Clockwork Orange

Hapiness

2006-12-08T22:45:00.000-08:00

Today the "Promoción II del Año 2006 de la Escuela de Computación de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Universidad Central de Venezuela" has graduated. That was a mouthful.

I am happy to say I was among that group. The feeling of commencement had not sunk in until now, at 2:49 in the morning, in the very place I find myself. The experiences, the learning, the hardships, the friendships. Now that they have ended, I find myself missing them all the more, as is with all things once had and lost. Our perceptions evolve, and our memories become more cherished.

The following people deserve to be mentioned, for their part in making these memories that much more cherished:

To my Teachers:

- Robinson Rivas, the only man I've met who can make any conversation into a learning experience.

- Eugenio Escalise, whose strength of character and vast knowledge are the kind of traits everyone should strive to have. As Robinson, a man truly worthy of the title of Professor conferred upon him.

- Tina Di Vasta, a teacher with whom I share many memories and experiences. I wish her all the best, and thank her for all her help and kindnesses.

To my Friends:

Bárbara, Joanna, Yimy, Isabel, Carlos, Carlos Ochoa, Maryoli, Gabriela La Rosa, Ricardo, Deixi, The Delegates Luis and Silvia, Janio, María Celis. My fellow graduates, thank you for everything.

To all the other graduates, and my friends both present and absent, I wish you all happiness and success.

Finally, to the UCV. Thank you. I will miss those days, and you all.

Love

2006-04-27T14:48:00.000-07:00

Lately, I've begun to doubt my reality. Nothing is what it seems. But what a lovely and horrible illusion it is.

People reach out to one another. We seek out company, often times as though it were a necessity. We begin our lives surrounded by family; through the years we find all manner of companions. Of the latter, none is more definitive than a spouse. We procreate and our descendants take our place. The times exert little influence on this cycle. The manner in which we meet and relate to other people may change superficially, but the forces that compel us to do this never vary.

What is the internal drive that makes us do this over and over again? Moreover, why is it so difficult for some to abandon it? Is it possible to trace your own path, that is not dictated by your innate desires to quench what is called lust, love, and so many other motivations that, if deprived, leave only a sense of longing? Could it be that these emotions comprise the language our instinct uses to speak to us? Or our soul? No matter who does the commanding, the message is still the same: it says we cannot live a life without companionship.

Our emotions are merely illusions that dictate who we want around us. That beautiful girl sitting next to you on the train gives you a sense of limerance. It tells you to that you must be with her, commanding you to make her your mate. You're platonic friendships are driven by a desire to spend time with people who you consider worthy. That slutty-looking next-door neighbor you fantasize about awakens a desire to fuck her brains out when you casually bump into each other in the neighborhood. Each of these people inspire something different, and one will look to relate to them in a corresponding manner. But below this layer of emotion, it is all reduced to a desire to seek out others.

Problems occur when you cannot act upon your emotions, whether out of fear, or a reason beyond your control. The greatest of all frustrations, is a feeling of love that you cannot act upon. As I've said before, love is the most persistent of all other emotions, and its toll can be both costly and consistent. Somewhere along the way I got confused. Do I love, or is it that I don't want to be alone? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I would like to believe that our emotions are not rooted in something so selfish, but I don't believe I can judge impartially on this. Emotions cloud our minds and don't allow for completely rational thought. I don't know if I love because I am lonely, or if I am lonely because I cannot express my love. When I asked a friend for advice, he said that they are both related; it's natural to be lonely if your love is frustrated, but it is up to me to figure out if I love for love's sake, or to stave off loneliness. All I know, is that before I fell in love, I did not need it. And now that I know it, I cannot help but be subject to it's great and horrible influence.

Possession

2006-04-09T11:21:00.000-07:00

What does possession mean? Are we really in possession of anything?

As social beings, humans tend to establish relationships. One will relate to many people throughout one's lifetime, but will bond will few in a significant manner. The degree to which a bond is established will mostly depend on circumstance. We will tend to relate to those closest to us at any moment in time, whether they are our classmates, neighbors, co-workers, or relatives.

To begin to relate to someone implies risk. It means one has to put oneself in a vulnerable position in order to establish trust. With time, the esteem one will feel towards a significant other will grow. There is a relation of direct proportion between these feelings and their implied risk. The more these feelings deepen, the greater the pain that will be felt when this bond is broken.

We may go through life, having many cherished friends and relatives. But what does it mean "to have"? Is it something that is our own? By definition, one who possesses something has total control over it. But how can you control a relationship? Relationships, like all else that exists, have beginnings, and they must come to an end.

From the moment we are born we begin to die; nothing is meant to endure beyond its time. So the things we think we own have never been true possessions. The human condition dictates that our lives can end at any moment; even they are not our own. They can be taken from us without warning or consideration.

When the people who we care for expire, we don't lose them completely. Their memory remains, along with our feelings for them. This is something that can never be taken away from us, yet ironically it is also the source of our pain. It is a painful reminder that the bonds we share in this life are not our own to keep for the joys they provide, or to discard for the pain they can inflict.

We should not value other people solely because of the bond we have with them. It is not something to think of in terms of possession. A bond is something that is shared with another. Yet it is something we also share with time. True appreciation comes from the realization that though it is something we share, we have no mandate over its custody. And time can only be so generous. Ultimately, it will decide for us when the end has come, and all we can do is behold its cruelty. This should have been titled impotence.

Materialism vs. Criticism

2006-03-27T07:00:00.000-08:00

Recently, I read a text on materialism. It's a very enlightening essay on the flaws of such a philosphy when it comes to the pursuit of happiness. I think everyone could benefit from reading it, but that only depends on how much one is willing to look at oneself with a critical eye.

What is necessary to improve one's life? I believe the first step to self improvement would be to admit that one is not perfect. We are all born with flaws, and we must work to correct them. But before we can correct them, we must identify them. One such flaw, is how we look to measure our own happiness.

We are raised in a world that looks to measure one's standing in life through one's material successes. There are those who would fall into such a trap, becoming a victim of their own ambitions. People who are not lacking in any significant or vital aspect, yet complain about that which they cannot control. They covet the penthouse in which they'll never live, the luxurious car that they'll never drive or the dream job they'll never have. They are unhappy about not being able to project the ideal reality in their minds to a world in which it will not apply. The result is the same every time: a daily existence characterized by more moments of conflict and bitterness than those of contentment.

One could argue that upon identifying the problem, it would simply be a matter of taking corrective measures. But criticism is a tricky thing: you cannot expect to give a person criticism that is meant as constructive unless that person is willing to accept it. If this is not the case, it will only be taken as a personal attack. Only conflict can arise from this.

It is in our nature to be self-centered. This is rooted in our self-esteem. But sometimes our own self-love does not let us see beyond an idealized version of ourselves. Our own flaws will be seen as nuances that define us. Self-improvement will be thought of as unnecessary: there's no need to fix what isn't broken. They will go through life, trying to seek happiness through the material perfection of their existence. It is a pointless exercise.

Perfection is not a goal in life. Nobody can achieve it. We will always have our flaws and there will always be aspects of our reality that will be beyond our grasp. To strive for perfection is a good thing, as long as it is done so not as a means of achieving contentment, and most of all if it can be done without any adverse effects to one's life and the people with whom you share it.

Identity

2006-03-25T13:15:00.000-08:00

What makes a person unique? What distinguishes one individual from the next?

At birth, one is given a name. This name is used to record our birth, and unless we choose otherwise, it remains unchanged for life. As infants we learn to respond to it, and later in life, its purpose remains largely the same: it is merely a tool to get our attention, or an instrument for personal record. But names are rarely, if ever, absolutely unique. A name is just a word; a concept too abstract to give any insight about its bearer.

Perhaps it would be better to look inside the person. DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a compound that contains the genetic instructions that determine how an organism will develop. It is a biological blueprint that's different for every living being in nature. But technology has rendered DNA as an obsolete marker for uniqueness. Dolly the sheep was the first mammal to have ever been cloned from an adult cell. Human embryos have been successfully cloned as well, making artificial human cloning a reality. Such a thing that can be copied so easily cannot be deemed appropriate to determine individuality.

For the sake of argument, let's say a person is artificially cloned. Genetically, it is no different from its original. They may even share the same name. What would make them different? One could argue that both the original person and its clone possess awareness unique to them: they each have a "spirit", or "soul". Yet the existence of the soul is as of yet unverifiable. It is merely a theory that serves to place our awareness in some kind of concept.

Instead, let's try to place our individuality in something more observable, though no less difficult to explain as the soul. Our experiences are unique to us. No two individuals can experience the world in the exact same way simultaneously. Therefore, people's perceptions, though similar, can never be identical. Our character is built largely out of our perceptions. One who has been hurt many times will tend to be distrustful, or one who has had to deal with constant conflict may be bitter. Experiences will no doubt shape an individual's personality, regardless of the way it does so.

But if experiences contribute to moulding a person, memory certainly plays an important role. Our memories are largely what remain from what we perceive through experience. The ability to retain past occurrences is a vital part of conscious thinking. Previous experiences will often dictate decision making and influence problem resolution. But what is a memory? Is it merely a perception stored in our minds? How do you characterize it? How is it stored? How is it recalled? Moreover, will a day come, when the inner workings of the brain are understood well enough to be able to "clone" memories? Or entire personalities? That is an unnerving thought.

I believe what makes an individual special is hidden inside the mind. We make theories to describe what that is. We try to give it a name, whether it is soul, spirit or consciousness. But names are meaningless, as we have seen. Our memories, emotions and our character are only symptoms of that which we try define. How can something so familiar as our selves, be at the same time so foreign and hard to explain?

Worth

2006-03-23T05:37:00.000-08:00

How do you measure the value of a person? Is it even possible to do so?

One could argue that a person's worth can be measured by associating to them some kind of currency, such as money. But could you absolutely affirm that one person is more valuable than another for something as one-dimensional as their income? A medical doctor throughout his entire career will not earn the millions a Hollywood celebrity will for a single film. Yet at the end of their respective careers, the former can look back at all the lives he has saved, yet the latter's greatest contribution to society will have been an entertaining movie. Who do we idolize more? We obviously have our priorities in check.

Perhaps intelligence would be a more proper quality to take into regard. Our brightest minds have often made great contributions to mankind. Isaac Newton, for example, developed the laws of motion and gravity which provided scientists the tools to predict many different phenomena, most notably the movements of planets and stars. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution influenced many fields of study, like biology, arqueology and anthropology. Yet some contributions have been as terrible as they have been great. Albert Einstein's work laid the foundations for what would later become the atomic bomb. He was once quoted as saying "I would have become a locksmith if I had known what my life's work would bring upon the world". Intelligence may not look so proper anymore.

Let's instead look at one's deeds. A person's deeds often speak volumes about who they are, and will often provide more insight than income or intellectual quotients. But how do we judge a person's worth according to their deeds? I believe most of us want to consider ourselves good people, and as such, we are devoted to doing good deeds. Nonetheless, is there really such a thing as a greater good that would, by definition, diminish the value of all others? Would you, for example, value the man who discovered penicillin more than your mother, who raised and cared for you unconditionally? It is like asking a mother which of her children she loves most, or if you would value your sight more than your audition.

Perhaps one's worth can only be determined by those with whom one has established a bond. The greater this bond is between them, the higher the esteem with which they hold each other is. This emotional investment may be what can determine a person's true worth: your value is determined by what other people are willing to invest in you. This could be the reason why being generous and kind-hearted feel so good. It explains why committing a selfless act is its own reward. Both are simply ways to show you care.

So maybe that which you most appreciate is that which is least tangible. Of course, this measure is very subjective and not appropriate to every person. For me, it is the only one.

There are very few people in the world for which I would invest myself. For them, I do it totally and happily. This article is dedicated to them. And for the person who made this clear to me, you have my complete gratitude.

Persistence

2006-03-21T11:16:00.000-08:00

I dedicate this to a very special person. You taught me how to love.

How do you define love? Here are some of my favorite definitions:

"When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn't bend over and paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That's love." Rebecca- age 8

"Love is what makes you smile when you're tired." Terri - age 4

"Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends even after they know each other so well." Tommy - age 6

"I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes and has to go out and buy new ones." Lauren - age 4

"When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You just know that your name is safe in their mouth." Billy - age 4

All of the above are as varied as they are valid. But they can hardly be viewed as definitions. They are merely descriptions of love. The only certainty about defining love may be that there is none.

Describing an emotion, though not as difficult as defining one, can still be hard to do. Rage, for instance, can be associated to conflict or aggression. Nostalgia can be likened to longing or related to absence. I believe love can be characterized by its persistence.

But why persistence? Why especially persistence? Why not sacrifice? Or desire? These too are very pertinent concepts to our description of love. I would gladly sacrifice my time, my possesions and even myself for the person I love. But it could hardly be considered a sacrifice: the joy that comes from contributing to the well being of a loved one is a reward so great it makes any other alternative unimaginable. Desire is nothing if it cannot persist in time and through difficulty.

Anger and hatred are never meant to last. Time can slowly heal the wounds caused by sadness, no matter how intense. Joy has its peaks and valleys. But love yields to nothing. True love can withstand any barrier, whether it is distance, pain or even time itself; it does not diminish under their influence.

Though this love may be unrequited, know that I would gladly feel this pain many times over, for not all pain is bad. I would sacrifice anything for you, with only joy in my heart. My desire for you has persisted for so long, as strong today as it was the first. This is what you have taught me. I am forever grateful to you.

Rage and Forgiveness

2006-03-18T18:05:00.000-08:00

Why is it that the people you often hurt most are the ones you care most about?

When one feels a rage that cannot be controlled, one is prone to act upon that rage in ways which could only be considered as irrational, cruel or both. When enraged, it is not prudent to act blindly and purely on emotion. But sometimes an internal drive so strong as anger cannot be controlled against an abstract concept such as reason. And the people who suffer most from this rage are those with whom we share a special bond, due to their emotional investment in us.

Relationships can be very fragile, and will always confront conflict. Two things are vital to ensure (to a certain degree) its survival: a capacity to compromise, and a capacity to forgive. But forgiveness is a very tricky thing. Sometimes the damage inflicted is too great, and sometimes forgiveness may come not as a result of a desire to mend wounds, but rather as a means to quell rancour. It is better for the soul to make an old friend than a new enemy. So the bonds once formed may never be truly repaired. It was merely an exercise in finding peace for those who were hurt.

So what is left for the offender? If rage was the motivator of conflict, maybe it is regret. That regret is two-fold: regret for the hurt one has caused, and regret for the emotion one could not control. You can have forgiveness for the latter, but not for the former. If you do not act on the rage, it may consume you; but if you release it, then you will almost assuredly do or say something you will regret. Both paths lead down the same road, one because of something you didn't do, and the other for the opposite reason. Regret is a horrible emotion: it doesn't go away, and no measure can be taken to appease it.

But self forgiveness may not be an option, for it would mean one has learned to live with the wrongs one has committed. Someone once said the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Similarly, I believe the only thing necessary to become a bad person is to learn to live with your sins.

Evolution

2006-01-25T12:48:00.000-08:00

I'm a student. I'm not the best or the brightest student in the world, but I try to do my best. A university is not only a place to learn, it's an institution made for generating knowledge. In my opinion a professor's goal is not to teach random facts about a random subject; it's to instil a desire to learn in his (or her) students. The quality of a teacher should not be measured by what knowledge he is supposed to impart, but from what you as a student take with you long after the lessons have ended.

I would like to believe that before my time, this was a notion that was taken into consideration before a person could be called a professor. I say before my time, because as I look around today, sadly I find that this principle is not in practice at the institution where I go to "learn". Somehow, I try to find an explanation as to why this has happened, and maybe it could have to do with the a failure in the principle of evolution.

Now, I don't want to anyone to think I'm against evolution, or that I believe word for word the events told in the bible are absolutely true. In fact, I'm embarrassed to say I have not read the bible. I don't consider it a sacred text, but I really cannot opine on something I haven't studied.

So let us return to evolution. This is likely a gross oversimplification, but in a nutshell evolution means that if an individual is suited for its environment it will prosper above all others. But what does it take for that individual to excel? That individual has to offer something that not many others can.

Think about it; if you were in a position to impart knowledge, what could you teach your pupils that the person next to you (supposing there is one) doesn't know? It's a very simple measure of what constitutes a good teacher. So, how did we lose sight of this? What are we have left with when we stop applying this principle? We have teachers like the ones I have to put up with every single day, just like I have for the last 5 years.

What we don't have, is a system where the best person for the job is the person appointed to the position. A system where the person who has any real talent has to fight to obtain recognition, because those who have to hide their mediocrity feel threatened, and try to stifle the efforts of their "better adapted" counterparts. What we have is a system where the principle of evolution does not apply. And while there are some who may dismiss evolution and its role in our society, for me this is a source of great concern, and sadness.

Consciousness

2006-01-24T16:19:00.000-08:00

The other day my choir professor, who takes to spending more time talking about anything not related to rehearsal, asked us to think about a memmorable moment in out lives. In that moment you can remember every detail: what you were doing, what you were thinking, even the way the air smelled. Now think about this: how many moments in your life can you remember with such amount of detail? Can you tell me what you had for breakfast two weeks ago wednesday?

Of course, the amount of moments worth remembering is fewer and further between those that aren't. But the question is, why does that happen? Why can we only remember those moments?

According to Chucho (that's his nickname) it's because in those significant moments in out lives we found ourselves in an elevated state of consciousness. Only then could we not only take in everything that happens around us, but we are able to recall that same moment years after it has occurred, as if it were only yesterday. Those are the scarce moments when we rise above our daily anaesthetic and find ourselves able to really appreciate our environment. So is this a major problem in our lives? Are we spectators and not players? Are behind the wheel, or merely passengers, asking ourselves "are we there yet"? But where are we headed in the first place?

Some would say, "well, why the hell would I need to remember what I had for breakfast two weeks ago?", or maybe we just throw away what we don't need. But I would say you are going about things the wrong way. I'm not going to argue about how our minds deal with all the information they have to process on any given day. But at the end of your days, can you honestly say you have no regrets if most (if not all) the time you were asleep at the wheel? Who's fault is it but your own?

The Scene of the Crime Was the Cause of the Crime

2006-01-22T19:11:00.000-08:00

This article was taken from Alternet.org. It's an excerpt from Mark Ames' recently released book, "Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion -- From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond" (Soft Skull, 2005).

On April 20, 1999, the bloodiest of all school rage massacres took place at Columbine. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered twelve students and a teacher, wounded twenty others, and then killed themselves. Americans wanted to blame everything but Columbine High for the massacre -- they blamed a violent media, Marilyn Manson, Goth culture, the Internet, the Trench Coat Mafia, video games, lax gun control laws, and liberal values. And still skipping over the school, they peered into the opposite direction, blaming the moral and/or mental sickness, or alleged homosexuality, of these two boys, as if they were exceptional freaks in a school of otherwise happy kids.

They searched all over the world for a motive, except for one place: the scene of the crime.

In fact, a typical Columbine school day for Harris and Klebold was torture. Former student Devon Adams told the Governor's Columbine Review Commission that the boys were regularly called "faggots, weirdoes, and freaks."

As one member of the Columbine High School football team bragged after the massacre, "Columbine is a good, clean place except for those rejects. Most kids didn't want them there ... Sure we teased them. But what do you expect with kids who come to school with weird hairdos and horns on their hats? ... If you want to get rid of someone, usually you tease 'em. So the whole school would call them homos."

Harris got it worse than most, not just because he dressed weird or was one of the computer nerds, but also because he was short, he was a transplant from out-of-state (like Andy Williams) and, due to an embarrassing indent in his chest, he never took his shirt off during P.E., giving the jocks more ammo to attack him.

Former Columbine student Brooks Brown recounted one incident: "I was smoking cigarettes with [Klebold and Harris] when a bunch of football players drove by, yelled something, and threw a glass bottle that shattered near Dylan's feet. I was pissed, but Eric and Dylan didn't even flinch. 'Don't worry about it, man,' Dylan said. 'It happens all the time.'"

Once, a student reported them to the administration for allegedly having brought drugs to school, just to humiliate them for a laugh. Harris and Klebold were dramatically removed from class and searched -- as were their lockers and cars. No drugs were found, but the damage was done. Another time, according to a report, students surrounded them in the cafeteria and threw ketchup at them.

They were so marked for abuse that even talking to them was dangerous. One female student recounted how, when she was a Columbine freshman, some jocks spotted her talking to Dylan Klebold in the school hallway between classes. After she walked away from him, one of the bullies slammed her against the lockers and called her a "fag lover." None of the students came to help her -- and when asked later why she didn't report the incident to the administration, she replied, "It wouldn't do any good because they wouldn't do anything about it."

Klebold and Harris weren't the only victims of bullying. Debra Spears, whose stepsons attended Columbine in 1994-1995, said, "It was relentless. The constant threats walking through the halls. You had a whole legion of people that would tell you that just going to school was unbearable." Her stepsons both dropped out and never earned their diplomas -- Columbine essentially destroyed their lives.

One favorite bullying game for the seniors was to "go bowling," in which they'd spread baby oil on the floor and throw a freshman on it, causing him to slide into the other kids. This was the original "bowling for Columbine." Another jock was notorious for forcing kids to push pennies across the ground with their noses in front of the whole school; teachers "would see it and just look the other way."

Regina Huerter, Director of Juvenile Diversion for the Denver District Attorney's office, compiled a report on Columbine's "toxic culture," as Dylan Klebold's parents later described it. One Jewish student she interviewed told how jocks threatened to "build an oven and set him on fire," and how, during P.E. basketball, each time someone scored a basket, the bullies would cheer, "that's another Jew in the oven!" The student complained over and over, but, he said, the school administration not only didn't punish the jocks, they "did everything but call me a liar."

Another student was physically and verbally abused by a group of jocks so badly that he refused to go back to the school. The father tried contacting the administration, but they didn't return his calls for six weeks, and when they did, they were curt and rude. The father pulled his son from the high school and told Huerter that "he still refuses to enter Columbine property to this day."

"All the students with whom I spoke, independent of their status at school, acknowledged there was bullying," Huerter wrote.

Students and parents all complained of Columbine High's exceptionally brutal culture, but the administration did nothing about it. Some who worked in the school district told Huerter that they kept mum about the bullying because they were afraid for their jobs. As Brown noted, "The bullies were popular with the administration."

Bullying was so deeply ingrained that, as the American Psychology Association Monitor wrote, "Columbine students said teachers and staff did not seem to notice the bullying and aggression; apparently such behaviors were culturally normative." Here again is a perfect, modern example of how what is considered normal is not only tolerated, but is simply not seen, no matter how brutal it is. From this example, it's a little easier to sympathize with how whites accepted -- did not even notice -- slavery, in spite of its cruely.

Many parents and students said that the reason for Columbine's bully-coddling culture went straight to the top, to principal Frank DeAngelis, himself a jock.

DeAngelis, along with district officials, disagreed. "We had problems just like any other high school," he said. The real problem, he implied in a statement to the governor's commission, was the lack of optimism expressed by his whiny detractors: "I'm a very positive person. That upsets people at times because they say, 'How can people be so positive? How can things be so rosy?'"

Most Americans, even today, essentially side with DeAngelis, the positive-thinking jock-principal. They still don't blame the school for causing the massacre. Even though all of the other alleged causes (liberal moral relativism/violent media/availability of guns) have left us unsatisfied, a poll taken five years after the Columbine massacre showed that 83 percent of Americans now blame the boys' parents above everything else. Just three years before that, 81 percent of Americans blamed the Internet.

Yet both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold came from two-parent homes, and both openly confessed their love for their parents in their otherwise rage-filled video diaries. Their only regret was how their planned massacre would hurt their parents. In fact love for their parents was the only love that they are known to have professed. Eric Harris, considered by many to be the more "evil" of the two, said, "My parents are the best fucking parents I have ever known. My dad is great. I wish I was a fucking sociopath so I don't have any remorse, but I do. This is going to tear them apart. They will never forget it."

Eric Harris was not the only one who wished he was a psychopath -- so do a lot of people today who are still trying to frame the Columbine massacre as a product of something unrelated to the school environment. Slate's Dave Cullen, commenting on Harris's Web diary rants (which are often comical in the list of things he hates, such as "Cuuuuuuuuhntryyyyyyyyyy music," "Star Wars fans," "all you fitness fuckheads," and "morons" who mispronounce words like "eXpresso"), concluded, "These are not the rantings of an angry young man, picked on by jocks until he's not going to take it anymore. These are the rantings of someone with a messianic-grade superiority complex, out to punish the entire human race for its appalling inferiority." Indeed.

Other, more serious psychology experts disagreed. In the APA Journal, the two development psychology academics observed, "Research indicates that chronic targets of peer harassment become increasingly withdrawn and depressed. The other, much less common reaction to bullying is hostility and aggression. Why did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold have this more extreme reaction? It seems that bullying and victimization were not just individual phenomena, they were part of the school culture at Columbine High."

It was the school, and the larger middle-American culture that nurtured a school like Columbine, that they hated.

Susan Klebold, Dylan's mother, told New York Times columnist David Brooks five years after the murder, "I think he suffered horribly before he died. For not seeing that, I will never forgive myself."