The Weight of One Day

I want to have something to say about this day; and I guess I do. I have too much to say. And too much to feel; too much rage, and too much sadness.

Rage at the politicians and pastors who drive a wedge in our humanity, pitting people against people. Rage at extremists, of all kinds, all over the world.

Sadness for the families of the victims, who feel it ever more sharply than anyone else. Sadness for our country, embroiled in disgusting hatred and partisanship. Sadness for the world, which just can't seem to get its fucking act together. It's all just, sad. And I don't know how to fix it.

We are living in the Dark Ages. And our world is a hard, hard place.

Snap Judgements! - Joseph Stack

Should Joseph Stack, the Austin pilot who left a rambling political manifesto on his personal website before flying his plane into an IRS building on February 18, killing himself and one office worker in the building, be considered a terrorist?

David Pratt
I have a lot of trouble categorizing this one. On the one hand, it was an attack against a government agency, not a civilian target. It was also done for the purpose of making a statement about the tax system in America, however misguided. There's a disconnect in my mind that tells me that's not what we strictly define as terrorism. On the other hand, the man flew a plane into a building.

Can we define one guy snapping as terrorism due to the nature of the attack rather than the intent? That's what I can't answer quite yet.

Daniel
I've heard people cry racism here because this plane crash isn't being classified as terrorism. As I define it, terrorism is the use of violence and fear to force political change. Did Stack have a political agenda? To a certain degree, yes. If you go through his "suicide note," and I put that in quotes because it's more of a suicide thesis, he rails against the government and "the system," if you will, for repeatedly working against him and keeping him on the bottom. So, if Stack is acting on political conviction, are his actions terrorism? I don't think so. It seems to me that Stack's motivation is almost entirely personal, and while I'm sure he would have liked to change the system, his actions seem too self indulgent to me to really be true terrorism. I'd file this one under "destructive suicide."

Max Nova
isn't this a question with only one answer if you're not craaaazy?

(Replies to Max Nova)
Daniel - i think there are certainly 2 sides to this question.
Damo - I think there are about 12 sides to the answer.

Ozkirbas
Short answer: It's arguable. But, I kinda feel like saying that Joe Stack is a terrorist is the equivalent of saying that, because I happen to be pissed off and decide to burn down (or crash a private airplane into, if you'd rather) a building that happens to be owned by a government agency, I have committed an act of terrorism and treason. Just a little hard to swallow.

Long Answer:

The FBI defines "terrorism" as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Or, phrased otherwise, "the systematic use of fear to obtain a political or social objective." Often times, terrorism is employed in order to cripple a country's economy or dissuade politicians from performing their policies. For instance, when one straps a bomb to their chest and blows up a market place, the immediate effect is an economic vacuum - law enforcement is forced to scramble and people are now reluctant to go to said marketplaces to purchase food and goods or go outside in general, thereby putting a temporary kink in that area's local economic-hose. By doing so, whatever opposing political regime that may be in power has less resources, giving me an advantage to help push my ultimate goal. Truth be told - I haven't heard reports of anyone being less likely to file taxes or government employees quitting jobs because they're afraid to perform their duties as government agents because of Joe Stack.

Now, apparently Joe Stack was some member of an anti-tax movement in the good ol' US of A and his attack was politically motivated (He left a note or something). NOW, we're in "was he a terrorist?" territory. You could draw the comparison between his act and, say, an angry protestor blowing up an EPA building because he believes that power plants should be able to dump chemical waste wherever convenient. Honestly, I'm having a difficult time labeling either example as "terrorist act." I think the qualifying factor for terrorism here, maybe, isn't just political motivation tied to a violent act, but a systematic attempt to coerce the government to act (or not act) using violence - and I'm not seeing anything "systematic" about a man killing himself by driving a plane into an IRS building. I see an angry man, mad at the government, committing suicide as loud as possible. Was he negligent and reckless? Yes. Should Joe Stack be ridiculed and ostracized after his death? I think so. "Political Extremist" may be a more appropriate term. At this stage, from what I can see in front of me, "Domestic Terrorist," is a little reaching and a little hard to swallow. And, it smells a little like media sensationalism. Just sayin'.

Brett
The definition of terrorism is more of the issue here than the nature of Stack's act.

From the US code: "the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

From the Federal code:
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.

So even the government doesn't agree with itself on the issue. The first definition says he was a terrorist, the second probably does not. Maybe.

Stack's purpose appears to have been informed by 1) vengeance (in a way not much different from the primary motives of the Columbine or UVA killers), 2) suicidal desperation, and 3) the desire to make a wake-up call for other Americans. The third purpose is the closest to a definition of terrorism, although he doesn't seem to have any particular desire to actually alter the government; merely to point out that it is flawed.

Of course, the tricky thing is that terrorism, in this way, is defined entirely by what the perpetrator hoped would happen. If he intended to alter policy, would that suddenly make it terrorism? If someone killed a bunch of people and happened to alter policy, would that make it terrorism even if the murderer was just plain psychopathic, or was trying to rob a bank?

I think, perhaps, that what makes terrorism worse than mass murder, theoretically, is the idea that it is systematic, and that innocents are being punished because someone wants to exert control over government policy. A random act of vengeance, while deplorable, doesn't imply that there will be more violence if demands are not met, or imply that it is possible to circumvent the rule of law through extortive violence. The real key phrase there is "rule of law" - mass murder alone is an act against innocents; but terrorism is an act against the rule of law itself.

Therefore, I think Stack's act - because he did it alone, and implies no connection to any movement, nor asks anyone else to repeat after him until thegovernment is fixed - is just narrowly outside the definition of terrorism.

(Let me be clear, though, that Stack is still definitely insane; killing innocent people is indefensible regardless the reason. "Terrorism" vs. "not terrorism" is a matter of policy moreso than morality.)
On a somewhat tangential note - a debate on this issue on one blog featured many comments suggesting that Stack's race is what keeps this from being defined as terrorism. I don't argue that if he was Muslim, even if every word of his manifesto was the same, it may have been defined as terrorism due to racism and prejudice. That was not my concern in this snap judgment. However, one commenter on that same post pointed out this interesting pie chart (which links to a Federal report) from an article entitled "All Terrorists Are Muslims... Except the 94% That Aren't." Enjoy:
http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

B.Graham
This guy, for all intents and purposes, was clearly a wingnut, but whether or not he was a terrorist is difficult. He flew a plane on a suicide mission into a government building after blogging a manifesto of sorts and setting fire to his (thankfully empty) home, which mainly to me reads murderous wingnut. Sounds like he wanted to be a terrorist, but because he didn’t seem to be in his right mind (extremely paranoid, obsessive, etc) and he had no following to speak of, I hesitate to call what he did terrorism because as much terror as I’m sure he caused the day of his suicide, there is no residual terror that is, has been, or will be struck in the hearts and minds of the many people, institutions and ideologies he attacked. Or does ever-increasing fear and paranoia of That Guy Who's Just Gonna Snap And Kill Everyone in our society count as terror?

Aladdin Added to Do Not Fly List

There'll be no party in Agrabah this week.

These Gentlemen learned today that popular Arabic hero Aladdin has been added to the
notorious "Do Not Fly" list, preventing him from flying into or out of American airspace.

The discovery came as the famed lamp-rubber attempted to board a Southwest Airlines flight bound from New York to Paris, where he had hoped to catch a connecting flight back to his fictional homeland. Instead, he will be forced to remain in the States for weeks, if not months, while his status is cleared. When questioned about whether or not his ethnicity had anything to do with placing him on the list, officials quickly denied such allegations.

"There was no racial profiling at all in this case," insisted FAA spokesperson Richard Brown. "The man has a criminal record, plain and simple. We have him on film for everything ranging from shoplifting to wrongful imprisonment."





Riff Raff, Street Rat, Terrorist

When asked whether or not the wrongful imprisonment charge applied to his sealing Jafar, the evil wizard whom attempted to usurp the throne of Agrabah, inside a magic lamp, Brown refused to comment.

Also compiling Aladdin's woes; allegations of harboring known fugitives. His relation to the so-called "King of Thieves" has been a brick wall in attempting to discover whether or not racial profiling was at the heart of his being placed on the "Do Not Fly" list.

"According to our information," Brown said, waving a VHS copy of 1995 Disney Movie Aladdin and the King of Thieves, "this guy has major relations to known terrorists. Not just his dad, that talking parrot is really shady, too. We're just doing what we feel is right to protect the American people."

"I think it's plain to see what's going on here," said Sandy Vazheen of the ACLU. "Does Ali Baba get detained when he travels overseas? Does Sinbad? No. Because they're wealthy citizens, whose fantastic adventures across nightmare-infested lands yielded them treasure beyond human reckoning. This is an example of a poor Arabic man being profiled because he can't afford not to be." She pointed to Aladdin's noted works of selfless charity, such as giving his bread to starving orphans, and releasing a Genie which could have easily made him a prince again. "Also, Ali Baba killed like, forty guys," she added.

Crocodile-teared pundit Glenn Beck has already weighed in on the developing situation. "Look, I'm not saying Aladdin has ties to al-Qaeda. In fact, I don't think he does! But it's a matter of what he hasn't done more than what he has. We're talking about a kid who had three wishes in his hands. Did he wish for American soldiers to find Osama bin Laden? No, he did some mumbo-jumbo with princes and elephants. It's all highly suspect if you ask me, and I just want him to show us the proof he has no terrorist connections. That's all I'm asking for, the proof." Beck then refused to respond to questions over whether or not he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

Even the President has commented on the situation, which has drawn national attention. "This is an unfortunate turn of events," he conceded, "my daughters, Sasha and Malia, were heartbroken to learn that Aladdin had been subjected to a full cavity search, one in which the Federal agent involved refused, even after repeated pleas, to remove his wedding ring. But we must acknowledge that we need to keep America safe. And sometimes keeping America safe means locking our fictional heroes in an airport for an indefinite amount of time, like Victor Navorski from that Tom Hanks movie."

When questioned whether this would strain U.S. ties to Agrabah, President Obama pointed out that Aladdin's native land only exists in the hearts and imaginations of Disney fans everywhere, which only further complicates his legal status.

As for Aladdin himself, he is deeply disappointed by the turn of events. He issued the following statement from his temporary residence in the men's bathroom of John F. Kennedy Airport. "I only wanted to return home to my princess, Jasmine, and pet monkey, Abu. I could send for my flying carpet, but they don't even let me in the post office. Plus, there's a reason I took a plane over in the first place. You know what it's like traveling over the Atlantic at 15,000 feet riding a Persian rug? You freeze your nuts off, that's what it's like."

He, too, feels his ethnicity is the core issue at hand. "Would this have happened if I were from somewhere else? No, I don't think so. I never see Prince Eric being held for questioning. Hercules? Tarzan? They never even go through customs, man. No, this is all about where I'm from, not what I've done." He then added bitterly "Next time, I better use a nom de plume."

Aladdin is currently awaiting an appeal on his status from the Department of Homeland Security. They have issued a public statement denying that any delays in processing the appeal are due to Jafar having been a prime investor in Halliburton.

In the meantime, the swashbuckling hero of Arabic lore can only wait and pray to Allah, just not out loud.

Question of the Moment: Does America need terrorist whistles?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered a speech rebutting a speech made my President Obama defending his plan to close down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the releasing of memos regarding the torture/harsh interrogation/ enhanced interrogation of certain detainees.

In one of his central points, Cheney argued that these Bush Administration policies being called into question kept the United States safe.

“Just remember it is a serious step to begin unraveling some of the very policies that have kept our people safe since 9/11,” Cheney said, shortly after which he took a short break to feast upon a fresh salmon captured from a nearby stream, a bit of which he fed to his pet penguin that stood beside him at the podium.

Following a short expulsion of air to clear his diaphragm, Cheney asserted that for most of the Bush administration officials successfully averted countless terrorist attacks, known and unknown. He seemed to infer that terrorists might return if the former administration’s policies were discontinued, including torture/harsh interrogation/enhanced interrogation.

Experts are calling this tact the “Tiger Whistle Argument.” The argument posits that in order to keep away man-eating tigers, one must indefinitely blow a whistle which keeps the tigers away. Skeptics of the tiger whistle ask: “What tigers?” To which proponents of the argument respond: “Exactly.”

Joseph C. Miller, CEO of US Protectives, a producer of protective whistles and prophylactics that has contracts with the Department of Defense, claims the whistle argument is sound.

“The logic is simple: Enhanced interrogation equals no terrorism attacks. No enhanced interrogation equals question mark,” Miller said. “It’s not a chance we can take. We have to keep blowing our terrorist whistles America. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to have to consider banging sticks together, too -- metaphorically speaking.”

Faced with criticism from opponents and supporters on his decisions to release the so called “Torture Memos,” President Barack Obama was unequivocal in his speech.

“My single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe. It’s the first thing I think about when I wake up in the morning and the last thing I think about when I go to sleep at night,” said Obama.

He added, “I reserve lunch time for polite, reasoned debate where each side gets to voice their side of the argument. This is much like the format we utilized at the Harvard Law Review, and I believe we can take advantage this approach in our life-quest to achieve a safer and middler America. ”

Cheney called the reactions to torture/harsh interrogation/enhanced interrogation “over wrought.”

“Did Mr. and Mrs. Cheney compromise when they decided to cast out son number one who was born with a shiny flipper? No! It is human nature to fear the unusual!” Cheney waxed poetically. “[Likewise], there is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.”

The debate continued into the night.

“Terrorists hate us because we fail to live up to our values,” said Obama.

“No,” countered Cheney. “Terrorists hate us because of our values.

“I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about ‘values,’” he said.

“WMD’s!” screamed somebody from the audience.

“Oh fuck off!” cried Cheney.

“Now, now,” said Obama.

by guest Gentleman Matthew Lindeboom. you can reach Lindeboom by dropping to your knees, looking to the sky, and begging for the great white light to take you. If being struck by lightning isn't really your cup of tea... feel free to just leave comments to this post and he'll happily respond. Smiles.

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy

I was watching the news at work on Friday morning. They were reporting on the situation in Mumbai, and at the time were just confirming the deaths of everyone in the Chabad center, and the man from Virginia and his 13 year old daughter. A death toll of over 150 (and probably a good deal more) lost to a wave of indiscriminate bullets and grenades; people being held hostage in places and symbols of refuge like hotels, train stations, and community centers.

And then the very next story was about a woman being trampled to death here in America at a Black Friday sale.

And you mean to tell me that while people a world away are being callously and viciously murdered by terrorists filled with fear, hate, and an active disregard for human life, here at home people are still dying on that same day because we can't stand in a fucking line?