I'm very liberal, but lets not work on sympathy for this evil, evil person now. We're going to be mourning in Blacksburg for a long time. In Virginia. In the country and world. I can't stand any of the political talk or speculation about his motives from any side, so please don't add to it.

How long do we have to wait to start talking about bullying and its relation to violence?  Regardless, this discussion is all over the media today, especially in the context of the Columbine anniversary.  If you're saying that Raising Kaine should simply stay out of that discussion (except for repeating the mantra, "evil evil evil," which doesn't help explain anything or prevent future situations like this), I strongly disagree.  We know some things about these types of killings, and one of them definitely seems to revolve around the future killer being bullied as a child.  Schools need to tighten up their anti-bullying policies big time, and right away. There's no excuse for it, none at all.

I'm not going to be told what to talk about on my blog. If you "can't stand it," you might want to avoid reading the newspapers, watching TV, listening to the radio, or reading the blogs in coming days and weeks, because there's going to be a LOT of what you call "poltical talk" and "speculation."  Oh, by the way, I fundamentally disagree that trying to figure things out in life is inherently "political talk."  I also think that it's insulting to refer to serious social science research as "speculation." And yes, there's been a LOT of research on the connection between bullying and violence.  It's not just "speculation," and it's certainly not "political."  It's crticially important to help prevent future acts like this, hopefully so none ever happens agaain.  Calling it "evil" may feel good or correspond to various theological paradigms, but it doesn't get us anywhere in terms of sound public policy.

That's great. That's disgusting. This will be the last time I read Raising Kaine. I will take your advice, but think about how you just presented this back to me.

I lived through the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon. I lived through the anthrax and the snipers. I moved to Blacksburg and lived through this and Morva. And I express my disgust at all political talk this close to the event, and you turn around and you call my actions bullying. Shame on you.

away from the Pentagon, and my wife was 2 blocks from the White House.  What's your point?  Should we have listened to people back then saying we shouldn't talk about "root causes" of terror, but should only talk about "evil" and besides that stay silent?  That's what led to Iraq and Abu Ghraib, I would point out.

I hope you will not stop reading and contributing to Raising Kaine.  I reacted strongly because like many people, I experienced bullying and it really hits a raw nerve.  Obviously, we are all feeling emotional about things right now...I may just spend the next day or so enjoying the spring weather, now that it's finally come...

It is 100% about PREVENTING FUTURE ACTS LIKE THIS.  And if bullying is shown over and over again to be part of the pattern, why on earth shouldn't we address that?  I find it highly insulting that you would imply, or even state outright, that I have "sympathy" for this guy, whose picture I refuse to post and whose name I have barely uttered.  (and, by the way, I'm disgusted that NBC gave him a platform to spew his hate-filled screed...that's disgraceful).

and everyone else who died that day

and everyone else whose life has been cut off before their time

and everyone else who has or will ever lose a loved one

and everyone else i may not have already covered

but go ahead and fight over who hates more *shudder*

In the days when nerds wore clip-on ties with tie clips and plastic pocket protectors for pens in their shirts. Number one in the class was always teased as we thought in a friendly way. Week of graduation someone called him a name at the RI Lunch in Newport and he went into the trunk of his car, took out a shot gun he had apparently been carrying all along, and went back in a killed two guys . . . I would have liked to have seen what my old friend at Viginia Tech, Virginia loyalist Marshall Fishwick, would have had to say about this  . . . unfortuately he passed away last Spring. Maybe better.

he grew up as the focus of teasing and disdain from much of the class through middle school and early high school.

I was one of very few people in middle school who would sit with him at lunch.  He was actually a decent guy.

He left my highschool after freshman year, no doubt due to the torment.

During my junior year he lost it and killed a girl....Most of us attributed it to the bullying.  Now he spends his days in prison-life sentence w/ no parol.

Being a teenager is rough enough, but being different -- and being tormented for any difference -- is hell.

Most kids manage to outgrow high school bullying about their race, gender, sexual orientation, weight problems, appearance, whatever. Some kids are to some extent scarred for life.

None of this excuses what Cho did, but it might explain it a bit. The kid was plainly troubled, and no one can deny that society failed him and, perhaps, missed opportunities to prevent what happened Monday.

And by "society," I don't mean just the Virginia Tech administration. His high school classmates have to be included, if their teasing and bullying added to his inner angst. But high school teachers and administrators are also to blame for allowing such behavior in school. And then there's a society that still can't figure out how to handle mental illness.

America will anguish for a few days over what happened at Virginia Tech, and will then move on to other subjects, as it did after anguishing for a few days over what happened in Columbine. Meanwhile, we have thousands of troubled people, young and old, walking among us, many of them ticking time bombs that could go off somewhere, some time in the future.

Wouldn't the best tribute to those who died in Blacksburg be a serious effort in this country to better diagnose and treat mental illness?

for bullying right now!  And yes, now is a great time.  Frankly, this should have been done years ago, certainly after Columbine.  What the f*** are we waiting for.  And yes, this REALLY pisses me off, as do people who tell me not to talk abou the subject. 

I think an obvious easy solution here, right now, is what you are promoting.  The gun debate and the mentally ill debate will come, and they will be lengthy and go round and round in circles.  Creating zero tolerance policies against mean and rotten behavior is something we can do right away, and it will be beneficial to ALL.

You are kidding yourselves if you don't think kids are meaner today than they were 10, 15, 20 years ago.  It's time to end their vile and vicious behavior, and since some parents CLEARLY aren't helping in the most extreme cases (sorry, but you better believe that Cho didn't JUST go crazy when he got to Tech, this was years in the making), I guess it's just another item the shcools need to take on.

I know I am rambling, probably not making much sense, but I have been thinking about this a lot too.  My brother is an addict/alcoholic.  My parents, while they have done their best to force him to rehab numerous times, can now do no more.  He has gone 4 times, he still lapses.  BUT, they do enforce police style tactics during relapses (he lives at home).  They know and see the signs, they take away car keys, they remove the battery from his car, they take away his cell phone and his $$, they remove all alcohol (including medication, OTC and scrip) from the house, and the few times he has shown even one shred of violent behavior, the police are called.  Basically, they are doing everything but booting him from the house.  And I think that's a good thing.  They are actively involved in the safety of others since he could injure/kill who knows how many when he is in a state of alcohol/drug abuse.

And very well stated. 

Seriously?

First of all, since when is a zero-tolerance policy against X the best way to stopping X? (See: abstinence-only, war on drugs)

Second, instead of an incredibly strict policy that could never be effectively or even remotely uniformly enacted, why not a far less intrusive, but far more effective policy? It's not the first or the second act of bullying that damages kids and causes them to have dissociative and developmental problems, it's the repititiousness of the bullying, it's the waiting and dreading in between, the social environment and constant paralyzing awareness of one's status as the outside, subjected other.

You know if kids play in dirt, they have better immune systems? I don't want them rolling in mud 24-7, but I oppose a zero-tolerance policy on dirt. Facing a little adversity as a kid builds character.

(To all those prepared to sraw-man me and say I'm not serious about cutting down on bullying and preventing school shooting, don't flatter yourselve. I wouldn't support a toned-down version of your doomed-to-fail idea, but a different approach entirely that addresses the real problem.)

Excellent column by a Korean-American in today's Washington Post:

While the past two days have brought random acts of juvenile hate and immature racial slurs and acts, the vast majority of Americans understand that Korean Americans were victims along with the rest of America -- that we all took part in the tragedy at Virginia Tech, regardless of race or ethnicity.

The possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech will result in hatred for (and violence toward?) Korean Americans (or Asian Americans generally, or Koreans or all Asians in their home countries) is truly frightening.

But it's not surprising, given that hatred of foreigners has most definitely been on the rise in recent years. After all, how many people have blamed (and hated) all Middle Easterners, or all Moslems, for 9/11? How many people have blamed everyone who lives south of America's borders for many economic problems?

And, most of all, how many politicians and pundits have exploited racial and ethnic differences and enmities to fruther their own power?

It's ironic, given that America is a nation of immigrants, how often our country has turned against "foreigners." Look at the 1850s. Look at the 1920s. And look at today?

I think Lowell is saying that our actions towards others can have repercussions and we need to be considerate and loving as much as we can. 

We'll never know what drove this murderer to do evil, but environmental factors do affect behavior. Here's an example.  One young woman who was in the Columbine cafeteria but escaped was also on the VT campus.  She talked about how long it took for her to get over the first attack.  She was very suspicious of people, as I recall.  One external act caused her to change her behavior for years.  (I've seen trauma that altered behaviors in other people as well.) 

Let's take a person who has a physical handicap.  If kids are constantly making fun of (or physically punishing) the person, a bitterness is going to grow, even in a person who otherwise is "normal."  Or, a woman who is beaten by her spouse is going to view life (and men) differently.

Who knows why the VT murderer was so screwed up.  It was probably a combination of things. I'm hesitant to call people evil because there are medical conditions that cause rage or eccentric behavior.  Some mid-life crises are precursors to neurological deterioration.  (If you know someone who is doing really weird stuff, you might suggest a neurological examination.) Head trauma victims (some of our Iraq vets) are having difficult emotional times.  Older people have numerous conditions that affect their personalities, sometimes in very unpleasant ways.  Some stroke victims have so little brain left that their utterances consist pretty much of profanity.

I think all Lowell is saying is that bullying people does not help matters.  I am glad that schools are teaching kids how to stand up to bullies, and report them.  I was lucky as a kid -- I was 6 feet tall by the 8th grade.  I was disgusted by the bullying I'd see.  If this kid faced severe bullying over a long period of time -- who knows -- it might have affected his personality.

I had an assigned roommate in college who did not speak to anyone his first 6 months in school.  It was like living with a ghost.  Finally, somebody had the idea to insist on taking him out drinking in a group.  After about four beers he was laughing, telling jokes, and I remember him leaping over a fence on the way back to the dorm.  And after that one "bonding" session, he was never shy thereafter. 

What causes evil behavior is a very complex analysis.  It's one reason I generally do not support the death penalty.  The "one black sheep in the family" happens even to the most loving parents. 

Not particularly controversial, not particularly profound, but bullying is bad and can lead to repercussions.  It must be stopped, to the extent that it CAN be stopped.

Here's the actual PZ Myers quote I referred to in another comment; I think what he says makes sense:

I'm not personally enthused about turning the whole ugly episode into a rallying cry for whatever cause you favor right now, but I do side with Dunford [another blogger]: of course this is a time you should express your positions.

This is a good time, when events have made the concerns more immediate and when people are looking for answers. It's not a good time to act on those positions, because emotions overwhelm sense, but they are also good indicators of what is important to people.

This is a great time to start a conversation, when people are paying attention.  If not, how will any "good" come out of this horror?

From the National Institutes of Health (NIH):

Both children who bullied and their victims were more likely than youth who had never been involved in bullying to engage in violent behaviors themselves. However, the association between bullying and other forms of violence was greatest for those who bullied others. For example, among boys who said they had bullied others at least once a week in school, 52.2 percent had carried a weapon in the past month, 43.1 percent carried a weapon in school, 38.7 percent were involved in frequent fighting, and 45.7 percent reported having been injured in a fight. By comparison, of the boys who said they had been bullied in school every week, 36.4 percent had carried a weapon, 28.7 percent carried a weapon in school, 22.6 percent said they were involved in frequent fighting, and about 31.8 percent said they had been injured in a fight.

I know a lot of people who are bullied in high school and a lot of folks who, as teenagers, were subjected to taunts and even racial slurs.  I've even known people who were sexually abused when they were teens, and none of them has ever killed anyone.

Obviously, that doesn't reduce the negative impact such actions can have on a child.  Bullying is wrong.  We agree on that.  But I don't think we can say that it is in any way a causation for the sort of behavior exhibited by Dylan, Klebold or Cho.  If Cho's video manifesto and writing demonstrate anything, the problem wasn't the bullying--it's that he was crazy.  I don't know a whole lot of kids at Virginia Tech who drive BMWs or have trust funds, but Cho was obsessed with "brats" at Virginia Tech the same way Holden Caufield was obsessed with phonies in Catcher in the Rye.  It's disturbing in and of itself, even more so because it's based on a false premise--it's not like we're talking about Harvard or Yale here.

The causation of Cho's violent behavior can be found through several contributing factors, but it was mixing all these factors in the catalyst of sociopathic insanity that created this tragedy.  Make no mistake: it is unfortuante that anyone--even a teenager--would think it's appropriate to make fun of someone for his accent.  But the bigger question is how we're going to help identify and treat people who will act out against society in this manner over slights and insults, real and perceived.

I think we'd all agree that bullying is a bad thing, in and of itself.  To the extent that it might - MIGHT - contribute to future vioent acts (and there's signficant evidence along these lines), we should do everything we can to stop it.  Regardless, we whould do everything we can to stop it because it's wrong, cruel, and harmful.

I am just not surprised with Rush anymore...

RUSH:  Virginia Tech does have a lacrosse team, and one of the victims was on the lacrosse team.  Now, you say single out rich.  He didn't single out rich.  That's what the Drive-Bys focused on.  He did single out women!  Why don't the Drive-Bys focus on maybe the feminist movement is creating tumult and chaos between boys and girls.  This guy, remember the first thing that we were told about him. The first thing we were told was that his girlfriend broke up with him and that she was the first person he tried to find. He found her, and a counselor was trying to mediate this argument, and then the shooter blew 'em both away.  So, yeah, he ranted against women, too, and he ranted against a lot of things, but when he ranted against the rich, guess what?  "Ooh, template! Template!" The Drive-By Media hears one thing, "Ooh, rich? Bam! We hate the rich, too!" That's part of liberal Democrat politics, is stirring up resentment against the rich.  Demonization! It's a specialty of the left.  They demonize entire groups of people. They demonize the rich. They demonize majorities of any kind. They demonize business. They demonize Big Oil. They demonize Wal-Mart. They demonize! You look at their enemies list, and you would have to conclude that they are anti-success and anti-capitalist, which I believe they are. 

Now, I tell you this not for any reason other than to illustrate what our caller was talking about: the demonization of the evil rich and how hatred is worked up to defeat common sense public policy on that basis, on the basis of dividing people and creating resentment and hatred and dislike.  This guy, this shooter, he railed against everybody. He railed against women. He railed against Jesus. He railed against all kinds of things -- also the rich.  Guess what they focus on?  Now, why does this guy hate the rich?  He's somehow found a way to go to four years at Virginia Tech.  He's been in the United States for 14 years.  Who is it that made this guy hate the rich?  Why, there's only one answer to this!  The Democrat Party, the American left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media, routinely portray the rich as a bunch of evil, rotten SOBs who are out to steal everybody else's money.  Wal-Mart's an example. Big Oil is another.  This guy is genuinely angry.

Will we lose the skills of learning how to gang up on and fighting against a bully if the parents and teachers are refereeing ?

The man was 23 years old and got through 4 years of college.

That's a little too old to blame on getting teased in grade school.

A big hug is not going to fix it.

Going through the application process with my kids in the past years, it's a very competitive school that weighs heavily on h.s. records and activities.  It appears there were red flags in h.s. as well for Cho, what was his guidance counselor thinking? 

Someone really missed something here...

  He was clearly schizophrenic.  His diatribe shows that he was delusional and paranoid.  While I don't discount the contribution of bullying, his longstanding mental illness was the direct cause of his actions.
  I think it is natural to try to explain this atrocity, to try to find an answer to the question everyone immediately asks: "Why?"  I guess it comes down to whether that's a cry to the universe, or a wish for real understanding.  I know this is difficult, particularly at this time, for all of us but especially for the Hokies out there.  If this discussion does not occur at this time, it will certainly occur later.
  We need to closely examine the way we treat the mentally ill in Virginia, particularly the involuntary commitment process, the availability of in-patient psychiatric beds in our state hospitals, how to make so-called outpatient treatment mandatory and enforceable, how to decriminalize mental illness and stop dumping the mentally ill on police and sheriffs, and how to increase resources within the mental health system so that we provide immediate, effective, closely monitored treatment.
  At an involuntary commitment proceeding, the individual is represented by a court-appointed attorney or guardian ad litem.  The hospital and medical personnel present their views to a special justice who acts as judge.  Unlike in criminal cases, no one is there to represent the public.  I have long thought that was a serious omission.
  The test is whether the subject is a danger to himself or others, or substantially unable to care for himself.  Contrary to much of the discussion this week, that is not really a difficult standard to meet.  However, due to the lack of inpatient beds in the mental health system, the interpretation of that standard has become so twisted that violent and dangerous people are set free.  They do not receive outpatient treatment unless they agree to it, and there is little or no follow-up.  They bounce back and forth between the hospital on TDOs and the street until they eventually act out so dramatically that they are involuntarily committed.  They are then released, often prematurely, from the "community hospitals" to which they are now committed.  This theoretically saves the state and localities money on mental health treatment, but the individual cannot even begin to overcome his illness and realize his potential.
  I have often seen the doctors discuss with a straight face whether an individual is "homicidal or suicidal."  The implication is that if they are not going to kill someone else or themselves, they can be released!  Again, the standard is much lower: whether they are a danger to themselves or others, not whether they are actually going to commit murder or suicide.  This type of fuzzy thinking was exemplified by the Tech counseling service, which apparently announced that it considered only whether Cho was a danger to himself, and not whether he was a danger to others.  Not one of the reporters present asked, well, why not?
  Mental illness is treatable, but someone must ensure that the individual takes his medication.  Schizophrenics commonly go off their medication once they "feel better," or to avoid side effects.  There is much discussion about de-stigmatizing mental illness.  I am very much in favor of that, and believe that seriously mentally ill people can live in the community safely WITH TREATMENT.  That is a very different thing than allowing them to remain in the community when they are highly unstable and not receiving treatment.
  To me, recent events show that there is a very real human cost to the individual and to those around him if mental illness is not treated.
 

Does anyone know whether Va Tech's student health plan even covers in-patient psychiatric treatment?  I really have no idea.  If it doesn't, maybe in the future it should.

  State facilities charge according to insurance and ability to pay.  They utilize available insurance coverage, but don't collect against those with no money.  The involuntary commitment process is not the same as voluntarily checking into a private hospital, where insurance or ability to pay would come into play.  The school had nothing to do with this.  The state government and the Court system were responsible here, just as they are for any citizen.  They are supposed to commit severely mentally ill individuals regardless of ability to pay.

  The decision to release Cho after a temporary detention order (TDO)rather than to involuntarily commit him for a longer period was made because the doctor stated that Cho was not a danger to himself or others.  That's pretty ludicrous.  Cho was stalking women he did not know, set a fire, wrote obscenely violent tracts, intimidated his professor and department head, and threatened to commit suicide.  "Looks fine to me -- come to the outpatient clinic on Monday" was not an appropriate response to these circumstances.

  Unfortunately, we see these kinds of decisions all the time in Virginia because of the lack of inpatient beds.  Severely mentally ill people who would otherwise be committed are simply let loose on the street.  Some are inappropriately arrested when they act out again, others continue to go through the "revolving door" of the mental health system.

  When the lack of resources affects only the mentally ill, many people look away because there is a stigma attached to mental illness and they cannot relate.  When the lack of resources becomes so severe that it threatens public safety, it must be addressed.

This is a sad article.

Here's the link:  http://www.mirror.co...

A few of the quotes that struck me:

SON OF A BITCH

EXCLUSIVE: Grandad's anger at uni murderer
Graham Brough In South Korea 20/04/2007

THE grandfather of Cho Seung-Hui said yesterday: "Son of a bitch. It serves him right he died with his victims."

Kim Hyang-Sik, 82, said he had a doom-laden dream of Cho's parents the night of his murderous rampage - and woke to hear the news of the massacre and his grandson's death.

He watched Cho's sick video of himself holding a gun to his head.

His sister Kim Yang-Sun, 85, who also saw it, told the Mirror that afterwards her brother was so distraught he had "gone away for a few days to calm himself down and avoid more questions".

She too repeatedly referred to the killer as "son of a bitch" or "a***hole" and said his mother Kim Hyang-Yim had problems with him from infancy.

Yang-Sun revealed the eight-year-old was diagnosed as autistic soon after his family emigrated to the US.

She said: "He was very quiet and only followed his mother and father around and when others called his name he just answered yes or no but never showed any feelings or motions.

"We started to worry that he was autistic - that was the big concern of his mother. He was even a loner as a child.

"Soon after they got to America his mother was so worried about his inability to talk she took him to hospital and he was diagnosed as autistic."

Yang-Sun spoke at her tiny one roomed shack inside a vinyl farm shelter in the Gohyang area of South Korea's capital Seoul.
***

She went on: "The reaction of my brother was that Seung-Hui was a troublemaker and it served him right that he died because he caused his mother a lot of problems. He was more worried about his daughter.

***

Other relatives admitted Cho's parents had always been aware of his problems but had neither the time nor money for specialist help.

His uncle Chan Kim, 56, said: "He wasn't like a normal kid. We were worried about him not talking.

"Both his parents knew he had mental problems but they were poor and they couldn't send him to a special hospital in the United States.

"His mother and sister were asking his friends to help instead.

"His parents worked and did not have time to look after his condition and didn't give him special treatment.

"They had no time or money to look after his special problem even though they knew he was autistic."