The man who gunned down five people at Northern Illinois University in a suicidal rampage became erratic after halting his medication and carried a shotgun to campus inside a guitar case, police said Friday.
The above is the same basic headline now making it's rounds, just in case anyone is curious about a reference. With so many to chose from, just pick one like I did, any one will do
Yesterday this time, the web versions of this story indicated the gunman was for all intents and purposes a stranger and unknown to the area of the campus where the killing took place. Today the report has been updated to the extent this person is now said to be identified as a person likely gone eratic after having stopped medication. Is this a scenario of a glass half full or half empty?... as in, just as much damned if you do versus if you don't?... or are you perhaps damned more one way than the other? Some may believe that this tragedy would have been averted had the person not interrupted their taking of prescription meds. Although, this could just as easily be argued that the tragedy may have been greatly minimized if not all together avoided had the person never been put on prescription meds in the first place.
There is also a repeating mystery theme evident in these kinds of stories, one that parallels the theme with recurring war headlines of the past 4 years and 10 months - "suicide bomber strikes again" . One of the main difference seems to be that from one incident to the next, different day, different people comprising the casualties, but otherwise the same basic headline; repeat. Question; when alleged suicide bomber succeeds in blowign themselves to smitherines as well as everything and everybody else standing within a block or two or more of them at that moment, how are the headline writers able to so quickly piece together the details required to accurately pinpoint that this was another clear case of suicidal bomber? It's almost as if these headlines regularly benefit from some mystery witness who has a knack for hanging around in a crack or corner of a suicide bomb scene, somehow able to come away mostly or totally unscathed while also having an enerring direct line access to the people writing the headlines for these incidents. A week or two ago there had been a previous incident of this same basic theme going around the web, same basic headline of suicide bomber, except in that event, in the course of the alleged bomber blowing to bits themselves and everything and everyone else in the area, that incident was a bit more mysterious by virtue of the bomber said to have been a mentally retarded person unwittingly fitted (strapped) by the real perps with the explosives that caused this particular bombing.How do the headline writers come to so quickly know about these kinds of very specific details when most of the details went up in fire, smoke, wind and bits of people, shrapnel and building material?
Question 2: if these mystery news sources were being a bit more proactive with their life, could they not be thwarting the need for another repeat headline rather than, seemingly, catering to them?
Question 3: this is a repeat question. Why does the U.S. media seem so preoccupied to the point of being obssesive in the recurring portrayal of Iraq War headines "suicide bomber" ? I've asked this question here before. No answers given so far. Somehow i get the impression that the headline writers are implying that there is something untoward, something cowardly, something unscrupulous as it applies to the wages of war that a person, almost always portrayed as a "them" person, the enemy combatant person, caught up in this particular war, goes to the dastardly level of taking their own lives in the course of taking their enemies (uh, that's us) lives. What's up with that? Just to make the point, I'm even willing to concede to the headline writers that these are in fact bonafide Iraqi and or Insurgent suicide bombers they are writing about. So what? I'd like to ask a run of the mill U.S. headline writer, do you not and have you not written many a headline in the past, and have you not yourself worked with many a other journalist who also wrote many a tear-jerking headines during wars past expounding upon the virtues of American soldiers said to have made the supreme sacrafice in the name of war; giving up their life? Does this not somehow weave into America's version of how honor can be carved out of an otherwise honorabless activity? Why do you seem to have a problem with this very same act when it comes back around? And while we're at it, if Iraqis had invaded your back yard, right here in USA, in NYC, or L.A. or Chicago, or Po Dunk nowhere USA, without legitimate provocation, would you find it at least a little disingenuous to see an Iraqi journalist routinely workign their beats and writing for their subscribers back home of the evil, dastardly Americans who were defending their own back yards by way of taking their own lives so that they could in the process also wipe out a few of their Iraqi invaders? What's up with that?
Anyway, back to the situation with medications said to have once again been in part involved with the cause behind the cause of a rampage of deadly violence, it's easy to see how some people might fall for the argument that this tragedy would have been avoided had the person just done what they were instructed and stayed on their meds. The on-line article I read, which (I'm guessing) is constructed of the same basic types of spotty details that are being bandied about in most if not all of the MSM versions of this story, dwells very little on the medication angle. An opening statement said "...and then he became eratic after stopping medication". Near the end was another brief statement "...he stopped taking his meds and then soon became erratic". In between these bookends were several paragraphs dwelling on several separate issues in more detail, such as the detailed ballistics reports of various cop/security personnel on the job, how many spent shell casings were found, the dramatic eyewitness testimony of numerous, separate, now terrified young college students, and how this gunman's father has since been swamped and pestered by swarms of inquiring minds (the poor person's version of Papprazi?). By the way, the father had a brief statement "I am a diabetic, I have no statement, this is a difficult time, I do not want to go back into relapse".
The argument in favor of meds seems to be based on something to the tune of "if you start taking these meds, it might save your life, if you won't start taking these meds, you might die". The pro meds crowd seems to be convinced that it is always a good thing to do, to take meds, so long as there is the chance it may save the life of the med taker. Lets say worse case scenario from that point of view turns out to be that, a given person did not begin taking meds as they were advised. Soon after, they die. Okay, so this is one person dead as the result of not taking meds. Meanwhile, there is this recent shooter in Illinois, who had been on meds for reasons valid or not that have not yet been explained to the public. To be honest, I would not expect any aware, sane, rationale, thinking person to be explained by the media with valid reasons in this context. Don't expect them. Don't look for them. This way you won't be surprise nor disappointed when they don't come the way they always do (never come).... just like "black box" recorders that tell somebody - just not us, all the gnarly details of whys and howfors an airplane mysteriously crashed. For whatever reason, this gunman person then stopped taking said meds, also for reasons not yet explained. They are dead as a result, as are 5 others taken down in the process, plus several other physiclaly wounded, plus numerous others mentally wounded. The tally of casualites in mentally scarred is still ongoing. Like I said, this headline story is still making the rounds across the country and probably global as well. Consider doing yourself a favor of keeping the tv tuned out to this and you just may well save yourself a bit more scar baggage. Total body count on the mentally wounded will not be accumulated at least until that process dies down.