411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 40

Posted by Ryan Latimer on 04.23.2007

Guns, abortion and bombing Iran. No controversy whatsoever!

Good day folks, and welcome to the big 4-0 edition of FOF Politics. It's feeling kind of down because of this birthday, so be sure to compliment its young appearance. I'm your host Ryan Latimer, and…wait, I already made a bad joke.

I sure had a difficult time putting together questions and people this week considering NOTHING NEWSWORTHY AT ALL WHATSOEVER has gone down in the past 7 days, so go easy on me if the material is no good. I mean, c'mon, outside one of the worst tragedys this nation has ever seen in recent time and the various political fallouts, a landmark ruling on a controversial practice, Iran and North Korea still messing with us on bringing the end of the world as we know it and everyone with their figurative hand on the trigger, lots of Iraqi people getting blown up…I have no clue what I'm going to come up with.

This week we have the always lovable Brandon Crow and 411 newbie Rob Rabies in the ring. Rob, consider this a formal welcome from me - paring you up with one of the site's finest as an opponent. I know, I'm a stinker. I get it all the time.

Go…


1) The massacre at Virginia Tech last Monday was the worst mass shooting in American history. The expected political fallout (sometimes referred to as the "blame game") pertaining to gun laws, media violence, etc, has begun. The primary issue we as a nation must consider in the wake of the tragedy is gun control.

Brandon Crow: FICTION There are two primary issues to look at: mental health treatments and bureaucratic follow-ups. Cho Seung-Hui, though the perpetrator of the killing, was also a victim. He had serious mental issues but never got the treatment he deserved, most likely because his family and his schools did not take mental illness cases seriously enough. This leads to the second issue. The mental health facilities can only do so much. The rest is up to his parents, and in this case, his school and city authorities. He'd been reported, interviewed, undergone VA Tech's "discipline program," and even deemed an "imminent threat." And yet, he was free and walking. As far as gun control is concerned, I dislike guns and the weird American fascination with them as much as the next sane person. However, in this case, guns are not the primary issues. The gun control people are right in using this case to push their agenda because it is a powerful example, but the primary issue is not gun control.

Rob Rabies: FICTION - You knew this would be the first thing to come up, which only shows how out of touch both the left and the right are. Rather than discussing the issue at hand, they will instead return to familiar planks. The right will blame media and morals and the left will blame guns. What they both need to look at are the ways in which we fail to identify people who have problems that can later manifest themselves violently, as well as the way in which we respond to immediate security threats.

Cho Seung-hui was detained and declared mentally unstable in 2005. Should VT have barred him from campus because of that? No. Many of the greatest minds in the history of the academy were several bricks short of a full load. However, Seung-hui went far beyond being a prospective danger—he was accused of stalking by more than one woman in the past (and these are just the reported cases). Yet to be fair, it is apparent that Seung-hui did not want help. That is his decision, but as a member of a broader community to which he had shown dangerous tendencies towards in the past (VT students) he should have been required to undergo further counseling far beyond just a "recommendation" in order to remain a student on that campus. Focusing merely on guns (which is a part of the problem but not the problem, is analogous to only increasing airbags in vehicles as a way to auto fatalities.

I talked a little about this on my 411 blog already, so I won‘t repeat. I will, however, say that this issue needs to at least be discussed in some form or another, because it would be irresponsible of all of us not to. Like it or not folks, the man used guns to kill his victims. Let the debate begin (…again.) 1 for 1


2) John and Jennifer Shourds of Lovettsville, Va. has demanded the immediate firings of Virginia Tech University President Charles Steger and Virginia Tech Campus Police Chief W.R. Flinchum for what the parents feel was the mishandling of the situation following the first shooting on campus that left two dead. Steger and Flinchum were wrong in their decision to not shut down the University and send all students home following the first two murders.

Brandon Crow: FACT - But barely. The school police chief and the president should have notified their students much better and in more swift fashion. Even if they did not initially know the first two killings would lead to the later massacre. How many dead people shot by guns do they need to have before students need to be told? Their big error was thinking like politicians. These guys did not want any "unnecessary panic" (read: bad press). Big mistake. You are school officials, charged with the primary tasks of protecting the students. Protect them. Don't worry about the bad press. Besides, how well has trying to avoid the bad press worked for them so far? The fact that evidence has surfaced that Cho first shot two people, then went off campus to mail his video and then come back to campus to massacre only makes Steger and Flinchum look even more incompetent and self-serving. The buck has to stop somewhere and where "mistakes were made," people have to be held accountable. Hear that, Albeto, Karl, Dick and George?

Rob Rabies: FACT- Fiction on Flinchum. He can't make the decision to close down campus, Steger could have. Steger has far more "stroke" in this situation. He is the face of that institution. Instead of being realistic about the seriousness of the first shooting, Steger and the stooges at VT went into spin mode. Rather than treat the campus as though it was a dangerous area with an unknown suspect perhaps at large on its grounds, they treated the campus as though it were a business. They went the PR route, trying their best to minimize the damage that had already been done at the expense of the safety of the entire remainder of VT students. Steger committed multiple fireable offenses on Monday.

1) His and others' mishandling of the initial shooting where they waited over two hours to send out an email informing the rest of the campus.
2) His and the trustees/board's decision not to inform anyone over the radio/via mass broadcasts over any PA system, or calling individual classrooms, and
3) His performance during the initial press conference, which said less and spun more than anything Ari Fleischer ever dreamed of and was far more interesting in portraying VT in a positive light than actually informing people about what happened.

Flinchum could be fired, and I wouldn't argue against it, but he seems more like a fall guy than anything. What does concern me is that there were numerous police there with body armor and M-16's fully capable (armament-wise) of assaulting that building. They couldn't have known what firepower the assailant had, but one of the unspoken agreements of becoming a police officer is that you agree to put your body in situations that others won't. Whether or not that building was dangerous is irrelevant in relation to their duty that by the mere fact of their presence as police officers they accept.

Steger screwed up. We know this. The question now is whether or not he can be considered reckless for coming to his decision on handling the first shooting as lightly as he did. My thoughts? I thought it was insane. Huge campus or not, two people were SHOT DEAD, and the murderer was still at large. Shutting down (not necessarily "locking down") campus would have took a little time, sure, but if a double homicide isn‘t enough to shut down a university simply to keep the rest of the student body off grounds, what is? Just my two cents. Could be wrong, and I usually am 2 for 2


3) With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the ban on the specific practice of partial-birth abortions. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Still, some abortion-rights supporters have opposed this decision citing health concerns or the issue of a woman's right to choose. The Supreme Court made the right ruling.

Brandon Crow: FICTION - The Supreme Court made a party-line ruling. Look at it—5-4. The conservatives are playing to their base for their politicians and obviously trying to push a conservative agenda. By the way, what happened to the name calling of "activist judges?" Suddenly, it's gone from all conservatives. I don't think anyone truly relishes the idea of aborting a fetus beyond the second trimester. Check that—I don't think anyone really ever relishes aborting any fetus, period. But the truth remains that medically, psychologically, socially, culturally and emotionally, many women have a high necessity for abortions, late term or not. Judges and politicians should not be making these decisions. I wonder why Bush and the conservatives, who are so pro "let the people on the ground decide" won't let the people on the ground (in this case, doctors and their female patients) decide?

Rob Rabies: FICTION- This issue fully displays the power of language and how discourse can shape people's perceptions. The term "partial birth abortion" immediately conjures up the image of back alley or scalpel-happy doctors lopping the heads off of fetuses as though this were an enjoyable practice for them. That is absurd. It's also rhetoric clearly meant to appeal to people's aversion to infanticide. Additionally, this is a topic meant to appeal to a larger ban on all abortions. As of 2000, fewer than 1 in 500 abortions were done through this method. It's a political tool. That's it. I hate debating the abortion topic because there is no debate, it generally denigrates into a lobbing of insults, but that is my least angered stance on the matter. As bold as I can put it: no one enjoys abortions, don't be a f**king troll dittohead imbecile.

Well, Rob is right in that PBAs are much more scarce than standard abortions, but frequency shouldn‘t really be an issue. The fact is that PBAs are very controversial for good reason, and I don‘t necessarily think this ruling will "spell the end" of Roe vs. Wade. Some indeed may want it to, though. 3 for 3


4) US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week that diplomatic efforts to resolve the standoff with Iran over its disputed nuclear program are working. The U.S. and Israel have continuingly accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. The diplomatic efforts are indeed working.

Brandon Crow: FACT But again, this one is conditional. It's working only so
far as Iran has now publicly said they would stop pursuing a weapons-grade nuclear program. They will continue to work on a nuclear program that leads to reactors and energy sources. And we all know those nuclear programs can easily be altered into weapons programs.

It is hard to trust anything that comes out of Iran's mouth, but a diplomatic solution is always favorable to Bush, and now McCain's solution of "ba-ba-ba…ba-ba-ba-bomb Iran!"

Rob Rabies: FICTION - First of all, in the words of Jim Mora, "are you kiddin' me?" The US and Israel have continually accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons because they want to maintain the nuclear monopoly in the region. Could someone please explain to me the logic behind letting a state like Israel , who purchases armored bulldozers to destroy Palestinian homes have nuclear weapons, yet Iran cannot? Oh that's right, Israel 's our puppet state. Look—the nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and has been for 60 years. I'm all for stopping nuclear proliferation among small splinter groups or terrorist cells, but aside from military intervention, we are deluding ourselves to believe that we are going to truly subvert Iran 's nuclear program. Hell—we helped start the goddamned thing (nuclear power) when the Shah was still lopping off heads with our tacit approval.

However, the Iranians are still far away from the bomb, according to the reporting of Seymour Hirsch in the November 27th New Yorker. To paraphrase Leslie Groves and ironize the third question—they aren't pregnant. The diplomatic talks are having no effect. Enrichment is a difficult and time consuming process.

To me, Seymour Hirsch is just a might more credible than an empty suit like Robert Graves.

"Bomb Iran?" Oh, I get it, John. That's funny. In other news, New Coke was a fabulous idea. 3 for 4

That does it this week. I expect everyone to wish me a happy 25th birthday this Friday, and possibly even a present or two. If you don't, every 5 minutes God will kill a kitten. Please think of the kittens.

-rl