THE US REPORT

TV and film often portray serial killers as white males and dysfunctional loners who really want to get caught. Or, they’re super-intelligent monsters who frustrate law enforcement at every turn. But according to a new publication from the FBI National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime—entitled Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators—serial killers are much different in real life. One revelation: serial killers are not all dysfunctional loners: some have had wives and kids and full-time jobs and have been very active in their community or church or both. The BTK killer comes to mind—Dennis Rader held a steady job and was both a Boy Scout leader and active church member. Ted Bundy was attractive to young women and earned their trust quickly. Compare those real serial killers with the two maniacs in the movie 'Silence of the Lambs.'  Dr. Hannibal Lecter—educated, intellectual and on the surface quite respectable— comes closer to the real model than the other serial killer known as Buffalo Bill.

The publication also discloses serial killers are not all white males: the racial diversification of serial killers generally mirrors the overall U.S. population. Nor do serial killers want to get caught. Over time, as they kill without being discovered, they get careless during their crimes.

Serial killers also seize opportunity. An offender selects a victim, regardless of the category, based upon availability, vulnerability, and desirability. Availability is explained as the lifestyle of the victim or circumstances  that allow the offender access to the victim. Vulnerability is defined as the degree to which the victim is susceptible to attack by the offender. Desirability is described as the appeal of the victim to the offender. Desirability involves numerous factors based upon the motivation of the offender and may include factors dealing with the race, gender, ethnic background, age of the victim, or other specific preferences the offender determines.

You can access the lengthy report at the FBI’s NCAVC page. It’s worth repeating you can’t always judge a person by his or her lifestyle and you can’t buy into the myths Hollywood projects when it comes to serial killers.

[Text & Photo by Kay B. Day. Follow the links below under ‘References’ for additional reading.]

Lots of debate on The Live Feed blog right now over TV One’s decision to cover the Democratic National Convention extensively but to completely ignore the GOP national convention. Many commenters are crying racism. Others say TV One has a 93 percent black audience, and those viewers usually vote a Dem ticket, so it’s no big deal. One or two commenters did remind readers a Republican president actually freed the slaves.

If the Fairness Doctrine returns, as Dem speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and colleagues hope, the decision wouldn’t fly so smoothly. Although TV One isn't regulated, how can Pelosi and her pro-Fairness Doctrine colleagues justify coercing media that would be regulated to do what others won't when they won't have to which is how freedom of speech is supposed to work anyway.

Personally, I believe what a station (or any media outlet) airs is up to the station and the network. I also believe, however, TV One is doing its viewers a disservice. For one thing, we can’t assume all blacks are Democrats. Check out guests on various programs on Fox News shows—kind of makes me want to say, “Yes, Virginia, there are blacks in the GOP.” TV One also shouldn’t assume whites don’t watch their programming. There would be even hotter debate if a network avoided the Dem convention, and I’m sure there’d be rants about racism since racism is a favorite topic at present among the politically enlightened anyway.

But in the USA, TV networks, websites and newspapers can offer their audiences whatever they want to. That’s the beauty of freedom of speech. We have the option to refrain from reading or viewing, or avoiding sponsors if we don’t like a decision.

The Fairness Doctrine would inject the government into your content. That is an infraction of the US Constitution. So while it saddens me there is a racial divide promulgated by some in our country, I am comforted that we have the freedom to protest or speak against what we don’t agree with. And how do we even define broadcasting today? The doctrine of old was established for a completely different and by today's standards less sophisticated marketplace.

Those who don’t like TV One’s decision can write to the station or to the corporations involved in their venture. According to the station’s website, “TV One is a venture of Radio One, Inc., the largest radio broadcaster primarily targeting African American and urban listeners, and Comcast Corporation, the largest cable operator in the country, along with Bear Stearns, Constellation Ventures, Syndicated Communications and Opportunity Capital Partners.”

Finally, the obsession over a potential black American president reflects exactly how fixated we are on our own country rather than the world at large. Many leaders in other countries are people of color, a fact overlooked by our own media. Coincidentally, most are male. Gender bias it seems has fallen from favor among the “thinkerati” as I call them. In the long line of history, this presidential election will be just another blip on the timeline anyway. We are truly insignificant, other than during the fleeting time we prowl this planet in the flesh. But right now, if you’re a black person who supports a GOP candidate, you are truly insignificant to TV One.

Edited 7-13-08; Kay B. Day
 

YouTube users are calling for a boycott of Viacom brands because the media conglomerate wants user files to determine whether copyrights were infringed. Viacom owns brands like MTV, Nickelodeon, Spike TV, Paramount Pictures and Dreamworks Studios. Those are just a few; Viacom is the T.Rex of the entertainment world. You can print a list of all the brands from the Viacom website.

The entertainment industry in general is extremely tight-fisted with intellectual property rights, especially compared to the publishing industry. I admit there's a pretty big difference between celebs and writers, starting with the fact most writers don't own planes and waterfront property in Miami.

Viacom issued a statement. Here's an excerpt; you can read the whole spin at the website: "Viacom has not asked for and will not be obtaining any personally identifiable information of any YouTube user. The personally identifiable information that YouTube collects from its users will be stripped from the data before it is transferred to Viacom. Viacom will use the data exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against You Tube and Google."

This dustup illustrates the confidence, possibly even arrogance, of a conglomerate whose brands are so successful that customer relations don't matter.  And it's my opinion Viacom is also fishing for information that might be an asset in marketing and demographics, regardless of what personal information is given. And of course, there's the billion dollars plus in damages. Doesn't every media conglomerate want what Google has?

Think about this for a minute. What could you more easily do without--Google or Viacom?

It's a no-brainer for me. I rarely watch TV or movies anymore. How many reality scenarios can a person take? Do you really care if a bachelor picks some female who is so desperate for an audience she puts herself in a situation completely devoid of dignity?  And how many lame movies can you sit through?

Boycott Viacom, say YouTube users. I think that's a capital idea.

And if we really wanted to have some fun, we could boycott sponsors who place ads on Viacom brands. That would be an even bigger capital idea. Too bad we can't boycott judges like the federal judge who issued this ruling.

Read our previous story about the Viacom ruling. And ask yourself why the blogosphere, an entity known for rabidly protecting privacy rights, is fairly mute about this issue except for select tech blogs.

Should consumers boycott Viacom brands? Tech blogs are analyzing the ruling in the Google/Viacom battle after federal judge Lewis Stanton ruled in favor of protecting Google’s intellectual property but ignored privacy rights of users. User info will be turned over to Viacom, one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. Michael Arrington, writing for Tech Crunch, says the data “includes every YouTube username, the associated IP address and the videos that user has watched on YouTube. Google will also be required to hand over copies of every video removed from YouTube for any reason (DMCA notices or user-initiated deletions). Stanton dismissed Google’s argument that the order will violate user privacy, saying such privacy concerns are merely ‘speculative.’ " So how will this not only affect YouTube users but us lowly bloggers?

Click to read more ...

Have you been following the development of the Large Hadron Collider whose purpose is to collide proton beams at levels of energy never before produced in a particle accelerator? That’s a complex way to ask you if you’ve been following the news about the LHC and the fears some have that black holes might be created and/or strangelets might take matter over, transforming that matter into some really strange matter. The physicists are at it again, and I can see why they’re so excited. No one’s ever done this before—created a process something like the Big Bang scientific types attribute the origins of Earth to. The European Center for Nuclear Research is in charge, but scientists from a number of countries are participating including the U.S. The video below gives an idea of the worst-case scenario.

A former radiation expert and a writer have teamed up, suing in a Honolulu District Court to stop the collider from going forward until CERN proves it’s safe. The collider is located in Switzerland. The lawsuit rests on the plaintiffs’ beliefs there’s a possibility the LHC will create tiny black holes which would then suck us all up or perhaps create strangelets. In the latter case we literally might not recognize ourselves. There’s also the matter of monopoles. You might want to read the safety report yourself. This will be an epic accomplishment, but is epic destruction possible as well?

Click to read more ...