Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Apr
19
Find the morning’s transcript here. I’ve bolded the sections I had in mind earlier today.
CHETRY: Well, the FBI now looking through a massive amount of information sent by Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui. The photos, the videos and the writings are disturbing, to say the least, but they actually could prove to be very valuable for investigators. Joining me now on the phone from Chantilly, Virginia, is Peter Smerick. He’s the president of The Academy Group, which is a behavioral sciences research center, as well as a former FBI profiler.
Thanks for joining us this morning, Peter.
PETER SMERICK, FORMER FBI PROFILER: Good morning.
CHETRY: Did you get a chance to look at some of that tape?
SMERICK: Yes.
CHETRY: What did you think?
SMERICK: Well, you know, when you look at the tape and — well let’s just — let me put a caveat here. All of my opinions and observations are based upon looking at stuff we see in the news media, so I have no special insight into this case because the facts are being kept close to the vest by the investigators. But saying that, when you look at the tape and when you listen to the words that this individual is using, you don’t have to be a profiler or a psychologist to realize that the individual probably is rather delusional.
Now what’s interesting to me is that what we don’t know at this particular point is whether or not these thoughts of extreme violence is a current type of situation or whether he’s been harboring these thoughts for many, many years and then suddenly they involved in this murderous rampage that he went on.
CHETRY: Well, it looks like this is years in the making because we talked to students yesterday, some who went to high school with him as well, who describe the very same situations, someone who kept to himself, a loaner. There are people who went to school with him for four year and say they never heard his voice.
SMERICK: Yes. Well, you know, one of the dilemmas we have in a case like this, and I know lately on the media there’s been a lot of people talking about all of these red flags waving and we should have known and we should have been able to decipher this. The one thing I’ve learned over many, many years and analyzing thousands of cases is this — unless an individual either verbalizes threats . . .
CHETRY: Which he did.
SMERICK: Or physically — well, what verbalized threats did he make?
CHETRY: Well, he — people were terrified because of some of the things that were written in his plays, in his play writing class.
SMERICK: No, no, no. What — no, no, no. You have to understand something. What he has written in his plays is one thing. But what I’m saying is that when you talk to all of his roommates, when you talk to all of the people that have known him, has he actually come out over time and talked about, I’m going to kill you? I mean, has he ever verbalized any of the thoughts that we see here in the tape?
CHETRY: Well, there was the stalking situation, as well. There were two girls that were scared enough about him following them around that they actually did go to police about it. And that is something that apparently was not pursued to its fullest extent.
SMERICK: OK. Well the irony of, you know, that comment is that today and tomorrow I’m teaching a two-day course to investigators regarding the crime of stalking. And I think one thing you have to understand about this crime is that when you look at a typical police agency, they prioritize their investigations. So homicides and rapes, sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, the volatile crimes have the highest priority. Then you move down into property crimes. And, quite frankly, stalking is very, very low on the totem pole of crimes that are investigated.
CHETRY: Right.
SMERICK: And even in the cases that you’re talking about here, whereas I understand it he had sent some — and I’m guessing they’re sexually oriented e-mails to a number of women. Even if the police had thoroughly investigated that case, based upon what I’m reading in the paper, it would have been a misdemeanor.
CHETRY: I know, it’s disturbing.
SMERICK: And unless there was some actual threat in those e- mails, the police could not have gone much further than what they did.
CHETRY: All right. At the end of the day, are restraining order is a piece of paper, unfortunately, as you say.
SMERICK: Well, and that’s exactly right. A restraining order — if you have an individual who’s delusional, yes, I mean, he can violate a retraining order just as easily as you or I can.
CHETRY: All right. Well, Peter, thanks for your insight this morning. We’re going to be talking about this much more throughout the day, as well. The warnings signs. And could more have been done? I know it’s something that a lot of people are wording today.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:53 pm April 19th, 2007 in Politics | 1 Comment
Print This Post
Apr
19
General Assembly to hear State of the Judiciary address on 4/25
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Read the details from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
According to the announcement, it will be livestreamed at http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/videostream/ “and will be available live on cable television in certain areas via the Ohio Channel (availability is at http://www.ohiochannel.org/).”
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:33 pm April 19th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Apr
19
General Assembly to hear State of the Judiciary address on 4/25
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Read the details from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
According to the announcement, it will be livestreamed at http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/videostream/ “and will be available live on cable television in certain areas via the Ohio Channel (availability is at http://www.ohiochannel.org/).”
By Jill Miller Zimon at 5:33 pm April 19th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Apr
19
Anti-abortion advocate degrades & demeans mental health issues in pregnant women
Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments
I’ve just finished listening to this very disturbing hour on Diane Rehm.
About midway through the edition, the anti-abortion advocate from the Family Research Council (the group that anointed Ken Blackwell as a senior fellow), Cathy Cleaver Ruse, completely, totally and unbelievingly – in the wake of what we know now about the VaTech shooter and his mental health problems – devalued and discounted the role of a woman’s mental health status when choosing to have a legal medical procedure.
What did she say:
Ruse was seeking to make her point that partial birth procedures are never medically necessary to save the life of the mother and that they are performed on healthy women.
To make this point, Ruse referred to health statistics from the state of Kansas (which you can see here, and I have reviewed), the only state that has kept stats on partial-birth procedures. Then, she indicated that in 1999, 182 partial birth procedures were reported to have been performed in Kansas. Then, she emphasized that in all those instances, according to the report, physicians indicated that the major bodily function that would have been impaired if the procedure was not performed would be mental, not physical.
So – to Ruse, mental health needs are not needs at all, and certainly not health needs. Want to tell that to the parents of the dead from Virginia Tech?
The fact that Kansas even provides such a distinction tells us what Kansas thinks about mental health issues as well.
And would Ruse rather have the women who are experiencing mental health issues go on and have their babies and then kill the children themselves?
Or would Ruse champion the money and the cultural changes necessary to provide such women with all the care they need? I didn’t hear a word about that.
Also noteworthy and disturbing, coming from a woman who is supposed to be representing a bastion of family values:
Ruse and Kate Michelman got into it regarding family planning. Ruse was stating her belief that the existence of 1.3 million women who have abortions is evidence that society has failed those women and needs to support them. So Michelman quickly chimed in: then support family planning.
At which point, the host, Susan Page, said to Ruse, does the Family Research Council support family planning?
To which Ruse replied, the Family Research Council doesn’t take a position on family planning.
O.M.G.
Michelman then fleshes out Ruse’s answer for the audience as to the FRC’s take on family planning: the FRC opposes access to contraception, opposes comprehensive sex education and opposes access to emergency contraception.
Last but absolutely not least, the final caller finds yesterday’s SCOTUS decision to be an abomination because, according to her, the United States military has told personnel to abstain from having babies for at least two years after service in Iraq because of the use and presence of depleted uranium. (I’ve been unable to find any information on that, however, you can read more about DU problems currently here, and more generally, here and see here for what it supposedly does to babies.) This caller’s concern was the double injury here: by the DU and then the possibility that the mother will be prohibited from legally terminating the pregnancy if we do not re-double our pro-choice efforts.
I’ve never given to Planned Parenthood before, I bet there are a lot of women who are daughters and mothers like me who, now, are going to be giving for the first time.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:46 pm April 19th, 2007 in Politics | 5 Comments
Print This Post
Apr
19
General Assembly to hear State of the Judiciary address on 4/25
Filed Under Politics | Comments Off
Read the details from the Supreme Court of Ohio.
According to the announcement, it will be livestreamed at http://www.supremecourtofohio.gov/videostream/ “and will be available live on cable television in certain areas via the Ohio Channel (availability is at http://www.ohiochannel.org/).”
By Jill Miller Zimon at 2:33 pm April 19th, 2007 in Politics | Comments Off
Print This Post
Apr
19
CNN’s Kiran Chetry couldn’t help but inspire the ire of risk management professional, Peter Smerick, a former FBI profiler among other things, whom she was interviewing this morning. She wanted, maybe hoped that he would say, yes, we can know, we can prevent. (I’ll update with the transcript when available.)
But he refused to buy into her, and many others, beliefs that dots existed that could have been connected and prevented the killings at Virginia Tech on Monday.
Only the reporter with whom John Roberts spoke shortly after Chetry’s segment raised the real concern: troubled kids. I’d make it even more general: kids. And then, not even kids. The shooter in Virginia was 23. Lots of folks out there don’t want 23 year olds to be seen as kids, and we know there are individuals well beyond 23 who commit mass murders.
Soul search the security industry and how we can improve disaster/emergency communications all you want. But those measures won’t do a thing to stop people whose minds need attention. For those people, the last thing you want to do is decrease the likelihood that they will talk or express themselves to people who can help – help those individuals as well as those who may be in danger.
You think Cho didn’t talk much until he made his video? Just imagine the damper the threat of expulsion or further ostracizing would do to someone who needs mental health assistance.
And a final note: In less than five seconds, I was able to think of four women I know who have taken anti-depressants, under the guidance of psychiatrists and therapists over the last five years. They all have children and they all have masters degrees and employed husbands and homes and families around them. Should those kids have been removed from the home? Should those mothers have been removed from the home? Have you ever thought, really thought, about all the pharma ads on television suggesting that you should take this, that or the other medication for your blues or lack of energy or sad thoughts? Did your sad thoughts ever make you homicidal?
Who exactly do you think is a danger?
Read this from NAMI, if you don’t know the answer to that question.
And then think long and hard about what you think would actually help troubled people.
NB: Ohio gets a B in mental health care. Virginia? D.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:16 am April 19th, 2007 in Politics | 1 Comment
Print This Post
Apr
19
Anti-abortion advocate degrades & demeans mental health issues in pregnant women
Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments
I’ve just finished listening to this very disturbing hour on Diane Rehm.
About midway through the edition, the anti-abortion advocate from the Family Research Council (the group that anointed Ken Blackwell as a senior fellow), Cathy Cleaver Ruse, completely, totally and unbelievingly – in the wake of what we know now about the VaTech shooter and his mental health problems – devalued and discounted the role of a woman’s mental health status when choosing to have a legal medical procedure.
What did she say:
Ruse was seeking to make her point that partial birth procedures are never medically necessary to save the life of the mother and that they are performed on healthy women.
To make this point, Ruse referred to health statistics from the state of Kansas (which you can see here, and I have reviewed), the only state that has kept stats on partial-birth procedures. Then, she indicated that in 1999, 182 partial birth procedures were reported to have been performed in Kansas. Then, she emphasized that in all those instances, according to the report, physicians indicated that the major bodily function that would have been impaired if the procedure was not performed would be mental, not physical.
So – to Ruse, mental health needs are not needs at all, and certainly not health needs. Want to tell that to the parents of the dead from Virginia Tech?
The fact that Kansas even provides such a distinction tells us what Kansas thinks about mental health issues as well.
And would Ruse rather have the women who are experiencing mental health issues go on and have their babies and then kill the children themselves?
Or would Ruse champion the money and the cultural changes necessary to provide such women with all the care they need? I didn’t hear a word about that.
Also noteworthy and disturbing, coming from a woman who is supposed to be representing a bastion of family values:
Ruse and Kate Michelman got into it regarding family planning. Ruse was stating her belief that the existence of 1.3 million women who have abortions is evidence that society has failed those women and needs to support them. So Michelman quickly chimed in: then support family planning.
At which point, the host, Susan Page, said to Ruse, does the Family Research Council support family planning?
To which Ruse replied, the Family Research Council doesn’t take a position on family planning.
O.M.G.
Michelman then fleshes out Ruse’s answer for the audience as to the FRC’s take on family planning: the FRC opposes access to contraception, opposes comprehensive sex education and opposes access to emergency contraception.
Last but absolutely not least, the final caller finds yesterday’s SCOTUS decision to be an abomination because, according to her, the United States military has told personnel to abstain from having babies for at least two years after service in Iraq because of the use and presence of depleted uranium. (I’ve been unable to find any information on that, however, you can read more about DU problems currently here, and more generally, here and see here for what it supposedly does to babies.) This caller’s concern was the double injury here: by the DU and then the possibility that the mother will be prohibited from legally terminating the pregnancy if we do not re-double our pro-choice efforts.
I’ve never given to Planned Parenthood before, I bet there are a lot of women who are daughters and mothers like me who, now, are going to be giving for the first time.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:46 am April 19th, 2007 in Politics | 4 Comments
Print This Post
Apr
19
Anti-abortion advocate degrades & demeans mental health issues in pregnant women
Filed Under Politics | 4 Comments
I’ve just finished listening to this very disturbing hour on Diane Rehm.
About midway through the edition, the anti-abortion advocate from the Family Research Council (the group that anointed Ken Blackwell as a senior fellow), Cathy Cleaver Ruse, completely, totally and unbelievingly – in the wake of what we know now about the VaTech shooter and his mental health problems – devalued and discounted the role of a woman’s mental health status when choosing to have a legal medical procedure.
What did she say:
Ruse was seeking to make her point that partial birth procedures are never medically necessary to save the life of the mother and that they are performed on healthy women.
To make this point, Ruse referred to health statistics from the state of Kansas (which you can see here, and I have reviewed), the only state that has kept stats on partial-birth procedures. Then, she indicated that in 1999, 182 partial birth procedures were reported to have been performed in Kansas. Then, she emphasized that in all those instances, according to the report, physicians indicated that the major bodily function that would have been impaired if the procedure was not performed would be mental, not physical.
So – to Ruse, mental health needs are not needs at all, and certainly not health needs. Want to tell that to the parents of the dead from Virginia Tech?
The fact that Kansas even provides such a distinction tells us what Kansas thinks about mental health issues as well.
And would Ruse rather have the women who are experiencing mental health issues go on and have their babies and then kill the children themselves?
Or would Ruse champion the money and the cultural changes necessary to provide such women with all the care they need? I didn’t hear a word about that.
Also noteworthy and disturbing, coming from a woman who is supposed to be representing a bastion of family values:
Ruse and Kate Michelman got into it regarding family planning. Ruse was stating her belief that the existence of 1.3 million women who have abortions is evidence that society has failed those women and needs to support them. So Michelman quickly chimed in: then support family planning.
At which point, the host, Susan Page, said to Ruse, does the Family Research Council support family planning?
To which Ruse replied, the Family Research Council doesn’t take a position on family planning.
O.M.G.
Michelman then fleshes out Ruse’s answer for the audience as to the FRC’s take on family planning: the FRC opposes access to contraception, opposes comprehensive sex education and opposes access to emergency contraception.
Last but absolutely not least, the final caller finds yesterday’s SCOTUS decision to be an abomination because, according to her, the United States military has told personnel to abstain from having babies for at least two years after service in Iraq because of the use and presence of depleted uranium. (I’ve been unable to find any information on that, however, you can read more about DU problems currently here, and more generally, here and see here for what it supposedly does to babies.) This caller’s concern was the double injury here: by the DU and then the possibility that the mother will be prohibited from legally terminating the pregnancy if we do not re-double our pro-choice efforts.
I’ve never given to Planned Parenthood before, I bet there are a lot of women who are daughters and mothers like me who, now, are going to be giving for the first time.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:46 am April 19th, 2007 in Politics | 4 Comments
Print This Post
Apr
19
CNN’s Kiran Chetry couldn’t help but inspire the ire of risk management professional, Peter Smerick, a former FBI profiler among other things, whom she was interviewing this morning. She wanted, maybe hoped that he would say, yes, we can know, we can prevent. (I’ll update with the transcript when available.)
But he refused to buy into her, and many others, beliefs that dots existed that could have been connected and prevented the killings at Virginia Tech on Monday.
Only the reporter with whom John Roberts spoke shortly after Chetry’s segment raised the real concern: troubled kids. I’d make it even more general: kids. And then, not even kids. The shooter in Virginia was 23. Lots of folks out there don’t want 23 year olds to be seen as kids, and we know there are individuals well beyond 23 who commit mass murders.
Soul search the security industry and how we can improve disaster/emergency communications all you want. But those measures won’t do a thing to stop people whose minds need attention. For those people, the last thing you want to do is decrease the likelihood that they will talk or express themselves to people who can help – help those individuals as well as those who may be in danger.
You think Cho didn’t talk much until he made his video? Just imagine the damper the threat of expulsion or further ostracizing would do to someone who needs mental health assistance.
And a final note: In less than five seconds, I was able to think of four women I know who have taken anti-depressants, under the guidance of psychiatrists and therapists over the last five years. They all have children and they all have masters degrees and employed husbands and homes and families around them. Should those kids have been removed from the home? Should those mothers have been removed from the home? Have you ever thought, really thought, about all the pharma ads on television suggesting that you should take this, that or the other medication for your blues or lack of energy or sad thoughts? Did your sad thoughts ever make you homicidal?
Who exactly do you think is a danger?
Read this from NAMI, if you don’t know the answer to that question.
And then think long and hard about what you think would actually help troubled people.
NB: Ohio gets a B in mental health care. Virginia? D.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:16 am April 19th, 2007 in Politics | 1 Comment
Print This Post
Apr
19
CNN’s Kiran Chetry couldn’t help but inspire the ire of risk management professional, Peter Smerick, a former FBI profiler among other things, whom she was interviewing this morning. She wanted, maybe hoped that he would say, yes, we can know, we can prevent. (I’ll update with the transcript when available.)
But he refused to buy into her, and many others, beliefs that dots existed that could have been connected and prevented the killings at Virginia Tech on Monday.
Only the reporter with whom John Roberts spoke shortly after Chetry’s segment raised the real concern: troubled kids. I’d make it even more general: kids. And then, not even kids. The shooter in Virginia was 23. Lots of folks out there don’t want 23 year olds to be seen as kids, and we know there are individuals well beyond 23 who commit mass murders.
Soul search the security industry and how we can improve disaster/emergency communications all you want. But those measures won’t do a thing to stop people whose minds need attention. For those people, the last thing you want to do is decrease the likelihood that they will talk or express themselves to people who can help – help those individuals as well as those who may be in danger.
You think Cho didn’t talk much until he made his video? Just imagine the damper the threat of expulsion or further ostracizing would do to someone who needs mental health assistance.
And a final note: In less than five seconds, I was able to think of four women I know who have taken anti-depressants, under the guidance of psychiatrists and therapists over the last five years. They all have children and they all have masters degrees and employed husbands and homes and families around them. Should those kids have been removed from the home? Should those mothers have been removed from the home? Have you ever thought, really thought, about all the pharma ads on television suggesting that you should take this, that or the other medication for your blues or lack of energy or sad thoughts? Did your sad thoughts ever make you homicidal?
Who exactly do you think is a danger?
Read this from NAMI, if you don’t know the answer to that question.
And then think long and hard about what you think would actually help troubled people.
NB: Ohio gets a B in mental health care. Virginia? D.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:16 am April 19th, 2007 in Politics | 1 Comment
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
