Yep. CNN, in stiall another AOL featured story, is again running a LONG story providing all of the publicity the NIU killer could ever have wanted. The story is complete with a PICTURE of the killer, and multiple mentioins of his name. The victims are hardly mentioned.
The EXCUSE for the story is the CNN interview by CNN with the killer's girlfriend (more great public fame for the killer). The girlfriend "revealed" that the killer was on three drugs: Prozac, Xanax, and an anti-depressant. He had evidently discontinued one or more, without apparent medical supervision, before his rampage.
Still way too much publicity, by NAME, for a kiler. Way to go, CNN. We would not want other prospective killers to think that they might not get all of the attention they crave, once they go on a killing spree. Nope, the extensive publicity is NOT necessary to get out the facts as to the drugs being taken (if they are "facts"). In fact, the mainstream media may be more to "blame" for these killers than any drug--something which they do NOT seriously "investigate".
As to blaming the drug companies (a campaign out there as to this type of drug), the problem is that it is DIFFICULT to treat mentally disturbed people, or people who just don't feel good and want relief. I am no fan of "mental health professionals", but anecdotal "evidence" does not establish that this is the "fault" of the drugs. The question is: Do the drugs do more good than harm? That is a question that should always be under examination, but it is a matter for medical science, rather than demagogues. Would this killer have done the same thing with NO drugs? I think it is likely, but that is a question that must be consistently re-examined (rationally, rather than as a "political/popular movement").
By the way: What do Prozac and Barack Obama have in common? Both make you feel good, without doing anything fundamental for you. (See the previous entry for my expansion of this thought, which was written before the previous entry).