That sound you just heard was the pop in my head. I was determined to read for myself what drove this guy.
"Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble [principles] represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was 'no taxation without representation' . . . These days anyone who really stands up for that [principle] is promptly labeled a 'crackpot,' traitor and worse."
What's so crazy about this I wondered? Shit, millions of people feel that way across North America.
"While very few working people would say they haven't had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say."
And he's wrong because....? Ok, it generalizes but again, how many out there feel disenfranchised?
"Here we have a [tax] system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly 'holds accountable' its victims, claiming that they're responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law 'requires' a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that's not 'duress' [then] what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is."
And a tax cheat runs the IRS. Sure. Real normal. Again, what makes this "rambling?"
"I decided that I didn't trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself."
It's unfortunate his interpretation of responsibility was to guide a plane into a building thus revealing his state of mind in handling his anger.
A writer with the Washington Post, Jonathan Capehart (this guy is classic), tried to connect, without much merit, Stack to the Tea Party (as if it's a monolithic entity). Yet Stack was no fan of the right including organized religion:
"The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government."
Capehart is just the latest member of a group that comes up with lines like:
"Obama would create competitive insurance markets, closely regulated by federal and state officials." MSNBC.
Stack may have been emotionally disturbed but how far off from the average person was his message?
And then there was the mentioning of a little talked about subject about how his divorce wiped him out financially. Men do face unfair divorce and custody settlements.
It's enough to drive many men mad.
The Left saw the Unabomber's (Dr. Theodore John Kaczynski) manifesto as full of insights and truths also. And, of course, the Unabomber like Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance".
ReplyDeleteOne must be careful to separate reality from fantasy, Stack couldn't. Neither could Kaczynski.
Neither can radical Islam.
Addendum:
ReplyDeleteI just came across this:
Pentagon Shooter
I walked a fine line with this post. I didn't know that about the Unabomber. Now that you mention it, a lot of people will take away insights from anybody so long as it confirms a position or perception.
ReplyDeleteIt still doesn't there aren't elements of truth in it.
All these guys, they acted on - the fantasy bit - what many people must feel. They crossed the line.
I'm no psychologist or sociologist, but I was unsure if it was a "rambling." As in incoherent.
"It sill doesn't mean..." I missed a word. How, I don't know.
ReplyDeleteMy couple of points.
ReplyDelete1) Mr. Stack's response was totally beyond appropriate even for the most injured and angry person. This man was not left with other options and he was clearly bent of a very un-problem solving answer to his situation, nihilism and murder.
2) Having worked in the bowels of Washington politics for decades, I have seen countless of press releases, sound-bites, letters to the editors, emails and blog posts attempting to use disasters and tragedies like these to smear political opponents. Politics is often like religion, and just as one sees with religion, slander and smearing dissenting views is all too acceptable.
There are some lessons here.
1) Just because an argument contains elements of truth doesn't mean it should be given credence, especially when that argument is used to justify something like this. It is beyond the pale of discourse. I don't buy this "civil discourse" nonsense. There is a time to get very angry and be angry and a time to simply walk away too, but a manifesto of any sort arguing for attempted mass-murder and suicide is the work of a coward and a loser, and no more.
2) The almost predictable response of American Leftists to this man's crime and his lame attempts to justify what he did should be dismissed by anyone capable of critical thinking. Advocacy groups, like religions, have little regard for coherent perspectives. They are focused on agendas and issues and everything is wrapped (or warped) around that agenda. Commentary from that perspective typically reflects a mis-shapen view of reality.
3) When press people take it upon themselves to promote or argue from such dubious vantage points anywhere along the social and political spectrum those journalists are perpetuating a fraud on many levels.
Leftists are defending him?
ReplyDeleteWhat did you do in Washington?
This post is providing exactly, for once, insights and info. I wanted!
"The recent suicide attack made by a man who crashed his plane into a Texas building housing IRS offices raises questions that neither the mainstream media nor other establishment voices will dare to examine. Such a frontal assault on the state – like suicide bombers in the Middle East – must not be seen as an indictment of political systems. The media will go into its obligatory "damage control" mode and marginalize the man – Joe Stack – as a "kook," a "terrorist," or an "extremist," another threat whose example can be turned to the benefit of the state. His lengthy, but inelegant, written statement explaining his anger at the government was quickly labeled a "diatribe," a "rant," and a "rambling screed," to discourage others from reading his words and having their thinking infected thereby. Far safer to have this man thought of as "insane," for what rational person would want to give his writing serious attention?"
ReplyDeletefrom Butler Shaffer A Suicide Attack on the IRS.