviest blows is Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has now launched a public effort to topple Olmert’s government and trigger new elections. Netanyahu, a regular guest on many American news networks, had spoken previously about his potential interest in a second opportunity as Prime Minister, but that interest became an official movement yesterday during a rally held at Likud party headquarters in Tel Aviv.

Olmert is not likely to survive this political challenge to his leadership, particularly in light of nearly universal Israeli dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Lebanon War last year. The Winograd Commission report will include testimony by Olmert, Defense Minister Peretz, and other Israeli Defense Forces staff members. The IDF was specifically outraged by Olmert’s last-minute decision to launch a ground offensive in Lebanon only 2 days before a cease fire, already agreed upon, was to take effect. IDF staff had reportedly requested to engage in the ground assault weeks earlier but Olmert declined and delayed until, as the IDF assessment suggests, there was a domestic political motive to appear strong while pulling troops back from Lebanon when the cease fire took effect.

Netanyahu is a popular figure, and in an impressive debater and policy expert, as is evident in his interviews on Fox News or other networks. Netanyahu’s popularity, conservative views on Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and other territories, and Olmert’s apparent failure in the Lebanon War, all work in his favor and point to a high probability that new elections will be forced. Those elections would almost surely result in an encore performance by Netanyahu as Prime Minister

The most alarming aspect of Olmert’s seemingly inevitable demise is his reported effort to make deals with the most liberal leftists in Israel in a last ditch effort to save his sinking administration. Two paragraphs capture the troubling deals Olmert is negotiating. The first from WND:

According to political sources here, Olmert held meetings the past two weeks with leftist political officials, leading intellectuals, prominent leftist groups and leftist media figures. The sources said Olmert told the leftist leaders he is willing to reach a final status agreement with the Palestinians, including an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, which borders Jerusalem and is within rocket range of Tel Aviv.

The second paragraph comes from IsraelNationalNews:

Olmert's government has thus far proven stable, despite its decline in popularity. There is some apprehension among Olmert's opponents who maintain that a deal between Olmert and the media may be in the works, in which the media would prop him up in exchange for his adoption of a far left agenda.

That a nation’s media would “prop up” a leader favored by only 3% of voters, simply because he would adopt an agenda that media figures personally desire, is democracy’s worst nightmare. That such things happen, however, is all too real. Israeli’s liberal media may be making some urgent phone calls to CBS and the New York Times in coming weeks seeking advice on how to influence elections through false reporting.

This Gas Is No Laughing Matter

Why is it that young people, with few responsibilities and worries in life, are the population segment most likely to experiment with almost any substance in a search for a “buzz” or “high” that helps them escape from reality? I remember many years ago in my youth witnessing classmates sniffing markers, glue, white-out, paint, wood shop varnish, or sucking helium out of balloons, all in hopes of getting a “buzz.” I never quite understood that behavior, since for me, living life and being young were a buzz unto themselves.

To a degree, scientists and medical researchers had already determined even then that such practices were potentially hazardous to one’s health, but advances in medical knowledge now clearly demonstrate that sniffing or breathing chemical fumes, intentionally or otherwise, causes long-term damage to organs through chronic absence of oxygen, known as hypoxia (also called anoxia). Common sense would suggest that the current generation of youth, with unlimited information at their fingertips through the Internet, would be wiser than previous generations. Not so, according to a Sky News investigative report.

The report, “Killer Gas Still On Sale,” describes a growing phenomenon in Britain, in which young adults at pubs and clubs are buying balloons filled with nitrous oxide, more popularly referred to as “laughing gas,” and inhaling it in hopes of “enhancing” the party experience. Unfortunately, some have indulged themselves to death at such parties, and countless others are building toward similar fates through long term brain and organ damage from hypoxia.

Most chemicals or gasses have legal industrial or commercial use, and nitrous oxide is used by dentists, hospitals, and even whipped cream producers, as the gas is used as a propellant in canned whipped cream. Because of the wide variety of uses, few restrictions on distribution were placed on nitrous oxide by Britain’s lawmakers, who did not foresee that its youth would create a supply and demand market for the gas. It is not illegal for clubs and pubs to possess the gas, nor is it illegal to sell the gas for inhalation. This is a situation Britain should address promptly. In the United States, it is legal to possess nitrous oxide in most states, but many states, including California, have made it a misdemeanor to possess the gas with intent to inhale or selling nitrous with devices or means to facilitate inhalation except for medicinal use. Despite the legal restrictions, the problem of young people acquiring nitrous for inhalation persists.

If you are a youth or young adult seeking a “buzz” from sniffing or inhaling chemicals or gasses, please educate yourself about the dangers of this practice before you do permanent damage. If you are a parent, talk to your child and make sure he or she is not participating in the perilous quest for a “buzz.”

Fast Cars, Women, and Cash for Iran

If you drive a DaimlerChrysler vehicle and fuel it at Shell gas stations, you are supporting pornography, terrorism, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

That may sound like a harsh accusation, and you likely were not aware that your purchases were benefiting pornographers and terrorists, but the sad truth is that DaimlerChrysler and Shell Oil Company are engaged in profitable business contracts with purveyors of lurid magazines and the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

Let’s start with the double offender, Shell Oil. Shell’s cozy business relationship with Iran is well documented, and has grown in scope despite U.S.-led international efforts to isolate the radical Iranian government through anti-terror sanctions. Shell thumbed its nose once more at President Bush in January when it completed a multi-billion dollar deal with Iran to develop a massive natural gas field in that country, which the American government views as the world’s primary sponsor of global terrorism. While financial analysts applauded Shell’s pluck in forging ahead with the deal despite political pressure not to financially aid the mullahs, it should be noted that Shell’s fiercest competitor, BP, made the morally correct decision to not bid for the Iranian contract. If you have a choice between Shell or BP stations in your area, remember that the IEDs and suicide bombs killing Iraqi and American troops in Iraq are funded and manufactured by Iran, from oil money flowing into its coffers from Shell.

Ignoring international sanctions and doing business with terrorists would be reason enough to withhold your patronage of Shell. However, Shell appears to suffer significant moral bankruptcy fueled (no pun intended) by profit greed, and contracting with unsavory elements to increase already record revenues is a price Shell is willing to pay. Shell’s decisions may have given it the decidedly dubious honor of being the world’s only corporate joint sponsor of Islamic terrorism and pornography.

Major oil companies in the U.S. have long supported the policy of not selling pornography, including Playboy and Penthouse magazines, at branded gas stations. These oil companies have strict contractual arrangements with third party operators such as Circle K that prohibit the convenience stores at branded stations from selling pornography or face costly fines or breach of contract proceedings. As reported by World Net Daily, when the Florida Family Association contacted Shell to complain about the sale of Playboy and Penthouse magazines at Shell branded Circle K stores in the Southeast, Shell responded to the family organization by declaring that Playboy and similar magazines are not pornography. WND interviewed David Caton, Executive Director of the Florida Family Association:

The request, Caton told WND, has been made to more than a dozen major oil companies supplying fuel to nearly 150,000 outlets in the United States. And until now, Caton said, there has been virtually a 100 percent positive response.

"However, Shell Oil Company has decided instead to change their definition of pornography, unlike all other major oil companies, to exclude Penthouse and Playboy magazines which are sold by Circle K Stores," he said.

The confirmation came in an e-mail from Otto O. Meyers III, a Shell executive, who told the Florida Family Association those stores selling "Penthouse" are not selling pornography.

"In regard to your inquiry about specific Circle K locations, our investigation has concluded that these stores are not selling pornography as one would think the general public defines it, but rather 'adult sophisticate' magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse," Meyers wrote.

Caton said that puts Shell in a crowd of one among companies who "no longer consider the hardcore content of Penthouse and explicit nudity in Playboy to be pornographic. No other major oil company has taken this position". . . .

Caton said the new policy by Shell probably had been influenced by Circle K Store's recent purchase of 240 Shell branded retail locations.

After receiving this surprising rejection from Shell, Caton initiated an email campaign to encourage Shell to abandon its new liberal magazine policy:

"The e-mail calls on Shell Oil Company to follow the standards and definitions established and enforced by all other major oil companies regarding the sale of pornographic materials by strictly prohibiting the sale of Playboy, Penthouse and other magazines that feature full nudity and explicit sexual conduct at all Shell branded stations including Circle K Stores," Caton said.

The Florida Family Association previously has had positive responses from Amoco, Chevron, BP, Citgo, ConocoPhillips, Mobil, Murphy, Sunoco, and Texaco in its requests to ban pornography. An estimated 35,000 7-Eleven stores also have cooperated, as have another 20,000 locations run by Albertsons, Cumberland Farms, Eckerd Drugs, Farm Stores, Kash n Karry, Swifty mart, Tom Thumb and other companies.

Take note of these names of oil companies who are helping maintain community standards, make sure they are complying with their own policies, and give them your business. Most importantly, communicate to them why they are receiving your patronage rather than Shell. Pornography, in all its forms, has eroded the moral values of America for decades, and in today’s era of Internet subscriptions there is no reason for such products to be available or on display in convenience stores or any establishment often frequented by children and families. Circle K would be well advised to get on the values bandwagon and act unilaterally to remove these magazines regardless of whether Shell allows them or not.

Ironically, Islamic terrorists, according to Dinesh D’Souza’s book, allegedly want to kill us because of our decadent culture, yet they are gladly pocketing money from the only American oil company that offers pornographic magazines (which it does not consider pornography at all) to customers. I suspect that Ahmadinejad would accept money from Hugh Hefner himself and spend a weekend at the Playboy Mansion if it would help get more centrifuges online.

Now that you have decided to fuel your vehicle somewhere other than Shell, you may want to drive that DaimlerChrysler to your favorite dealer and trade it in for a truly American car, i.e. one whose maker does not provide Iran with vehicles and heavy machinery used to intimidate pro-western demonstrators.

Last month, FrontPage Magazine’s Ken Timmerman linked to some excellent photos of DaimlerChrysler’s investments in Iran that clearly demonstrate the uses to which the mullahs are putting this prized equipment. Timmerman wrote:

DaimlerChrysler has been expanding its operations in Iran in recent years, and recently opened an assembly line to build E-class vehicles in Iran. It also owns a factory that builds Mercedes-Benz diesel engines for trucks and buses under license.

In 2004, DaimlerChyrsler sold through a Saudi affiliate 270 Mercedes Benz commercial vehicles to Iran in a $22 million contract. Those vehicles have since been used by law enforcement authorities in Iran for riot control. A German prosecutor in Stuttgart opened an investigation into the sale.

DaimlerChrysler AG is the parent corporation of what used to be Chrysler Corporation here in the United States. The U.S. company has no legal or corporate responsibility for the sales of its parent to Iran.

Those sales are perfectly legal. But they are wrong.

Indeed, companies willing to ignore currently imposed sanctions against Iran are wrong to do so and are actively increasing the capabilities and resolve of a terror sponsoring nation, all in the name of profit margin. In December I wrote about “Terror-Free Investing,” and Timmerman recently encouraged readers to look into “Divest Terror,” a similar effort to demand that mutual fund managers, private industry 401k plans, and government retirement funds stop investing in companies doing business with terror sponsors. If you have not checked with your fund manager about whether your funds are invested in Iran or other state sponsors of terror, let this be your call to action.

You can start small by not buying gas from Shell or buying DaimlerChrysler products. Lest these companies not associate their declining sales with their ill-advised partnerships with Iran or pornography, make it clear to them through email, letters, or telephone calls why you are no longer a customer and how they can win back your patronage.

Virginia Tech Blame Game

Who is to blame for the shooting massacre of 32 Virginia Tech students yesterday? At last count, the following had been blamed for the tragedy:

President Bush and Vice President Cheney - Although both were hard at work in D.C. battling Congress over funding Operation Iraqi Freedom when the shootings occurred, they were nonetheless blamed for using the incident for political points, and for not supporting nationwide gun control laws.

Charles Steger, President of Virginia Tech – Blamed for not “locking down” an entire sprawling university campus the size of a small city after the initial 2 murders were committed in a VaTech dormitory on one side of campus. Blamed for not cancelling all classes after the dormitory shooting, despite his being advised by law enforcement that it appeared to be a domestic incident between the shooter and an ex-girlfriend. VaTech parents are calling for him to be fired.

Commonwealth of Virginia’s Gun Control Laws – Blamed for being too liberal, making it easier for citizens to keep and bear arms.

Commonwealth of Virginia’s Gun Control Laws – Blamed for being too restrictive, making VaTech a gun free zone where students and faculty could not protect themselves.

VaTech PD, Blacksburg PD, Montgomery County Sheriffs – Blamed for sealing off a small perimeter around the dormitory where the initial 2 killings took place, but not ordering a campus-wide lockdown because they believed the first incident to be a domestic incident.

VaTech PD, Blacksburg PD, Montgomery County Sheriffs – Blamed for not immediately rushing, with guns blazing, into the classroom building where gunfire could be heard on the opposite side of campus from where the domestic shooting occurred earlier that morning.

VaTech PD, Blacksburg PD, Montgomery County Sheriffs – Blamed for not capturing the shooter alive so that he could explain his motives and help society prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Notice that someone is conspicuously absent from the blame list: the shooter. Much like the urge to blame America for terrorism in the wake of 9/11, broadcasters yesterday could not resist the urge to spend most of their air time speculating about how society needs to be kinder to outcasts (like the allegedly picked on Columbine killers) to prevent such massacres.

A Washington Post article addressed the issue of why, after the initial dormitory shootings, warnings were not issued:

Although the gunman in the dorm was at large, no warning was issued to the tens of thousands of students and staff at Virginia Tech until 9:26 a.m., more than two hours later.

"We concluded it was domestic in nature," Flinchum [VaTech PD Chief] said. "We had reason to believe the shooter had left campus and may have left the state." He declined to elaborate. But several law enforcement sources said investigators thought the shooter might have intended to kill a girl and her boyfriend Monday in what one of them described as a "lover's dispute." It was unclear whether the girl killed at the dorm was the intended target, they said.

The sources said police initially focused on the female student's boyfriend, a student at nearby Radford University, as a suspect. Police questioned the boyfriend, later termed "a person of interest," and were questioning him when they learned of the subsequent shootings at Norris Hall. A family friend of the boyfriend's said the boyfriend was stopped by police alongside Route 460 in Blacksburg, handcuffed and interrogated on the side of the road and later released.

However, VaTech students, affected by the emotional incident, were outraged over what they perceived as a failure by the university to warn them of a pending disaster no one knew was going to occur. Students interviewed by CNN expressed their initial observations:

Police said they were still investigating the shooting at the dorm when they got word of gunfire at the classroom building.

Some students bitterly questioned why the gunman was able to strike a second time.

"What happened today this was ridiculous," student Jason Piatt told CNN. "While they send out that e-mail, 20 more people got killed."

Students and Laura Wedin, a student programs manager at Virginia Tech, said the first notification they got of the shootings came in an e-mail at 9:26 a.m., more than two hours after the first shooting.

The e-mail had few details. It said: "A shooting incident occurred at West Amber Johnston earlier this morning. Police are on the scene and are investigating." The message warned students to be cautious and contact police about anything suspicious.

Student Maurice Hiller said he went to a 9 a.m. class two buildings away from the engineering building, and no warnings were coming over the outdoor public address system on campus at the time.

Everett Good, junior, said of the lack of warning: "I'm trying to figure that out. Someone's head is definitely going to roll over that."

"We were kept in the dark a lot about exactly what was going on," said Andrew Capers Thompson, a 22-year-old graduate student from Walhalla, S.C.

Clearly law enforcement and university officials had investigative leads pointing to an off campus suspect, and given the nature of domestic disputes, the decision not to lock down an entire university based on what they knew was appropriate. There was no investigative information that could have predicted that the dormitory shooter possessed multiple firearms, was a VaTech student, and had laid plans to massacre students on the opposite side of campus, carrying chains to lock students in, intending to execute them with no apparent emotion. Such behavior would have been incompatible with a domestic incident, which usually diffuses once action has been taken against the girlfriend/spouse.

The campus lockdown that occurred at VaTech on the first day of classes last fall was ordered because intelligence then indicated the escaped felon was at large on campus and had shot a sheriff’s deputy. That was not the case yesterday, as the initial domestic shooting at the dormitory pointed to an off-campus suspect. Comparisons of the handling of these two very different situations are not productive and lead to unfair conclusions about the decisions made yesterday.

The university administration and police department deserve the prayers and support of the community rather than finger pointing. When they responded to the first 911 call about the classroom shootings, they rushed to the scene, secured as many students as possible and then risked their lives entering the building to confront the gunman. After witnessing the shooter commit suicide, the responding officers swept the area, still without knowledge of the motive for the attack or whether there were multiple suspects. They rescued the barricaded students, provided first responder medical assessments and care, carried the wounded to safety, and witnessed a horrible scene of carnage while feeling helpless. There is no feeling more disturbing to someone who has worked in law enforcement than the helplessness when you cannot protect someone from harm. Yet for these brave officers there appears to be only insult added to injury with each criticism.

The Virginia Tech webmaster, tasked with updating the university’s web site throughout the ordeal and with a police scanner at his desk, shared the following assessment of emergency response with friends on the blog Wired:

This was a multiple-agency response and there is little interoperability -- but the police still got the job done. Virginia Tech Police Department was and is lead agency in the whole event, with Blacksburg PD right there with them. The Montgomery County Sheriff's Department is also involved and the Virginia State Police. Give all the various dispatchers credit for a great job, as they were the linchpins that kept all the communications straight between all the agencies. There was a massive response from all the local rescue squads, let by the student-run Virginia Tech Rescue Squad. A triage area was set up adjacent to Norris Hall and ambulances shuttled in and out of the area to transport victims to Montgomery Regional Hospital, the Carillion New River Valley Medical Center, and to hospitals in the Roanoke Valley. Carillion's helicopters and the State Police helicopters were unable to be used for transport due to the high winds we are experiencing.

The campus (and surrounding public schools) were locked down, since no one really knew what the situation was, how many shooters there might be, and where any more might be. The incident ended after 11 a.m. and people on that side of campus were released to go home. Other parts of the campus were released at 12:30. SWAT teams from various police agencies in the region are doing a sweep of campus and the crime scenes are being processed.

Without imposing martial law and a complete police state, college campuses cannot be protected from a shooting rampage like this one. Steps can be taken to reduce the possibility, but prevention is not possible. Gun control has never kept guns out of the hands of criminals. The university reportedly did not have a campus-wide surveillance camera system, and perhaps the Commonwealth of Virginia will include funding to install one in the next university budget. However, the absence of cameras cannot be blamed on the university president, and the initial decision not to lock down the campus was made in good faith based on available information.

To blame is human, to sympathize divine.

Putin Checkmates Pro-Democracy Chess Champ

Recent news out of Russia indicates that in its continued efforts to consolidate power and silence critics, President Vladimir Putin’s government is rapidly developing decidedly anti-democratic and anti-American policies, and shows little fear of international criticism for its crackdown on democracy advocates critical of Putin. Last Friday, CNSNews reported that both houses of Russia’s parliament passed resolutions that accuse America of interfering with Russia’s internal political processes. The Russian government is bristling at current U.S. State Department assessments of the status of human rights and democracy in Russia, assessments that the Russians believe are intentionally exaggerated.

The State Department’s goal, according to the Russians, is to unite international opposition to the Putin government and to impose sanctions against Russia that would interfere with Russia’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections this year and in 2008. Recommending a preliminary strike, Russia’s parliament rattled its sabers about imposing economic sanctions on American interests in that country if America attempted to impose sanctions stemming from human rights violations.

Almost as if on cue, the Russian government could not restrain itself from violating human rights when an opportunity arose for promoting a positive international image. Pro-democracy rallies held in St. Petersburg and Moscow this weekend met with violent riot police tactics and numerous arrests, including Former international chess champion Garry Kasparov, who is now a prominent political activist giving name recognition and credibility to groups opposing Putin’s high-handed quashing of democracy. Kasparov, who has also contributed to the Wall Street Journal since 1990, spent 10 hours in jail before being released after paying a fine. According to Kasparov, the arresting authorities did not identify themselves and several demonstrators were badly beaten.

Incidents like this are becoming par for the course with Putin, and the behavior of the riot police demonstrated that the Russian government’s complaints about the State Department’s Russian human rights assessment are without merit, as Russian democracy appears to be in only slightly less mortal peril than Putin’s turncoat KGB colleagues and personal critics.

Kasparov, contributing to Newsweek in 2005, wrote the following assessment of Putin’s Russia:

The Russian people are ready for democracy—no less so than Iraqis. It's the Putin government that finds democracy unsuitable for its ends. The freedoms gained after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. have been steadily eroded until little remains. Putin is clamping the lid down so tight, in fact, that an explosion is inevitable. Stable? Not Russia.

. . . Nor is Russia an ally on terror outside its borders. Nuclear and missile technology flow to Iran, and Syria's dictatorship is shielded from U.N. investigation of its terror activities, all while the Kremlin says it is trying to help by exploiting its "special relationship" with these rogue states.

That was Kasparov's bleak outlook in 2005. Nothing that has transpired in Russia in the past two years suggests that any improvement will occur under the Putin administration. Those who demonstrate for democracy in Russia are incredibly courageous and careful international scrutiny should be given to Russia’s handling of internal political dissent. I wrote previously of Putin’s thin skin, and Kasparov has worked his way underneath it.

Terrorists Motivated by Global Warming?

"It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism." So wrote Gen. Anthony Zinni, President Bush's former Middle East envoy in a 35 page report produced by CNA Corporation, a national security think tank. 6 retired admirals and 5 retired generals contributed to the report, which asserts that global warming poses a significant threat to national security. Zinni’s quote above may also illustrate why he is the President’s former Middle East envoy.

The existence and rise of terrorism has been blamed on a variety of factors, all of which inevitably lead to a central villain: America. U.S. support of Israel, America’s declining morals and corrupt culture, placement of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, “occupations” of Iraq and Afghanistan, all of these have been cited as reasons for why terrorists hate America. Now, eleven distinguished retired military leaders have come to the logic defying conclusion that terrorists, who willingly dwell in 130 degree Fahrenheit desert heat, want to kill Americans because of global warming.

According to CNN:

The report says that in the next 30 to 40 years there will be wars over water, increased hunger instability from worsening disease and rising sea levels and global warming-induced refugees. "The chaos that results can be an incubator of civil strife, genocide and the growth of terrorism. . . ."

Stanford scientist Terry Root, who co-authored a similar paper earlier this month on global warming’s impact on earth’s inhabitants, quoted by CNN/AP, warned:

"We're going to have a war over water," Root said. "There's just not going to be enough water around for us to have for us to need to live with and to provide for the natural environment."

On a related note, the U.S. Northeast today awakened to flooding and continued torrential rain as a “nor’easter” hit the region over the weekend. Amazingly, the earth’s natural environment has distributed water for eons without the assistance or obstruction of feeble mankind. The earth never loses water, as the condensation, evaporation, precipitation cycle returns moisture into the atmosphere where clouds transport it elsewhere. Droughts and floods were common throughout recorded history in most parts of the world long before “greenhouse gasses” became a concern. Polar icecaps have thawed and refrozen to varying degrees during the earth’s existence, before CFCs and carbon footprints (or in Al Gore’s case, Bigfoot prints-get a smaller house Al!).

In fairness to the NCA report, migrating populations seeking better resources and opportunities throughout the world are indeed a threat to world stability, but not for the reasons their report claims. Hence the need for better border security and enforcement of our existing immigration statutes, to get ahead of this problem that is, in fact, a quest for freedom rather than an escape from melting ice caps. The migrations are already occurring and have been for decades. Global warming is not driving Mexicans to leave their families to seek employment and income in America.

The large influx of immigrants from Europe in the nineteenth century that made America a strong and inclusive nation were not fleeing Europe’s coal belching factories choking the air in the great industrial centers. They came to America seeking greater freedom and opportunity. In all respects, population migrations are a search for better opportunity, and the nations of the world should prepare to receive immigrants and heat up the melting pots.

NCA and other think tanks should focus on devising secure, organized, and humanitarian immigration systems to prepare for normal cyclical climate change and resulting migration rather than urging the government to spend billions on emissions protocols and mandating consumer behavior. President Bush deserves praise for rebuffing demands to place a restrictive carbon emissions stranglehold on American businesses competing with other nations not lifting a finger to curb “global warming,” such as China. It would be foolish to impose economy crushing standards on American companies and hope that other nations will eventually follow our example.

Global warming must be globally accepted and globally combated in an “all for one and one for all” program, or it should be ignored. In the Cold War, President Reagan did not disarm America because nuclear weapons posed a threat to the earth and then hope that the Soviets would follow that example out of the goodness of their hearts. Instead, negotiations over arms control required mutual effort and reductions. In the so-called global warming battle, the U.S. should not expose its economy to the ravages of the financial battlefield until China and all other emissions culprits are playing on the same level playing field.

General Zinni and his collaborators on the global warming report are strategists, and as such have experience developing tactical and logistical plans for virtually any contingency. While it is not unusual for such men to prepare for any eventuality, the recent rush by members of Congress, 2008 presidential candidates, and think tankers (perhaps with aspirations for public office) appears politically opportunistic in the embrace of the cause du jour. As I wrote last week, elevating global warming to a national security issue may satisfy a need for political attention, but it will significantly hamstring our military resources and dilute priorities as attention is diverted from al Qaeda to Al Gore.