The Columbine Killers

NY Times ^ | April 24, 2004 | DAVID BROOKS

[neverdem]

Five years ago, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot up Columbine High School. Now it's clear that much of what we thought about that horror was wrong.

In the weeks following the killings, commentators and psychologists filled the air with theories about what on earth could have caused those teenagers to lash out as they did. The main one was that Harris and Klebold were the victims of brutal high school bullies. They were social outcasts, persecuted by the jocks and the popular kids. But there were other theories afloat: they'd fallen in with a sick Goth subculture; they were neglected by their families; they were influenced by violent video games; they were misfits who could find no place in a conformist town.

All these theories had one theme in common: that the perpetrators were actually victims. They had been so oppressed and distorted by society that they struck back in this venomous way. In retrospect, it's striking how avidly we clung to this perpetrator-as-victim narrative. It's striking how quickly we took the massacre as proof that there must be something rotten at Columbine High School.

As we've learned more about Harris and Klebold, most of these misconceptions have been exposed. The killers were not outcasts. They did not focus their fire on jocks or Christians or minorities. They were not really members of a "Trenchcoat Mafia."

This week, in a superb piece in Slate magazine, Dave Cullen reveals the conclusions of the lead F.B.I. investigator, Dwayne Fuselier, as well as of the Michigan State psychiatrist Frank Ochberg and others who studied the Columbine shootings.

Harris and Klebold "laughed at petty school shooters," Cullen reports. They sought murder on a grander scale. They planned first to set off bombs in the school cafeteria to kill perhaps 600. Then they would shoot the survivors as they fled. Then their cars, laden with still more bombs, would explode amid the rescue workers and parents rushing to the school. It all might have come off if they had not miswired the timers on the propane bombs in the cafeteria.

What motivated them? Here, Cullen says, it is necessary to distinguish Klebold from Harris. Klebold was a depressed and troubled kid who could have been saved. Harris was an icy killer. He once thought about hijacking a plane and flying it into Manhattan.

Harris wasn't bullied by jocks. He was disgusted by the inferior breed of humanity he saw around him. He didn't suffer from a lack of self-esteem. He had way too much self-esteem.

It's clear from excerpts of Harris's journals that he saw himself as a sort of Nietzschean Superman — someone so far above the herd of ant-like mortals he does not even have to consider their feelings. He rises above good and evil, above the contemptible slave morality of normal people. He can realize his true, heroic self, and establish his eternal glory, only through some gigantic act of will.

"Harris was not a wayward boy who could have been rescued," Cullen writes. Harris, the F.B.I. experts believe, "was irretrievable."

Now, in 2004, we have more experience with suicidal murderers. Yet it is striking how resilient this perpetrator-as-victim narrative remains. We still sometimes assume that the people who flew planes into buildings — and those who blew up synagogues in Turkey, trains in Spain, discos in Tel Aviv and schoolchildren this week in Basra — are driven by feelings of weakness, resentment and inferiority. We cling to the egotistical notion that it is our economic and political dominance that drives terrorists insane.

But it could be that whatever causes they support or ideologies they subscribe to, the one thing that the killers have in common is a feeling of immense superiority. It could be that they want to exterminate us because they regard us as spiritually deformed and unfit to live, at least in their world. After all, it is hard to pull up to a curb, look a group of people in the eye and know that in a few seconds you will shred them to pieces unless you regard other people's deaths as trivialities.

If today's suicide bombers are victims of oppression, then the solution is to lessen our dominance, and so assuage their resentments. But if they are vicious people driven by an insatiable urge to dominate, then our only option is to fight them to the death.

We had better figure out who these bombers really are. After Columbine, we got it wrong.

[neverdem]

I was afraid he would say something about gun control.

[Mr. Mojo]

In retrospect, it's striking how avidly we clung to this perpetrator-as-victim narrative.

We? You, perhaps.

[stylin_geek]

Hear that sound? It is the NY Times editorial staff yelling "ouch!"

[sharktrager]

What motivated them? Here, Cullen says, it is necessary to distinguish Klebold from Harris. Klebold was a depressed and troubled kid who could have been saved. Harris was an icy killer. He once thought about hijacking a plane and flying it into Manhattan.

So the point is that they weren't victims of anyone, except of course Klebold being a victim of Harris.

The author really doesn't add much or have any original thoughts. His greatest "insight" comes from FBI reports, but one thing that has been proven is that the psychological profiling and research done by the FBI is usually worthless. So Harris' journals were arrogant and hateful. This doesn't mean he had high self-esteem. In fact, it is just as likely it was overcompensating for very low self-esteem.

Clearly there is blame to be placed here beyond the killers. Their parents were clueless. The police and legal system ignored reports that these were dangerous kids. Just because we point out mistakes made by others does not mean we are excusing the actions of the killers.

[DuncanWaring]

Their parents were clueless.

Does anyone know if there has been any sign of the Klebold/Harris parents at any point in the last five years?

I certainly haven't heard of any.

[elli1]

Here's the original Slate article--much better than this NYTimes recap of the article:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099203/fr/ifr/

[cricket]

"If today's suicide bombers are victims of oppression, then the solution is to lessen our dominance, and so assuage their resentments. But if they are vicious people driven by an insatiable urge to dominate, then our only option is to fight them to the death."

'If"?

Too bad, the NYT's is still grapling with the truth here; re 9/11. . .if Columbine helps them to get a better picture; to accept, their 'unthinkable'; then so be it.

But they will never connect the dots of Liberalism in either of these tragedies.

[3catsanadog]

I was afraid he would say something about gun control.

So was I when I saw it was a NEw York Times article. But it turned out to be a very good article. While so many of the warm and fuzzy ones are worried about our kids alleged lack of self-esteem, I've been convinced for many years that they suffer more from too much.

[Jason Kauppinen]

"He didn't suffer from a lack of self-esteem. He had way too much self-esteem."

Yeah right.

[Texas_Jarhead]

The Slate piece was interesting and easily understood. Thanks for posting.

[Wilhelm Tell]

I was also releived to read a NYT article that was mostly good. I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think a term such as "self-esteem" has much meaning when you are dealing with a pathological person. Did Hitler have so much self-esteem that he saw himself as a Superman who would destroy all the "inferior" people? Or did Hitler have such low self-esteem that he overcompensated by waging war and genocide? One can imagine a context for really evil people that makes the idea of self-esteem meaningless.

What the article did not touch on enough is the amoral, nihilistic subculture that is turning some people into little more than killing machines. If you mix that with the American obsession with celebrity status, you have something really sick. The Columbine killers wanted to be "famous" for something that would make a normal person horrified and ashamed. But the left has for years told us that shame is old-fashioned. No, the important thing they told us is for there to be a supreme self-esteem that is liberated from obsolete things such as morality and a sense of shame. And the best way to assert one's self-esteem was to do outrageous acts that shocked conventional morality. So now society has to deal with the amoral, souless creatures this mentality creates.

[Straight Vermonter]

This "profile" of the killers also describes the Dartmouth killers.

[Houmatt]

Does anyone know if there has been any sign of the Klebold/Harris parents at any point in the last five years?

Only Michael Moore's attempt to exploit one set for his anti-American ficticious diatribe.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[Vision]

All these theories had one theme in common: that the perpetrators were actually victims. They had been so oppressed and distorted by society that they struck back in this venomous way. In retrospect, it's striking how avidly we clung to this perpetrator-as-victim narrative.

Yes, that's your bias toward guns(and every American's security) you dumb liberal half wit. It's disgusting and devastatingly pathetic to watch you "marvel and grow" at the "spectacular notion" that the bias you pushed with every ounce of your being is completely wrong.

Harris wasn't bullied by jocks. He was disgusted by the inferior breed of humanity he saw around him. He didn't suffer from a lack of self-esteem. He had way too much self-esteem.

And who are the folks who are always telling people they should feel good about themselves no matter what?

We still sometimes assume that the people who flew planes into buildings — and those who blew up synagogues in Turkey, trains in Spain, discos in Tel Aviv and schoolchildren this week in Basra — are driven by feelings of weakness, resentment and inferiority. We cling to the egotistical notion that it is our economic and political dominance that drives terrorists insane.

But it could be that whatever causes they support or ideologies they subscribe to, the one thing that the killers have in common is a feeling of immense superiority. It could be that they want to exterminate us because they regard us as spiritually deformed and unfit to live, at least in their world.

Wow, way to grow up and become an adult after you write in a worldwide propaganda machine. Most people get that out of their system in college. Now it's time to think about ALL the damage you've done to our country.

After Columbine, we got it wrong.

You get everything wrong, you're liberal New Yorkers

[jude24]

You get everything wrong, you're liberal New Yorkers

Wow... I think I can feel your hate.

Tell me... do you actually have evidence of the NYTime's alleged liberal bias, or are you just repeating what Rush Limbaugh says?

[eno_]

So they finally get it: Exterminating terrorists while they are still in the chest-beating and fulminating stage is the only answer.

[Vision]

Are you serious?

[Vision]

Since you asked, I'll assume you are serious.

I was thinking about how I would frame my argument. Then I thought about posting some links to you. I checked your profile as I can't believe a real conservative would need evidence of the Times bias. You seem like a great person. So, I've come to this. Why don't you google "NY Times bias" and do a little research yourself. That will give you the most thorough information and you can choose to believe what you like.

If you would like the last screaming outrage I've read, check out last week's New Yorker column on Bush and the war. We can dissect that sentence by sentence if you'd like.

And I'd try to get over whatever problems you have with Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure it effects other areas of your life.

[Vision]

Since you asked, I'll assume you are serious.

I was thinking about how I would frame my argument. Then I thought about posting some links to you. I checked your profile as I can't believe a real conservative would need evidence of the Times bias. You seem like a great person. So, I've come to this. Why don't you google "NY Times bias" and do a little research yourself. That will give you the most thorough information and you can choose to believe what you like.

If you would like the last screaming outrage I've read, check out last week's New Yorker column on Bush and the war. We can dissect that sentence by sentence if you'd like.

And I'd try to get over whatever problems you have with Rush Limbaugh. I'm sure it effects other areas of your life.

[backhoe]

evidence of the NYTime's alleged liberal bias, or are you just repeating what Rush Limbaugh says?

Merely one example:

-The Old Grey Info-Slut... the NYT/Jayson Blair Affair--

[sharktrager]

Hate to say this, but I refuse to go to Slate.com.

[jude24]

"Googling" for "NY Times bias" yields a series of "hit pieces" by news sources no less biased than they accuse the NY Times of being. Out of the first couple of pages of hits, I get NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, the GOP, and a couple of weblogs. The only serious source I get in that search is National Review, which is also tilted to the right. Not exactly a whole lot of objective information there.

Put it this way: I have yesterday's Times on my floor. (I get it free from school. The choice was the NY Times and USA Today. USA Today is a joke.) Show me evidence of bias in yesterday's issue.

I've read the Times for several months now; and I have found it to be fairly reasonable.

Jayson Blair is not evidence of bias, incidentally. He made up details about things unrelated to the conservative-vs.-liberal discussion.

(You do know that the New Yorker is wholly distinct from the NY Times, right? You're right, the New Yorker DOES tilt leftward.)

And as regards Rush Limbaugh;, I have no problem with him as a person, or even as a political commentator. My concern is that people parrot what he says. He says the NY Times is biased, therefore it is. No need to actually READ it to see if it is.

[tbeatty]

This was in the NY Times? wow.

These guys are always playing the perpetrator-as-victim song. What was their latest story on Guantanamo? Hopefully, they don't have to rewrite those stories if something awful happens.

[cricket]

"So they finally get it: Exterminating terrorists while they are still in the chest-beating and fulminating stage is the only answer."

Whatever it takes, is right; too bad they had to go and revisit Columbine to get a 'feeling' of what is going on here; a 'feeling' for what is, in fact, the right response. . .and again; all under the guise of the Liberalism these people live by.

Too bad, their 'feelings' take so long to sort out; thank God, President Bush knew the right response all along. . .and the majority of American's are right with him.

[tbeatty]

Most everything with a byline in NY times has a bias that I've seen. Not necessarily by what they say, but how they frame it and what issues they cover in a positive way and what they cover negatively.

Online edition today: "For Abortion Rights Cause, a new Diversity". Come on.

[Vision]

You seem like a nice person.

I'm going to give you an objective observation and then extend my imagination into your outlook- not to be mean at all.

You seem to be holding on to the idea that the Old Gray Lady is not biased. Even in the face of a lot of evidence, and you are distrusting when personally I see no reason to distrust. 10 years ago, I was young and a liberal. That same open mind has lead to my conservative development.

I have this typical face for NY liberals(my fathers style). They are control freaks. They can't let go and this inability to let go spills into their politics. So what I'm getting at is, I think you seem to be holding onto a dying idea, and maybe it's because your a control freak- or maybe just can't let go. If this is not you, please don't take offense. I'm just throwing things out. Anyway...

There is one google link that has an article to a NY Post's attacks on the Times for being biased. Do you not respect the Post? Are they good enough?

[neverdem]

You get everything wrong, you're liberal New Yorkers

That is quite a bigoted remark, from a resident of Maryland, whose bicameral legislature is entirely controlled by rats, as opposed to NY whose Senate has a pubbie majority, and the only other state as dumb as NY to have "ballistic fingerprinting". The only thing I would take from Maryland is your current governor.

There's about as much basis for calling someone liberal because they come from NY as there is if they come from Maryland. You're more likely to be correct if that person comes from NY City, but I'm a registered Conservative writing from the Bronx who was born in Manhattan. There are over 3 million registered pubbies in NY State not counting the Conservatives. Whats's the population of Maryland?

Google the author of the article. Brooks is no liberal. His last employer was The Weekly Standard. He joined Bill Safire, former speechwriter to Tricky Dick Nixon, and certainly no liberal, as the two token Times OpEd columnists whose perspectives come from the right.

Gun control is a fairly reliable litmus test as far as whether a person is a liberal or not, but it's not foolproof. Safire became a little wobbly when he endorsed "ballistic fingerprinting" during or after the Beltway Snipers had their murderous spree. Charles Krauthammer, another otherwise conservative pundit, also agrees with gun control. IIRC, so does George Will. I don't recall Brooks ever writing or saying anything about gun control. You can see Brooks argue against Mark Shields on PBS's "The News Hour" every Friday evening.

Articles from the Times can have a leftward bias, but it's wrong to assume that they all do. Some have none. If they do it's usually of the subtle sort in their reporting of the news. More often than not it's usually what they fail to report. With the exception of Brooks and Safire, I'm not discussing their OpEd columnists or their masthead editorials.

[neverdem]

I've read the Times for several months now; and I have found it to be fairly reasonable.

I've been reading the Times for almost 3 decades. It does have a leftward bent, often extremely so. You have to read it with discerment, sometimes a very cynical attitude on the part of the reader. I would not let the Times be the only source of my news. Please look at comment# 28, especially the last paragraph.

[neverdem]

Please see comments# 28 & 29.

[neverdem]

discerment = discernment

[Vision]

That is quite a bigoted remark, from a resident of Maryland, whose bicameral legislature is entirely controlled by rats...

You gotta respect someone who claims bigotry for no reason. Uhmm...no you don't.

[nmh]

I'd also bet the parents passed this "superiority complex" down to the children.

You know, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree/

[spodefly]

If today's suicide bombers are victims of oppression, then the solution is to lessen our dominance, and so assuage their resentments. But if they are vicious people driven by an insatiable urge to dominate, then our only option is to fight them to the death. We had better figure out who these bombers really are. After Columbine, we got it wrong.

A brief moment of rational thought on the pages of the NY Times.

[neverdem]

"You get everything wrong, you're liberal New Yorkers"

"That is quite a bigoted remark, from a resident of Maryland, whose bicameral legislature is entirely controlled by rats..."

You gotta respect someone who claims bigotry for no reason. Uhmm...no you don't.

You wrote, plain as day, that the author is a liberal which is not true, and you clearly implied everyone in the state of NY is also liberal, another falsehood.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for bigot.

Main Entry: big·ot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective - big·ot·ed·ly adverb

Would you care to explain how the word "bigoted" was inappropriate?

[jude24]

You seem to be holding on to the idea that the Old Gray Lady is not biased.

I'm skeptical that the NYT are as biased as many FReepers claim.

THe op=eds admitteldly are center-left, and Dowd has an obssessive hatred of anything Bush does; but if you read the rest of the paper, its reporting is relatively objective. (Perhaps my perception is admittedly skewed, given the other choices I have: USA Today and the Buffalo News.)

Incidentally, I'm not a NY liberal. I'm center-right on a campus that is predominantly center-left. (Basically, elements of neoconservatism, elements of paleoconservatism, and elements of populism.) I'm a registered Democrat, but only because the NY Republican party hasn't had a primary worth voting in as long as I can remember. I generally vote republican in the general election, however. So I'm no liberal. Especially by NY standards.

As for the Post, they're reasonable enough -- but suspect in this instance because they're competitiors with the NYT. Of course they will hype any misstep the NYT makes.

[Vision]

Would you care to explain how the word "bigoted" was inappropriate?

Yes...it's because my healthy view has been formed from years of watching bias in media and government. My attitude is factual, not an opinion. Have a nice day and get ready for Nov 7th:)

[Vision]

Well you seem like a great person. Don't listen to my opinions. Just keep the open mind you have, and pay attention to things day by day. If you're this hip in college, there will be no stopping you in anything you want.

My name is Alan by the way...

[elli1]

Hate to say this, but I refuse to go to Slate.com.

The NYTimes article was a Reader's Digest condensed regurgitation of the Slate piece and a rather poor one at that. The point is that the reporter for the Times was reporting on the original reporting of another reporter in a rival publication. The Times article was disjointed, an example of sloppily written, basically lazy journalism. Given your expressed negative opinion of the report, I mistakenly thought you'd be interested in reading the version from the horse's mouth.

[sharktrager]

I'd read it if it were from most other places, but if we conservatives stopped going to Slate to see what they are saying, Slate would die a natural death. Instead we tend to have an uncontrollable urge to see what's being said, and these sites survive. DU wouldn't even exist if Freepers had just stayed away.

[Mr. K]

I know what was wrong with those boys... days after the shootings one of the mothers KEPT a hairdresser's appointment- to the amazement of all present.

Unashamend, talking about how terrible it was- as if it was not her own son that was a mass murderer.

This is detachment beyond belief, so those kids probably never had parenting.

[Paulus Invictus]

A lady psychologist on a crusade against prescription mind-altering drugs is convinced that the Columbine killers were both on anti-depressants which she claims turned them into killers. She also claims the these now-common drugs are the cause of the majority of the rapidly-growing epidemic of suicides by young people. She provided some pretty convincing stats re the effects of the drugs on youngsters, and condemns the pharmaceutical companies making and selling the drugs. These companies are aware of the drug's terrible side effects and so is the FDA, but the drugs will not be withdrawn anytime soon. Too many people are hooked on them, including my daughter.

[neverdem]

Yes...it's because my healthy view has been formed from years of watching bias in media and government. My attitude is factual, not an opinion. Have a nice day and get ready for Nov 7th:)

I hope you're ready for Election Day, November 2, 2004 and any primaries that might happen in the meantime. Adios

[Paulus Invictus]

You might try reading Timeswatch.com for the facts about NYT bias. I have read the rag for years and their leftist bias is so obvious a child might easily notice it (but you don't??). Hey, even their editor admitted their bias in a recent speech he made.

[elli1]

The Slate article was posted here at FR (where I originally read it.) Here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1121991/posts

[Vision]

Wow, I didn't know it was the 2nd. Thanks for the heads up.

I'm ready, can't wait!

[Swee_py]

Klebold's parents appear to be angry. In a response to the Times article by Brookes, the Klebolds say that they have done nothing for which they need forgiveness. The mother says that her son acted in contradiction to the way in which he was raised. The father says that his son was hopeless.

Given the fact that most teens act "in contradiction to the way in which they are raised" it seems that Mrs. Klebold was unaware of the natural stage of adolescent development, typically referred to as rebelliousness. It would also seem that the father was out of ideas on how to help his son, as contextually the use of the word "hopeless" was not that the son with without hope as in depressed, but that the father had no hope that his son would do the right things. In short, it seems that Klebold's parents--5 years later--are still angry with Dylan for bringing them into their 15 minutes of fame for "negative" behavior. Bottom line, his parents feel guilty about what happened and apparently want to shift the focus on what other people should have known and/or shoud have done.

You can view the article about the parents' response here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4990167/