Ethics in the Cho Video Release

Psychiatrist: Showing Cho's Video Is 'Social Catastrophe'

Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist, had been disappointed in not the media's release of the VT Tech murderer Seung-Hui Cho video, but those who watched it.

The VT Tech student Cho murdered 32 students, injuring many others, and finally sent a chilling video about his motives and reasoning behind the shootings.

He believed that the best thing to do about the aftermath of the horrific murder of 32 (including Cho himself) is not to make him a martyr, but to publicly shame his name. To do this, the general public would have to stop caring for this murderer's motives, pre-strike signs, and his past. Instead, Welner believes that Cho was attempting to become a new "Quentin Tarantino character," and should not recieve the idol Cho has made himself.

Not only would this strike down Cho's name, but also discourage those in the future who are willing to commit murders for the same attention.



My View of this matter...
I feel like this is too strange a story for my reasoning, and I totally want to know where the evidence came from. This individual was so elaborative to make the video, intricately plan the attack, have no trouble taking a 2 hour break in between shootings (maybe security let him do it?), and a Korean-native (in the midst of Korea's nuclear and economic struggle with U.S. government)? This adds up to me that someone else was in on this one. And the fact that we are all pointing fingers at one person is the same thing as pointing all our fingers at Osama Bin Laden for the Sept. 11 attack. Both of them have little evidence of actual identity, motives, or released location of their bodies. Has anyone seen a picture of either of these two after their atrocities? Someone tell me I'm not crazy too.

I do however believe this kid was a sick and disgusting murderer himself, and his name should be removed from the general media airwaves. Cho probably loved the recognition Colombine recieved and wanted to stake his own name... let's not give anyone else an incentive to muder 30+ innocents, eh?

The media will be next on the radar...

Original Article: Browne under fire over Navy stories

This article explains how the Defense Secretary Des Browne didn't shut these servicemen/servicewoman up before they let out their stories to the public. This information could have included weaknesses in our military, but the head of the armed forces didnt do anything until damage was potentially available to the public media.

While it is true that top Navy authorities should be held responsible from allowing the story to be published, the individual servicemen and women fully knew that their stories would gather much public attention or insight on how the military is run when they were being negotiated or released from Iran. This is no different than if one of our military personnel was to indirectly explain to the enemy how defenseless our military system is at what points.

It is also irresponsible to treat this as a money issue and not as a security issue. Some want to claim that the Navy members want to make a few bucks off of a serious armed forces incident. Who cares? If they made 5 cents or retired on 8 billion dollars, it wouldn't matter.

What I'm personally aware of is that this will become an issue on whether the media should be limited to asking for such information. It was never the media's fault... they just wrote it down to continue their business... the servicemen releasing security info should be held under traitorous penalties. People giving security info like this should be legally kicked out of this country, with no citizenship rights or legal ties to the USA.

CBC: Bush Promises to Veto Bill... great quick read!

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: Bush promises to veto bill calling for troop pullout

The title proves best summary for the article.

A main subtitle below is written in red, I believe because the web site is geared towards fast-news, considering it isn't even meant to be online news, but TV and Radio for Canada. It caught my attention.

First paragraph again gives a more-specific explanation of the main player of the article: "President George W. Bush", and explains why he is the main role of the bill (able to veto).

Second paragraph gives the bottom line: President Bush will not allow senate to pass troop withdrawl bill. It also gives the place (of his speech, the main source of article).

Third paragraph explains the opposition: "The Democrats"

4-5th paragraphs detail the President's counter-opposition to the House's and Senate's efforts.

In the 6-7th paragraphs, the article quotes the bill's relation to the audience: "If Congress... the American people will..."

8-9th paragraphs explain what is at stake for the nation of America: "... put our own security at risk."

The 10-11th paragraphs explain the threat to the Democrat Party politicians' cause, ultimately highlighting the Senate Majority Leader (head opposition to President Bush on this issue).

I thought this was a great issue explaining in detail of the President's message, and the indirect (un-quoted) rebuttal from his opposition, the Democrats who support the Senate bill.

I believe the President is commander in chief, which means he makes the head military decisions, such as troop withdrawl... no matter how much I distaste his running of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe HE (yes, the President has the only Constitutional authority) should set a timetable, but not totally re-deploy troops out of the Middle East, but rather keep them closeby to be sure if the Iraqi security is at risk (given sufficient evidence), then American forces would help re-stabilize.
But doesn't this remind us to vote a President into office who has military experience? duh...

Lend Mortgages 'Til You Drop!

Subprime troubles send stocks into swoon

Adam Shell did a very interestingly-written story on the economy’s response and explanation of Tuesday’s 243-point drop in the DJIA, rippling into many other dependent factors.

First, he points out the culprit in the title: “Subprime troubles”
This clearly states the issues to be discussed in the rest of the article and sub-articles.

The second paragraph explains the further urgency of the situation: “prompting investors to wonder just how deep the damage in the mortgage business will turn out to be.”

A sub-story follows, explaining more detailed approach to the individual companies who faltered, and the effect it will have on the given money-lending companies. Also introduced is the outcry for government assistance, with its pros and cons quoted.

Later on, the ripple effect concerning the reader was the S&P500. 2 companies of high interest were mentioned as losing catastrophic number percentage drops.

Also mentioned was February 27th’s market drop, and its relation to this current situation.

And the great graphs and links helped more to understand the economic language.

And concluded was a quote by suggesting action and ambition towards economic recovery.




But for my opinion, I believe this is so expected...

We have the PATRIOT ACT in place for the U.S. government to monitor bank-lending and react accordingly (cheating capitalism).

We also have a very desperate home-building mentality in common middle-class to high-class families. Most feel they have to borrow more money from credit cards, and pay the credit card comapnies with what they would pay their mortgages. Then their is a difficult money trail of sub-lenders in trouble and too confused as to who eventually pays back the loans. 61% housholds owe $1000+ to credit card companies.

And last but not least.. This hasn’t taken its full effect yet because it is early, but illegal immigrants can apply for credit, so the debt might never leave a trail.

MSNBC : Great authorship!

This is one of the best articles I've ever read!

MSNBC : Some fear Iran's space program is hostile

In the first paragraph, it explains who is concerned with the issue: "Europe and the United States.
It also concludes that the main conflict is Western "Fear" (of long-range missiles) VS Tehran's "Peaceful" Reassurance.

The article continues then to Iran's motives and outside speculation, but without giving them descriptively.

Immediately, a sub-story is created that explains the International and American concern with the space program quickly becoming a secret weapons program.

After that sub-story, another follows, explaining the imminent technological advancements similar to the great military power of the United States.

The next sub-story explains the proposed "evidence" of a threat to Europe. It later pulls into reality that the development of the high-range missile potential was not conclusive.

The subsequent sub-story finally explains what Iran's reasons are for the space program. Iranian officials also compared their ambitions similar to the American satellite uses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there is disagreement in how imminent the missile successes will come to Iran: One side says that it will come soon, the other views it as a "bluff"

Finally comes the bottom line: Will this "making Iran bigger" be an excuse to attack Iran? And if not, Iran will inevitably produce the missiles, so the threat will not disappear.



Personally, I think it is illogical to think that Iran could only have the equivalent technology as the 1950s United States. It's not like they're beating rocks together... They have advanced computers, military advancements, and a lot of other things that the rest of the civilized world shares.
But let's not be so paranoid that Iran might be making a missile... IT'S GOING TO HEPPEN ANYWAYS. What the United States and Europe need to do is not start another endless war, but to build a new branch (if there isn't one already) of military which is concerned with de-activates missile launches (like satellite-guided missile jamming).

Introduction to My Past Disgruntlement on the New York Times as a whole.

Both times I have read the actual New York Times newspaper (which I admit is like twice), I found the front page always accusing the Bush administration or anything to do with his policies a mistake.

But this article pointed more blame on the situation, and not the administration.
That is what I consider a credible and honorable news story: A story that mentions failures for a reason... Not to accuse SOMEONE, but SOMETHING.

Personally, I don't care to read what the "Bush administration" (a government not directly governed by President Bush) did, but what solutions and viewpoints there are available to solve the situation. I'm not interested in reading tabloid-like finger-pointing like I often see on CNN or FoxNews!

And I'm definately not interested in something I can't control or personally suggest a solution to.

A Great New York Times Article Ripped to Shreds

Cheney Warns Pakistan to Act Against Terrorists

The lede starts with a visual protest of a disgruntled Pakistani government against a "dictation" by Vice President Dick Cheney. This is a great summary of the main point of the article, and is later revisited in the article.

The next paragraph explains in efficient detail on why this story is written, and why it becomes interesting to those interested in the world's government affairs. Most people reading this are interested in this genre of news based on the title, which suggests international politics.

Immediately following that paragraph, the story unfolds and more intricate details of the Vice President's visit.

First, it catches the reader's attention by intriguing the curiosity to government secrets, and also why the New York Times was one of the few that knew about his transportation to Afghanistan (which isn't answered).
Then, it explains the reason for other international readers to read the article: The decline in aid for the Pakistani role in the War on Terror.
Finally, the article ends without much of a conclusion. It briefly re-visited the protest by the Pakistani Foreign Ministry, but it then re-develops an off-topic detailing of the "secrecy" of the Vice President's travel to Pakistan, compared to other past Presidential examples of similar security circumstances.

But why re-visit the "secrecy"? Probably because the readers of ths article truly want to know about government secrets, to satisfy their hunger for conspiracy and again tabloid-like fingerpointing at President Bush and President Clinton (Clinton was probably added to that conspiracy-hungered paragraph to disqualify this article as an anti-Bush-administration bias story).


Call me crazy, but the end of the news story imploded when the writer had to add in an irrelevant conclusion (because it has nothing to do with title or introduction), just to satisfy anti-Bush administration conspiracy-theorists.

This is a great example of how the New Yorks Times editors in the hierarchy of the business are radically anti-Bush administration, because I believe that the little added snippet was edited and inserted into the article after the original writer passed in the draft... And a sloppy job at that, in my opinion.