i watched a bit of cnn last night, with Anderson Cooper interviewing a criminal psychologist and an FBI specialist, and one of the two guests, amidst CNN's continual paging though of the posed pictures, said that there's always a risk of the copy-cat effect (especially since he mentioned the Columbine killers in his 'manifesto'), and that we shouldn't be glorifying his actions by continually showing his pictures and playing the video etc. so... miracle of miracles, CNN cut them out.

I don't think I've ever seen a news talk program respond that quickly to a suggestion by their guests as to how they present a particular story, and maybe attempt to de-sensationalize the individual involved.

you're absolutely right, though, this glorification (because that's what it is) is only going to serve to inspire someone else

Okay, Beck, I'll concede the point that you can't not print the name of a man who kills 32 people on the campus of a large university. (I still maintain that the only reason that his isn't a name everyone knows instantly is that it's a Chinese name; though I'm pretty sure that more people would be able to identify his name as that of the killer than "Ed Stelmach" as the name of the premier.)

But, if his actions between the two killings (ie. after he killed the girl and the RA at the dorm, but before he went to the lecture hall) included making up what amounted to a press release, one might reasonably assume that his motive for going back to kill 30 people at the lecture hall was to go out in a blaze of glory; so that everyone would know him and what he had done.

In such a case, should pictures from his press release really be on the front page?

The Adventure of the Missing Stocking, by the writers of Lost (and, of course the inimitable Matthew Baldwin.)

I've never watched the show, myself, but, if this is the least bit accurate as a parody, it confirms most of my suspicions about Lost.

Wait, Ken looked better than Harper...that's what I like to believe anyway.

I wonder if we serve as the secret muses to the major news groups. I mean...I was just joking about Harper's make up, but looky! Someone (CP) did some sleuthing to get the answers!

It's not a novel concept that a price tag is involved with the appearance of heads of state [hos], but does it really have an effect upon, say, the way we vote? Or the credence we, as citizens, attach to what hos say or do? I'm not sure if I have an answer to these questions myself, but I would like to say that so long as hos show up in a shirt and tie, then it's all good. Maybe a little lotion for skin care, but that's just expected.

After exploring what effects primping hos have upon the general public, will all of this 'dressing up' offer any insights as to how hos perceive the general voting public? What expectations do hos have when they change their appearance for different audiences? Say you're walking down a street and Harper shows up, looks at you, and strikes up a conversation in the rouge his 'personal primper' advised he wear, what are his expectations?

I didn't mean anything with the anacronym.

BREAKING: We ARE paying for the Ken look!!

As an aside, notwithstanding how much of an impact buffing the PM's style stats has, someone's going to have to explain to me why it's a big deal that taxpayers are paying for our PM to look, say, presentable as a world leader. (I'm assuming that's the goal, anyway.)

Not a very good stylist?

CinO Street Hockey

What: HOCKEY!!!! (Road/Street)
Where: Hockey courts behind the Yardbird Suite (About 103st & 85 ave)
When: 1pm on Sunday, April 29
RSVP to coveredinpleasure (at) gmail dot com or jfranchuk (at) gmail dot com

well... okay then Ed... um... what stylist, in their right mind, would make a man look like a Ken doll all the time??

Ken dolls kill in Quebec focus groups.

And the drop-off in Alberta for wearing lipstick (for a Conservative PM) is miniscule until you get to the extreme end of the range.

Even then they still poll higher than the bastards stealing our money and giving it to Quebec. Er, the Liberal bastards, that is.

Didn't you just answer your own question?

Anyways, I guess he has been looking a little 'red' lately. Which of course means the opposition gets to make fun of him in question period (and get paid 150k+ a year to do it).