Interestingly enough, I find that you can weed out most of laudatory crap from your Google search by using the terms "Carl Drega" and "murder". There's still one pro-Drega site that refers to the "murders" of David Koresh and Randy Weaver, which is something of a trigger for me. I actually went to high school with members of the Michigan Militia in the 90's, and they all talked like the dopes who have the pro-Drega websites. There's something uniquely unpleasant about living in close proximity to people who are just waiting for a reason to take up arms against you, and sometimes I wonder if I've ever really gotten over that.

Then I see people supporting what this psychopath did, and I realize that no, I'm really not over it.

While Randy Weaver's wife and son were killed at Ruby Ridge, Randy Weaver was not. My apologies for the error.

On a related note, Orcinus has a post about right wing violence and mental illness that may be worth taking a look at.

And I'm amazed I somehow missed hearing about the killings at the time.

For example, for New York City, that's the equivalent of 1.3 million dead in a single afternoon. For Boston, 90 thousand.

But no one notices: who cares about a tiny town in the north woods?

I'm not just talking wing-nut crazies, but animal rights activists, anti-abortion groups, bomb-throwing anarchists, and so on -- this is not merely a right-wing phenomenon by far. Organizations on both sides need to self-police more.

My heart goes out to all the locals who were affected by Drega, not only at the time, but having to see what happened being distorted and used so evilly.

Why don't we call this kind of person a terrorist? That's what he was. If he'd been a Moslem the stuff in his house alone would have led to that conclusion, even if he never actually killed anyone.

While I was living in Israel, a #2 bus was bombed, and a driver I used to see all of the time was killed. I didn't really know him, but it was still a hell of a shock. I can only imagine what it must be like for you all.

Trey;
After reading Orcinius's post, I am conflicted. We say that free speech is a value which has immense, uncalculable value. Clearly the protection of life also has this value, and in a contest between the two, I think all would agree that preservation of life would trump free speech.

The issue is that by saying that the comments of right wing demagogues prompt action by the mentally unstable, we are implicitly claiming that this is a juxtaposition of free speech against the life of others. This in fact is a gross oversimplification.

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that there is a clear casual connection between extremist views and the metally ill, except to point out that the comparable case on the left is probably less tracked, becuase the extremist positions that one would take are more likley to manifest in less spectacular fashions, and of course the access to guns that the right "enjoys" is an important factor.

That's heartbreaking.

for New York City, that's the equivalent of 1.3 million dead in a single afternoon.

You're off by 2 orders of magnitude -- 1.3M is 16% of NYC, not 0.16%. Not that 13,000 people is trivial, mind you -- "only" 3000 people were killed on 9/11, but everyone in a 30-50 mile radius experienced a first- or second-order loss.

Like Nicole, I'm surprised I didn't hear about this at the time. Now, eleven years later, all I can do is give my sympathy to Jim, Debra, and everyone else who was affected by this tragedy.

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that there is a clear casual connection between extremist views and the me[n]tally ill, except to point out that the comparable case on the left is probably less tracked, bec[au]se the extremist positions that one would take are more lik[el]y to manifest in less spectacular fashions, and of course the access to guns that the right "enjoys" is an important factor.

And the tendency to talk about things rather than do them, while deplorable in a Congresscritter, is a good thing in someone who has violent fantasies of what they want to do to, say, Congresscritters.

And the idea that people out there somehow think this guy was justified in what he did just completely blows my mind. I have no words.

I'm so sorry, Jim.

Wouldn't the Unabomber be an example of left-wing sort of dangerous lunatic?

I keep thinking there are a couple different things going on here. At the same time, strong beliefs/worldviews/mass movements can:

a. Give violently crazy people some extra push toward violent crazy behavior--perhaps by justifying it, perhaps by getting them some help by non-crazy people who would otherwise have stayed the hell away from such obvious nutcases, perhaps simply by changing the target.

b. Convince apparently sane, normal people to support or take part in horrible, violent, apparently crazy behavior.

Are these part of the same phenomenon, or are they different? I'm kind of inclined to think they're part of the same sliding scale, but I'm not sure. But in particular, I have a sense that both pro-life terrorists[1] and animal-rights terrorists get aid and comfort from folks who would never blow things up or burn things down themselves, but who are willing to at least look the other way when people on their side are doing those things. (And this doesn't mean that most pro-lifers or animal rights folks would have anything to do with those guys, just that some small fraction of the sane, non-criminal types will.)

[1] I admit that I love the irony of this term.

I'm also really glad Jim *talks* about these kinds of horrors, and doesn't pretend that heroic action will magically save someone. It's a good reminder that paranoia and caution are a better way to save yourself and other people. I learned those lessons young, but a reminder never hurts.

Quoted in full - there's no permalink to offer that I can find:

Oriscus, the Unabomber was not leftwing. As I understand it, he was a sort-of libertarian who actually hated leftists, but most of all he disapproved of technology and science.

In his opening and closing sections, Kaczynski addresses leftism as a movement and analyzes the psychology of leftists, arguing that they are "True Believers in Eric Hoffer's sense" who participate in a powerful social movement to compensate for their lack of personal power. He further claims that leftism as a movement is led by a particular minority of leftists whom he calls "oversocialized":

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. [...] Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.[29]

Theodore Kaczynski

The right wing would like to make out that Kaczynski was some sort of radical environmentalist but this just isn't so. He had more in common with survivalists than with ELF members. I wasn't sure if you yourself were thinking that but you're certainly correct in pointing out that right wingers like to throw the "Unabomber was a leftist!" meme into the discussion.

Also, I think Kaczynski doesn't really fit the profile for being influenced by rhetoric. He seems to be a sort of crazed genius who came up with his own deranged philosophy.

Candy | 08.18.08 - 8:33 am

I am, of course, only quoting what I read there.

Wouldn't the Unabomber be an example of left-wing sort of dangerous lunatic?

I try to distinguish between sympathizers, who are usually quiet, and active defenders.

And thanks, because all I remembered about ol' Ted was that somebody at my old job had been injured by one of the bombs and that he had a manifesto, and I associate manifestos with the "left." Lazy thinking.

Like the bad guy in the book, the hate-filled wingnuts who want people like us dead seem to have come up with a foolproof way to accomplish their goal. It's slow, because you don't know how much hate-rhetoric it's going to take to make any given mentally-unstable person go off the rails; and it's not something you can aim at specific targets, because each lunatic has his own filter, and you don't know just how that's going to express. But it also has two HUGE advantages: (1) you, the ultimate instigator, will never be blamed for the incidents, each of which will be treated as an independent fluke; and (2) it fulfills one of the primary objectives of terrorism, which is to make people in the targeted group fear for their lives on a regular basis (the "living in a war zone" effect).

Nicole, #12: Ack. You're right; in some cases, it can be aimed at specific targets. If any lunatic takes a potshot at Obama -- whether he's killed or not -- then anyone who's been actively promulgating the "Obama is the Antichrist" meme needs to be held responsible for incitement to murder or attempted murder.

Something *changed*, starting no later than the early 70s, to make violence feel intrinsically "conservative", and peace/non-violence seem "liberal". I don't think this alignment is dictated by logic: to be conservative is to want to conserve something, to support some kind of status quo, and violence *should* be a particularly poor match for stability. There *should* be a conservative peace movement -- but we observe that there isn't one.

I have my suspicions about what's driving this dynamic, but I'm going to wait to see what other people think, first.

All you are doing is pointing out that modern "Liberalism" is conservative in nature, and modern american "Conservatism" is liberal, in that "Liberals" want to keep the status quo, an expand the welfare state in slight ways. "Conservatives" want to change things to the "ideal state" they were in in the 20's.

Given this, the juxtaposition of "conservative" and "peace" loses all force.

(Many thanks to PaulKrugman for the analysis.)

Um, no, anyone who gives aid and comfort to those who blow things up and burn things down is a criminal too. Harboring a fugitive, obstruction of justice, you know. Whether they're sane depends on which definition you use, but those who knowingly aid terrorists are terrorists.

JKRichard 22: "I'm sorry for your loss" isn't an apology. It's an expression of sympathetic sorrow, not remorse. You didn't do anything to cause, contribute to, or excuse the Colebrook massacre; why would you apologize? Do you think any of us are apologizing for it?

Lee 28: Sometimes when I think of my ideal (or just better) society, I think that when someone uses someone else as an instrument in a crime, the actual triggerman (or whatever) should be treated as a weapon, and using a human being as a weapon should be a crime in itself and an exacerbating factor to the main crime. For example, if someone substitutes a placebo for a psychotic's meds, and then arranges for a victim to be present when the psychotic has a freakout, the principal (not the psychotic) would be charged with whatever violence is done to the victim, with the additional crime of "instrumentalizing" the psychotic. And if the police have to shoot down the psychotic to save the intended victim (or themselves) the principal should be charged with murder.

In our less-than-ideal, could-be-better society, I think that morally such people as Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, and then-Cardinal-now-Pope Rat bear some of the responsibility for e.g. Matthew Shepard's death. (Ratso wrote that encyclical or whatever it was that said that while of course violence is always to be deplored, when behavior "to which no one has any conceivable right" (he's talking about the private sexual behavior of consenting adults, folks) is publicly defended, violence against the people who engage in it (like me) is "understandable." Fucking scumbag, no matter what color his zucchetto is.)

Cheers!

The adoption of "I'm sorry" to mean "I accept blame" has always been a weird one to me, but it seems very common. I frequently encounter it in the (rather rude, now that I think of it) situation of someone saying "It isn't your fault," when I tell them I'm sorry that x bad thing happened to them. Did they really think I was taking blame for their car accident/headache/pet's death?

The net effect of that reaction is to make me stop expressing sympathy, which can't possibly be the intent,* but I can't figure out an intent for the behavior that is actually productive.

I'm sorry too, that this terrible thing happened. Those who suffered and are suffering have my sympathies.

*Heck, maybe it is. Maybe they don't want someone "feeling sorry for them." I dunno.

Also, I can without even trying too hard think of half a dozen different ways in which such a precedent could be applied to the undeserving. There was a time a while back when every instance of juvenile violent crime that came down the pike was being blamed on the Satanic influence of fantasy role-playing games -- and while this was, of course, arrant nonsense, I can well believe that the deluded idiots people who thought that they had found such a connection would have jumped with both feet at a chance to haul Gary Gygax into court as one of the parties ultimately responsible.

I can't find the words to express how awful the precedent that would set would be. In general, I think the whole "x public speech caused x violent action" argument is a pretty dangerous one, whose only possible consequences are censorship and repression. If someone's not homicidally insane, no amount of Rush Limbaugh is going to make them that way, and if someone is, no amount of taking Limbaugh off the air and locking him up is going to keep them from attacking someone. Might as well blame Black Sabbath or Marilyn Manson or video games.

Making her responsible INSTEAD OF him is impractical at best, and possibly even unjust, but isn't she somewhat responsible too?

I have no idea how to solve this and many alternatives would be worse, but still - it feels wrong.

Not in any way that could be demonstrated without opening up the head of the deranged Coulter fan and sorting out the motivations inside. What you or I as private citizens might think about the pernicious effects of a person's rhetoric is one thing; but the law should stick to what can be proved without resorting to mind-reading.

(Also, frankly, as a writer I am not real keen on the possibility of being held responsible for whatever acts one of my deranged and violent fans might choose to commit. Not, so far as I know, that I've actually got any deranged and violent fans; but nothing is impossible.)

Either I don't understand you or I don't agree with you, or both.

Modern political & economic conservatism are indeed conservative, because they want to keep the distribution of money & power the way it already is: with large corporations and wealthy individuals. Keeping the rich rich is *the* bedrock value of economic conservatives; keeping power in the hands of the powerful is *the* goal of political conservatives.

The news never made it to my neck of the woods. How horrific.

Legal culpability, though, requires a stricter standard. Evidence strong enough to convince me to hold someone in opprobrium is not necessarily strong enough to convince me that they should be imprisoned or, in some states and cases, executed.

It's a good reminder that paranoia and caution are a better way to save yourself and other people.

Caution, yes. Paranoia, no.

Caution and preparedness is what can help to give you at least a chance when horrors like this occurs.

Paranoia is frequently the thing that sets horrors like this in motion.

"Liberal" doesn't mean "wants to change things;" that's what "radical" means. "Liberal" (from "liberalism") means "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties" (emphasis mine).

In many ways, the modern conservative movement is radical--they want to get rid of existing governmental infrastructure, they want increased freedom from regulation, etc. Another good word for them is "reactionary": they want to move social norms to the state they were in X years ago. But they are not liberal--they are not in favor of protecting civil liberties, they do not think people are essentially good, they have no respect for personal autonomy, and they do not believe in progress.

In recent decades, liberalism has been fighting a holding action in order to keep their gains. But that isn't the same thing as being conservative--they do not support the status quo because it's the status quo, but because the alternative is backsliding. The ultimate goal of liberalism is not to keep things the way they are, but to move forward. They are situationally conservative, not philosophically conservative.

Other people had it worse, doesn't mean you had it good.

Right. My point is that there are people who are basically dangerous wingnuts, violent, crazy, whatever. I speculate that weird or violent ideologies, Ann Coulter's rants, etc., can't create such people, but that they can probably redirect such people. On the other hand, there are also millions of non-crazy people--folks who aren't going to kill strangers or blow stuff up, because it's just not who they are. And violent, evil ideologies, rabble-rousing, etc., broadly isn't going to turn those people into violent crazies, but may convince them to justify or support or turn a blind eye to the violent crazies on their own side. That's a source of damage of these ideologies--that they convince people who aren't violent crazies to give some level of support to the violent crazies, to say "Yeah, they're bastards, but they'r our bastards."

Those people would likely not have been involved in violent craziness without the ideologues.

I say that as I remind myself (with more than a few loving thwaps from people who care) that there are things I need to recall the same thing about for myself.

Thank you for, indirectly, delivering one such thwap.

Something that also worries me is the meme that voting for Obama puts him in danger of assassination and therefore we should vote for McCain.