Provacateur, Lunatic or Revolutionary?

April 4, 2005 1:45 PM

Provacateur, Lunatic or Revolutionary? (great WashPost story) "Hello Everyone, my name's Andy. I killed a Police Officer in Red Bluff, California in a motion to bring attention to, and halt, the police-state tactics that have come to be used throughout our country. Now I'm coming forward, to explain that this killing was also an action against corporate irresponsibility." Andrew Mickel, AKA Andrew McCrae - a student at Evergreen State College and former Army Ranger is charged with killing a police officer in Red Bluff, California. He freeley admits that he did it. His defense? He is starting the revolution! Mickel believes, as does the prosecution, that he isn't insane. He is also the "CEO" of Proud and Insolent Youth Incorporated
posted by punkbitch (169 comments total)

Now, generally, I'm completely in favor of sticking it to The Man, but is this taking it too far?
posted by John of Michigan at 1:52 PM on April 4, 2005

i would say there are better ways of starting a revolution than by killing a police officer.
posted by knapah at 1:53 PM on April 4, 2005

wasn't this posted when it happened?
posted by delmoi at 1:57 PM on April 4, 2005

I wonder what Andy's MeFi user number is?
posted by LarryC at 2:00 PM on April 4, 2005

Now, generally, I'm completely in favor of sticking it to The Man, but is this taking it too far?

do you really have to ask?

i would say there are better ways of starting a revolution than by killing a police officer.

ah, no, I'd say the thing is, there are better ways to respond to corporate irresponsibility than "starting a revolution."
posted by mdn at 2:01 PM on April 4, 2005

Well, if he's a revolutionary, he sucks at it. And I don't think he's a lunatic, just an extreme byproduct of our adversarial, ideological culture.

Now, generally, I'm completely in favor of sticking it to The Man, but is this taking it too far?

I really, really hope that question was either rhetorical or sarcastic.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:01 PM on April 4, 2005

Yeah, pardonyou?, I'm really, really sure you do.
posted by John of Michigan at 2:05 PM on April 4, 2005

You don't have to be a lunatic to be radical weirdo. I don't suspect most of the folks in white supremacist groups are insane. At least, not in the clinical sense. They are insane, just not crazy, to abuse the language.

People have become extremely adept over the ages at convincing themselves that it is hunky-dory to kill some other person.
posted by teece at 2:06 PM on April 4, 2005

Now THAT's sarcasm, beyotch.
posted by John of Michigan at 2:06 PM on April 4, 2005

Evergreen is seemingly the place for this sort of person (recall Corrie and the Palestinians?)
posted by Postroad at 2:07 PM on April 4, 2005

This is too weird--he may have used leftwing websites, but is totally libertarian/rightwing a la McVeigh, i think.

and this shit shouldn't have seen the light of day in a news article in a respectable paper: Only in Mickel's case, it is a jihad from the far left. Reads like pure bullshit to me--and was the Unabomber considered leftwing? And the article admits it's much more closely related to McVeigh too. Something's weird here.

This fits all too well in the post i recently did about "leftwing terror groups" being listed in DHS forecasts but not rightwing ones.
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM on April 4, 2005

ah, no, I'd say the thing is, there are better ways to respond to corporate irresponsibility than "starting a revolution."

actually, i'd say both.
posted by knapah at 2:10 PM on April 4, 2005

And on any given day, you'd find far more violence and threats from rightwing sites than left.

I guess some journalists are now being paid by the Homeland Security folks?

And you can revolt in all sorts of ways, most non-violent.
posted by amberglow at 2:12 PM on April 4, 2005

Someone else worried that the independent media sites, which are open forums and generally take a left-leaning stand against the Iraq war, the Bush administration and excesses of global corporate capitalism, was serving as a kind of "incubator . . . a magnet for deranged losers."


Indymedia...deranged losers...

Sounds about right. (kidding!)


The Manson Family hoped their murders would 'start a revolution', too. Maybe Mickel & Squeaky can be pen-pals.

So if Mickel sought revolt against corporations, why didn't he bomb the MCI headquarters? Why kill one random smalltown cop?

This fits all too well in the post i recently did about "leftwing terror groups" being listed in DHS forecasts but not rightwing ones.

How so? What group is Mickel associated with?
posted by dhoyt at 2:13 PM on April 4, 2005

I hope others follow his lead, he's doing the right thing. Not because I think it's right to kill cops, but because I think it's wrong for corporations to kill.
posted by glider at 2:15 PM on April 4, 2005

Sure amberglow, just keep repeating to yourself: There are no leftwing nutjobs. There are no leftwing nutjobs. There are no leftwing nutjobs. Sorry, the root of the violence comes from the intensity of the ideology, not in the particular flavor thereof. Doesn't matter if it's left or right.

Yeah, pardonyou?, I'm really, really sure you do.

Now THAT's sarcasm, beyotch.

So I should conclude that your first statement wasn't sarcasm? Sorry, what with all the hip "beyotch" references and so forth, I seem to be having a hard time divining your point.

on preview: I hope others follow his lead, he's doing the right thing. Not because I think it's right to kill cops, but because I think it's wrong for corporations to kill.

This thread is scaring me.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:19 PM on April 4, 2005

This is too weird--he may have used leftwing websites, but is totally libertarian/rightwing a la McVeigh, i think.

I don't know the causes espoused in his manifesto are pretty leftwing in my eye: corporations need more oversight, workers need health care, America is trying to colonize the world by dominating it with military bases, the Afghan war was all about the oil pipeline, third world economies are being kept down by the US through the WTO, etc. How are these right wing/libertarian causes? Hell, apart from the cop killing, he sounds like Michael Franti.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:21 PM on April 4, 2005

Some reading material for Andy.
posted by muckster at 2:26 PM on April 4, 2005

I hope others follow his lead, he's doing the right thing . . .

Whoa now, big fellah!

This was murder, after all.

Even saying "after all," is a little too light.

This was murder.

to quote dhoyt, unless this guy is insane. . .to start a revolution against corporations - shouldn't he have gone for corporate types?

Do you think we are living in a police state right now? (Please nobody link to US PATRIOT ACT -- abhorrent , I know already)
posted by punkbitch at 2:27 PM on April 4, 2005

punkbitch - If it's murder, tell that to all the miners that have been murdered by the coal companies willful violation of health and safety standards. Why is it OK for a big company to murder, but not a small company?

As I said, I hope that people follow his lead, and keep killing cops until the people behind corporate crime are finally forced to answer for their actions.
posted by glider at 2:29 PM on April 4, 2005

Not because I think it's right to kill cops, but because I think it's wrong for corporations to kill.

And the answer to preventing death-by-corporation (whatever that means) is killing innocent cops? Tell it to his widow & two kids.

he may have used leftwing websites, but is totally libertarian/rightwing a la McVeigh, i think.
Reads like pure bullshit to me-
And on any given day, you'd find far more violence and threats from rightwing sites than left.

Your first response is to duck condemnation of Mickel & claim he's a 'rightwinger'? Wow. Pardonyou's right: this thread is revealing, and scary.

And what PST said.
posted by dhoyt at 2:30 PM on April 4, 2005

His parents believe that their son's depression must have taken a turn for the worse -- into paranoia or delusion or schizophrenia.

This line from the article pisses me off. Millions of people get depression, it's like the mental equivalent of the flu or something. Most don't kill anybody. More importantly this line, and the entire article's casual linkage between depression and schizophrenia really, really pisses me off.

Depression is normal. Lot's of people are going to get it. It is one of the most treatable diseases around. Further, it does not "take a turn for the worse" and become schizophrenia. That is an entirely unrelated (and much more serious) disease. Indeed, if the guy is schizophrenic, it is quite likely that was causal in his depression, not the other way around.

This media and public fascination with linking depression with being mentally unhinged and criminality is bull-shit and pisses me off.

He is also raising a serious problem in our legal system, although not the one he thinks. It is unconscionable that the judge let this man defend himself without a mental competency hearing. Allowing a potentially crazy person to represent themselves when death is on the line is not the action of a just and civilized judiciary.
posted by teece at 2:30 PM on April 4, 2005

Your first response is to duck condemnation of Mickel & claim he's a 'rightwinger'? Wow. Pardonyou's right: this thread is revealing, and scary.

This statement is, to put it bluntly, fucking bullshit.

Glider is showing him/her/itself to be a fool. Don't play the "ohhh, this thread is scary, 'cause all you lefties agree with it" game.
posted by teece at 2:32 PM on April 4, 2005

Chump should have spent his energies on finding a way to kill some corporations, which are not people.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:33 PM on April 4, 2005

I guess they've been lying to me all these years. Looks like the Revolution will be televised after all.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 2:34 PM on April 4, 2005

Evergreen is seemingly the place for this sort of person (recall Corrie and the Palestinians?)

I recall a girl getting run over by a bulldozer. I fail to see the comparison.
posted by iamck at 2:37 PM on April 4, 2005

glider,

what the hell are you talking about?

tell that to all the miners that have been murdered by the coal companies willful violation of health and safety standards

So you hope that the police are the group that is arbitrarily chosen as "people to kill" until the corporations shape up or the government steps in?

What about nurses or bakers?
posted by punkbitch at 2:38 PM on April 4, 2005

Convert them. Convert the soldiers, the cops.
They are all intelligent, capable people.

Well, except for the one I killed, of course.
posted by 327.ca at 2:39 PM on April 4, 2005

What a stupid sonofabitch, and that's coming from a revolutionary leftie veggie homo. Killing a cop isn't starting the revolution, it's killing a cop, murdering a human being, no matter how loathesome their profession (and I'll argue that many cops are decent people who belive in keeping their communities safe). And it's not like he was likely set up like Mumia or Leonard Peltier. Hero, prisoner of conscience... he's not, but what a sad, naive kid.

And what sonofsamiam said.
posted by moonbird at 2:40 PM on April 4, 2005

Well, except for the one I killed, of course.

I am (ahem) putting words in his mouth. So far, I haven't killed anyone.
posted by 327.ca at 2:41 PM on April 4, 2005

"I hope others follow his lead, he's doing the right thing. Not because I think it's right to kill cops, but because I think it's wrong for corporations to kill."

wow... this is just bad. The person he killed was a husband and the father of a toddler...

and...the term "revolution"...give me a break, this asshole is just crazy, as is anyone who murders a human being in cold blood.

The fucking Washington Post should have done an article on how the wife and child of the murdered officer is doing... perhaps they could interview "glider" for some comments...

shit....
posted by HuronBob at 2:41 PM on April 4, 2005

sonofsamian:

Dude, corporations (and soylent green) are people! ("moral persons").
posted by punkbitch at 2:42 PM on April 4, 2005

"Moral Persons" -sorry
posted by punkbitch at 2:44 PM on April 4, 2005

What about nurses or bakers?

I agree. Or, as Shakespeare says, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (Henry VI)
posted by 327.ca at 2:44 PM on April 4, 2005

glider: If it's murder, tell that to all the miners that have been murdered by the coal companies willful violation of health and safety standards. Why is it OK for a big company to murder, but not a small company?

It's not ok for either of them, should be the answer.

I think that Andrew Mickel is a confused and sad man. The only thing that I think can partially justify his action is if this policman had directly threatened him and he acted in a warped version of self defense.

I understand the evil of corporations--but do you really think that there are red-eyed demons in corporate offices that actually say "kill those sons-a-bitches"? Don't respond with the experiences of the UAW organizers who GM tried to starve out from a strike or the UAW organizers that were met with clubs and truncheons on the Rouge bridge. Not because these didn't happen, but because we, as a society, have learned (or should have) from these instances.

Are there still "bosses" who value product and expediency over human life? Sure--and I do think that there is plenty of head-in-sand burying by Coca Coal executives about atrocities carried out in their names.

But--if Mikel is pissed off at Coke or USX or BP, he should direct his responses there, not kill off a police officer with no apparent connection.

Yeah, the social activism of my day didn't change things, although we put fresh fish into Bank of America safety deposit boxes to rot, and some brave souls dumped effluent waste from Burns Harbor on a Steel Co executives carpet.

I don't claim to have the answers, but in my mind, killing isn't one of the possible solutions.
posted by beelzbubba at 2:45 PM on April 4, 2005

uhhhh-- Coca Cola
posted by beelzbubba at 2:46 PM on April 4, 2005

hey, i mean, i'm as much for the revolution as the next guy . . .but come on!
posted by punkbitch at 2:46 PM on April 4, 2005

I doubt this fellow is schizophrenic, as his writing is fairly lucid and logical though his conclusions are obviously extreme. Whether or not he is a sociopath is another question entirely. Regardless, it's obvious he's a murderer and should be treated as such. It is rather shocking that we've gotten to the point this is actually happening, though.

teece: excellent point re: competency.

Police are actually a very strange group to have chosen, as they're not corporate at all, but rather government. "Corporate rule" and "police state" seem rather contrary, but I'm guessing the fellow is implying that the government (which is a police state) is owned (by corporations, which rule). Still the police are much less likely to be aware of the situation than say, members of the legislature, or corporate executives; if I was a nutcase, I'd be going after them.
posted by mek at 2:48 PM on April 4, 2005

This statement is, to put it bluntly, fucking bullshit.

Nope. It's accurate.

Just as some at Indymedia did, Amber completely changed the subject, suggested conspiracy ("I guess some journalists are now being paid by the Homeland Security folks?"), avoided condemnation, and said in plain print, "This is too weird--he may have used leftwing websites, but is totally libertarian/rightwing a la McVeigh, i think." Mickel could write a detailed manifesto of his revolutionary ideals, handsign it, and tattoo it on the inside of some folks eyelids and they'd still deny the possible existence of a heinous murderer who happened to lean Left.

Here's hoping the guy serves Life, gets serious counseling while incarcerated, and the families involved are somehow able to pick up the pieces. Tragic all around.
posted by dhoyt at 2:50 PM on April 4, 2005

actually, i'd say both.

well, I guess it all depends what is meant by 'starting a revolution', but it is commonly meant to signify Fucking Shit Up to show how pissed off we are, and that is generally not a constructive response to a problem. Revolutions in history have a pretty poor track record, all things considered; the ones that seemed to go well are the ones that took place in another country from the the guys being revolted against (ie, america rising up against those guys on some island 6000 miles away). Things did not work out nearly so well for the French, e.g.

I do see your point, though, that killing police officers when your ostensive point is that CEOs deserve to die, is pretty dumb outside of the fact that killing CEOs would be wrong (at least that would be logically consistent).

hey, i mean, i'm as much for the revolution as the next guy . . .but come on!

Just to be clear, what does it mean to be "for the revolution"? What sort of revolutionary action would you condone?
posted by mdn at 2:52 PM on April 4, 2005

mek: Police are actually a very strange group to have chosen [...]

I think so too. Police have a certain kind of power in immediate situations, but not many believe (in the US) that the police are manipulating our lives behind the scenes. In fact, the murder of this cop could only generate sympathy for the victim, and if Mickel can't see that, then perhaps he really is a sociopath.
posted by 327.ca at 2:53 PM on April 4, 2005

glider: As I said, I hope that people follow his lead, and keep killing cops until the people behind corporate crime are finally forced to answer for their actions.

I'm not seeing the connection here. Wouldn't it have been a lot more effective to start assassinating CEO and directors?
posted by Mitheral at 2:56 PM on April 4, 2005

Isn't Andy's killing of a cop to ask attention for corporate responsibility a perfect example of my favorite: For every complex problem there is a simple solution...that is wrong.
posted by foreverycomplexproblemthereisasolutionthatiswrong at 2:59 PM on April 4, 2005

Mickel could write a detailed manifesto of his revolutionary ideals, handsign it, and tattoo it on the inside of some folks eyelids and they'd still deny the possible existence of a heinous murderer who happened to lean Left.

Well dhoyt, I guess that depends on your definition of "Left." If you define leftists as pacifists, then, no, he's not a leftist.

But let this at least demonstrate the failing in trying to seperate idealogies into a single spectrum.
posted by iamck at 2:59 PM on April 4, 2005

Here's hoping the guy serves Life, gets serious counseling while incarcerated, and the families involved are somehow able to pick up the pieces. Tragic all around.

No kidding, idiot. And that has to do with "leftwing jihad" how? Get real. Your willingness to buy the reporter pegging this to leftwing sites is just as telling. If it was a freeper or LGFer, you'd be protesting the spin put on this too.
posted by amberglow at 3:03 PM on April 4, 2005

Provacateur, Lunatic or Revolutionary?

douchebag.
posted by quonsar at 3:13 PM on April 4, 2005

Anybody else annoyed that the article has no information about the actual killing?
posted by destro at 3:14 PM on April 4, 2005

This thread is a litmus test.
posted by trharlan at 3:17 PM on April 4, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

And that has to do with "leftwing jihad" how?


The turn of phrase seems neither egregious or difficult to grasp.

"leftwing jihad" = writer's perception of Mickel's radical call-to-arms; a misbegotten holy war against corporate overlords

But the concepts Mickel espouses are generally regarded as far-left, no? I don't get the impulse to try & turn them around. It's weirdly defensive. And as non-reader of either, I couldn't give a damn about spin put on LGF or FreeRepublic. Frankly, it'd be just as irrelevant.

And the article admits it's much more closely related to McVeigh too. Something's weird here.

I'm still interested in the conspiracy du jour about how this guy is a 'rightwinger/libertarian'.
posted by dhoyt at 3:17 PM on April 4, 2005

This is mental illness, pure and simple. Move along folks.
posted by selfmedicating at 3:17 PM on April 4, 2005

Scratch that...I jumped ahead. Reading comprehension skills failing.
posted by destro at 3:17 PM on April 4, 2005

Murdering a cop by shooting him in the back and then in the head is the worst way to start a revolution. Murder is never the right answer but if he'd gone and hunted a CEO of one of these corrupt corporations and executed him, I'd be more understanding. He'd still be wrong but at least he'd have struck at what he considers his enemies.

As it is, he's a cop killer and a coward at that.

I don't hold out much hope for his revolution. And he should probably not watch Fight Club so much, its just a movie.
posted by fenriq at 3:20 PM on April 4, 2005

This thread is a litmus test.
For what, trharlan?
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:23 PM on April 4, 2005

Nope. It's accurate.

I quoted too much or you missed my point, dhoyt. It is true that the article is to quick to label this whacko a lefty, just as they were to quick to label McVeigh a righty. Both seem to occupy a part of the political spectrum all their own, and their tilt left or right seems rather academic than germane.

But my point: you're playing same kind of stupid blame-shifting game you accuse amberglow of. You don't like the comments of TWO posters on this thread.

And yet, the whole thread is scary. That's fucking bullshit.
posted by teece at 3:24 PM on April 4, 2005

mdn - per: Just to be clear, what does it mean to be "for the revolution"? What sort of revolutionary action would you condone?

my post in response to beelzbubba above mine.

i condone utopia. this agression will not stand
posted by punkbitch at 3:26 PM on April 4, 2005

This thread is a litmus test.

I think he means it will draw out all the sophists that can say "SEE! SEE! I TOLD you your whole ideology was bankrupt. And you're all murders to boot!"

At least, that seems to be the litmus test I'm seeing, sonofsamiam.
posted by teece at 3:30 PM on April 4, 2005

Depression is normal. Lot's of people are going to get it. It is one of the most treatable diseases around. Further, it does not "take a turn for the worse" and become schizophrenia.

Severe clinical depression can lead to hallucinations and delusions, however, and these are sometimes accompanied by paranoid ideation. It is not uncommon for bipolar disorder to be accompanied by these symptoms; in fact, the differential diagnosis between bipolar disorder and schizophrenia is sometimes difficult. Also, while treatments for depression have made great progress--they've saved countless lives, and improved the quality of countless others--there are still cases that the current pharmacological treatments can't handle. You would be heartless to tell the people suffering from this crippling disorder that their condition is "normal".

As others have pointed out, though, this guy seems too lucid to be delusional. He's maybe just a moron.


This thread is a litmus test.
For what, trharlan?

I think he means that if your solution is acidic, and you dip this thread in it, the thread will turn red. For basic solutions, the thread stays blue. I'm not dipping my monitor in anything to find out if he's right, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:40 PM on April 4, 2005

I'm disappointed a cop didn't kill him; it'd make for a great headline:

Cop Killer Kills Cop;
Killer Cop Kills Cop Killer

posted by kirkaracha at 3:41 PM on April 4, 2005

I think the system is corrupt, and that the police are tools, and that the corporations are a self-perpetuating aristocracy, with all the powers and freedom from consequences that phrase implies. The day there actually is a revolt against the ruling class, I hope I'm right there when they storm the Bastille. On the other hand, Andy Mickel shot an innocent man with a kid at home, so he's my enemy as much as anybody else is, and fuck him. This has absolutely nothing to do with ideology, and shame on whoever says it does.
posted by Hildago at 3:51 PM on April 4, 2005

iamck writes "
"Well dhoyt, I guess that depends on your definition of 'Left.' If you define leftists as pacifists, then, no, he's not a leftist."

I don't know of anyone who defines leftist this way, although I think that it's a common misconception on the left today that to be a good leftist one must be a good pacifist. While that might be true in terms of some strategic elements of responsible dissent, for example in protests within one's country, I think the left does itself a disservice when it embraces pacifism as some kind of overarching ideal. And, it should be noted that there are plenty of version of (non-interventionist) pacifism on the right that are just as abhorent.

This guy is just like McVeigh, and, I think , that like McVeigh, the general rhetorical climate and the people helping to set it, within the Left, are responsible. I was pissed when the Newters and Limbaugh's deflected their responsiblity for setting the anti-govt tone that McVeigh embraced and then took to its logical conclusion, and I'll be pissed with people on the Left who do the same with this guy.

LarryC writes " I wonder what Andy's MeFi user number is?"

heh heh

On preview-if this guy was so depressed as to have essentially psychotic symptoms, one would not expect him to have the wherewithal to plan and carry out this attack, or the incorporation etc etc. He might have been very manic, which is much more likely, but no one is talking about mania here.
posted by OmieWise at 3:51 PM on April 4, 2005

mr_roboto: I am aware of the symptoms of severe clinical depression. However, the delusions and paranoia that accompany it are unlikely to lead to this kind of behavior: they are crippling in the extreme, and just getting out of bed is a challenge. Planning a murder is quite often going to be too much for these people.

Next, clinical depression != bipolar disorder, and indeed the two seem to have different root causes.

Lastly, you misunderstood what I meant by normal. Firstly, I was not talking about manic depressives, I was talking about "simple" depression. Secondly, it is "normal" in the sense that is common, treatable, and in little to no way an indicator of violent behavior unless it is directed at the self. It is "normal" just like prostate cancer is, say.

But it IS completely separate form schizophrenia. Lot's of people from all walks of life get depressed. It is treatable and temporary. Doctors, lawyers, bums, movie stars, the lot all get depression and can learn to deal with it. Manic depression is a different beast, and harder to live with. Treatable, but permanent. Schizophrenia is something vastly different and quite often very debilitating. It is also permanent, and only somewhat treatable.

People often conflate regular depression and schizophrenia, though, and I hate that. They are worlds apart. It is still stigmatizing to tell a boss that you had time off for depression; it should not be. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and it is not the kind sickness that schizophrenia is. Nor should people think it is.

Depression was almost certainly not the cause of what this guy did, and it's irresponsible for the article to pretend their might be some link.
posted by teece at 3:54 PM on April 4, 2005

Mickel held up a ball that was black on one side, white on the other and told jurors they were getting only one side of the story.

Somewhere in the heavens Johnny Cochran is smiling.
posted by pinkkitty at 3:54 PM on April 4, 2005

I suppose it is possible - ideal - to wage an armed revolution (granting the murderer's premise, & I pretty much agree with Hildago, if you're looking for condemnations) without killing any cops, but it is hard to imagine unless you've already won to begin with. mdn's point about revolutions only doing much good when the goal is to unseat an external imperial power is interesting, and I am having trouble thinking of counterexamples. Now I am depressed.
posted by furiousthought at 3:57 PM on April 4, 2005

This guy is just like McVeigh, and, I think , that like McVeigh, the general rhetorical climate and the people helping to set it, within the Left, are responsible. I was pissed when the Newters and Limbaugh's deflected their responsiblity for setting the anti-govt tone that McVeigh embraced and then took to its logical conclusion, and I'll be pissed with people on the Left who do the same with this guy.

I think you're mixing apples and salad dressing. I'd like to see the rhetoric that's comparable.
posted by amberglow at 3:57 PM on April 4, 2005

Other ideas for Proud and Insolent Youth: raping grandmothers, torturing kittens and school children, torching redwoods...

I don't think it's commitment to ideals that makes people like this. I see a striking parallel to McVeigh in his desire to justify a violent and pointless by attributing it to a higher cause.

This is going to be one creepy case for the judge and jury. I bet Gore Vidal will be all over this like blue Gap dress.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:57 PM on April 4, 2005

Tried to start a revolution and all he got was this thread... and hopefully a long sentence with his revolutionary bretheren - who will proceed to buttfuck him to death. Fitting end.
posted by j.p. Hung at 3:58 PM on April 4, 2005

A comment deep within the comments section below the original indymedia.org article contained a phrase that has stuck with me through my reading of this discussion.

"His friends fear he became trapped in an echo chamber..."

That's what happened, right? He was a bright, unconventional thinker and he surrounded himself with nothing but voices telling him to start a revolution. He had just enough disrespect for authority to negate guidance from those older and wiser.

And he's a little bit crazy. What the hell does killing a police officer have to do with protesting corporations? He's trying to make the point that if big corporations can do it, so can small ones, but he's making it in a narcissistic, insane fashion.

Not to bring up a sore point in an already contentious thread, but New York and LA surround themselves in the same way with this aura of self-importance and people who live there tend to forget that there's a whole country out there in the same way he forgot about basic human morality. In fact, the "echo chamber" is the chief problem of revolutionary thought today. It makes so much sense that you can't understand people who don't feel that way, and therefore can't connect with them, and remain forever marginalized.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 4:07 PM on April 4, 2005

killing a cop was the wrong idea, there are easier and far less violent ways to make the lives of the actual corporate criminals living hells.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:09 PM on April 4, 2005

Great, another way to weed out whackjobs from sensible radicals. I'm still seeing scrawled odes to Kaczynski in the back of 'zines.

Mickel isn't much of a revolutionary, he's just another nutjob who clearly knows nothing about the history of revolution. Propaganda by the Deed, anyone? It didn't work in the late 1800s/early 1900s, and it won't work now, either. At least the high-profile anarchist assassins back then generally picked worthwhile targets...
posted by bpt at 4:12 PM on April 4, 2005

I go to Evergreen, and this is only going to attract more creepy people named Moonbeam who live in the woods. These guys constitute about 1/4 of the student population, but they are the most outspoken, and the smelliest. They are the hippies too "earth-bound" to drink from a Nalgene, they only drink from glass canning jars wrapped in wool socks.

The rest of us are pretty cool, and include a suprising number of "non-traditional students" (i.e. old people). Where else can you go to a public college and take a class called "Sex is Fun, but Gender is a Drag"?
posted by blasdelf at 4:13 PM on April 4, 2005

I suspect you are exactly right, Mr. Gunn. The only thing I would add is that echo-chambers are probably the norm, rather than the rule, for a lot of human cultural group forming.

It seems critical analysis and allowing for the views of all sides is rather new and in the minority when it comes to humans deciding which humans are OK to kill.
posted by teece at 4:14 PM on April 4, 2005

bpt has a good point. Yes, the guy who shot McKinley subscribed to the idea that he was going to set off a revolution against hypocrisy. It didn't work.
posted by inksyndicate at 4:14 PM on April 4, 2005

In fact, the "echo chamber" is the chief problem of revolutionary thought today. It makes so much sense that you can't understand people who don't feel that way, and therefore can't connect with them, and remain forever marginalized.
I know what you mean--those revolutionaries running Congress and the White House sure couldn't understand that people felt differently than them about intrusion into private matters in the Schiavo ordeal, and privatizing Social Security....Yet forever marginalized? hmmm.
posted by amberglow at 4:16 PM on April 4, 2005

He should have arranged an air force of people-powered aircraft bombarding corporations with mountains of flowers until the CEO's came stumbling out of the buildings, gasping for smog to breathe to overcome the foul stench of fresh air.
Failing that, he should have at least moved to a country with more responsible government and corporations.
The way he handled this was wrong on so many levels it needs no discussion.
posted by mk1gti at 4:20 PM on April 4, 2005

Not to bring up a sore point in an already contentious thread, but New York and LA surround themselves in the same way with this aura of self-importance and people who live there tend to forget that there's a whole country out there in the same way he forgot about basic human morality

Yeah, I'm sure his 3 years in the broad-thinking cosmopolitan US Army had nothing to do with his army-of-one behavior.

It was the Lefty rhetoric at The Evergreen State University! Right.
posted by fleacircus at 4:21 PM on April 4, 2005

Allowing a potentially crazy person to represent themselves when death is on the line is not the action of a just and civilized judiciary.

I'm sorry, but you just ruined this entire thread for me. Everything beyond that is being spoken in my head by Wallace Shawn:

posted by odinsdream at 4:22 PM on April 4, 2005

they only drink from glass canning jars wrapped in wool socks

Damnit, now I'm gonna have to find another way to differentiate myself from the stinky loud mouthed radical cop-killing faux-revolutionary wankers at Evergreen. Screw it, I'm gonna drink my water from an empty gas can.

odinsdream, you had to do it to everyone else, didn't you? "Never bet against a Sicilian when death is on the line. Ah hahahahaha. Thud." Thanks a lot.
posted by fenriq at 4:23 PM on April 4, 2005

But he's not Sicilian, so it's cool, right odinsdream? :-)
posted by teece at 4:24 PM on April 4, 2005

amberglow-Have you been to an anti-war/WTO/corporations/Israel rally lately? The rhetoric I'm talking about is everything from not confronting Black Blocks at those rallys, to tacitly condoning Palestinian terrorism because of a sincere belief that the Israeli occupation is unjust and unlawful. Of course there is a difference, there are not on the Left the same kinds of demagogues in power or in the popular media. For that I am glad. But I have to think that you're either being overly defensive or deliberately obtuse if you want to argue that the rhetoric on the Left is all sweetness and pacifist light. I went to a school very like Evergreen, but on the East coast, and there was a substantial load of anti-government, pro-revolutionary rhetoric (not radical, revolutionary; there is a difference), and this was well before the more recent world events which have further radicalized a portion of the far Left.

Teece-
Schizophrenia is something vastly different and quite often very debilitating. It is also permanent, and only somewhat treatable.
This is a common misconception, promulgated, at least in part, by the pharmaceutical bent of current psychiatric models. The literature on schizophrenia, while being completely at odds about causes, is actually pretty clear that the prognosis for people with schizophrenia follows the law of thirds: a third have one psychotic episode and recover completely never to have another; a third have intermittent psychotic episodes between which they function more or less normally; a third have persistent and chronic psychotic problems. It is true that medications are not particularly helpful, but therapy can sometime really help.
posted by OmieWise at 4:37 PM on April 4, 2005

Good point, OmieWise. I was only thinking of those people in the "last third" with schizophrenia.
posted by teece at 4:40 PM on April 4, 2005

I wonder what Andy's MeFi user number is?
That's just...well...cold.

This thread is a litmus test.
Righties: setting litmus tests for lefties since 1980.

Oh, and if the pope gets all those dots, the least I can do is offer one for this cop.

.
posted by a_day_late at 4:43 PM on April 4, 2005

amberglow - You're right, capitol hill is a echo chamber too, but they aren't marginalized because they get better press. ;-)

I could have pointed out that (the RIAA/the religious right/young republicans driving huge-ass SUVs and living in giant houses with no furniture) people live in an echo chamber too, but everyone knows that. I wanted to point out that supposed free-thinkers like ourselves are in just as much danger.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 4:45 PM on April 4, 2005

This book is required reading on the subject.
posted by inksyndicate at 4:51 PM on April 4, 2005

This is too weird--he may have used leftwing websites, but is totally libertarian/rightwing a la McVeigh, i think.

Why?

Do you have some kind of delusion that leftists are incapable of being murderous nutballs? That kind of shit crosses political boundaries.
posted by jonmc at 4:59 PM on April 4, 2005

It is rather shocking that we've gotten to the point this is actually happening, though.

Waht you mean "we," kemosabe? This is a lone yo-yo who probably wanted to kill somebody because of some inchoate rage at the world and attached himself to a "cause." Instead of "the Aryan Race," it's some lefty cause. I'm not worried about marauding bands of lefty jihadists though. This guy is what he is, a murderoud nut, whatever the hell his putative politics are. Don't look for sense here because there isn't any.

And any idiots cheering him on are moronic punk kids looking to "shock the squares (aka mommy & daddy)" who 20 years from now will be soccer parents or overdose statistics.
posted by jonmc at 5:05 PM on April 4, 2005

For once i'm in agreement with JMC. This guy is a violent person looking for an excuse. The left is probably particularly appealing to nuts right now because the right is in power. Deeply creepy.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:11 PM on April 4, 2005

...and living in giant houses with no furniture...
I really don't get that part--i see Trading Spaces and whenever they do a McMansion, the rooms are always scarily empty. (and the ceiling fans alone make me wanna shoot someone) ; >


Do you have some kind of delusion that leftists are incapable of being murderous nutballs?
Yes, jon, i do. I can show you violent crime stats, the larger number of disgruntled or crazy ex-military, and the already committed murders and violence and bombings from the right. I see one crazy guy being painted as a leftist, and some "anarchists" who haven't bombed or killed anyone. I think the proof is in the body count and the daily threats, and the recent mainstreamed murderous nutball rhetoric against judges, and pranksters, etc--some of it coming from Congress. I think the facts are all on one side, and one psycho does not a trend make.
posted by amberglow at 5:12 PM on April 4, 2005

First and foremost, I want to say that this is a horrendous, monstrous act by a criminal, killing a public servant in cold blood and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. There is no justification for killing an innocent cop in cold blood. My heart goes out to the Cop's family and friends.

Dhoyt: Today on the floor of the Senate:
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence.

Um.... right, those murdered judges deserved it. Go culture of life, law and order, family values Conservatives.

Look, this guy, and mcveigh were totally nuts. Completely. When you get far enough out there on the political fringe, well, the purposes might differ (sometimes they are remarkably similar) but the means seem to coalesce somewhere near violence. You and Amberglow are making the sam mistake, correlating the relatively insignificant and powerless part for the whole. Stop it. It's useless. I'm fairly certain though neither of you will listen to me, and everyone will pile up on dhoyt, because even though you might disagree with how someone argues, if they are on you "team" you let minor problems slide.

Me, on the other hand, I go right for the distinguished Republican Senator from Texas attempting to justify violence against judges. For the sake of fuck he's saying he understands where Brian Nichols, the accused rapist who murdered Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland Barnes and three others last month is coming from. And we all know how important Texas Republican Party are in the national political scene at the moment.

Let us all join in a chorus of "What The Fuck!".
posted by Freen at 5:15 PM on April 4, 2005

Well lemme say that it's curious. I find it interesting that most people is discussing about the guy instead of discussing about what the guy had to say.

He's probably insane (guess some kind of Messianic Delusion in which he thinks that by sacrificing himself attention will be drawn on his message..useless self immolation, but he doesn't know) and he's certainly a killer.
Indeed he suggest other people to go on with non-violent action, while he uses violence to attract "attention"..probably still part of messianic delusion.

But the fact that's he's probably insane and certainly a killer does in NO way imply that _all_ he saying is totally out of whack.

That corporations are without moral and not human is a pretty much extablished point (but not often underlined enough) and that some or many people within corporate entities are abusing the limitation of reponsability for their own gain at the expense of the masses is , I guess, pretty much demonstrable (again, not underlined enough)

What is striking is that he was on the right route to understand more about capitalistic societies, yet his probably limited education (which is not necessarily, again, only his own personal fault) combined with his will to do "good" brought him to vent his frustation and anger on a cop, not a deviant corrupted cop (afaik) but just a target of opportunity.

On a tangent: great job giving military training to unstable people ! But I guess that as long as they obey the orders and don't give much trouble....it's just meat for cannons for real.
posted by elpapacito at 5:16 PM on April 4, 2005

I agree, elpapacito. But most people don't ignore ad hominum criticism. Anything he had to say, some of which seems to be fairly good argumentation and analysis, up until the point he figured it was his duty to kill an innocent public servant, who had devoted his life to serving and protecting that fucked up kid who killed him.

No one listens to people who scream, much less people who kill.
posted by Freen at 5:22 PM on April 4, 2005

Amberglow, in the present climate, in this country, yes, there are more right wing yo-yo's killing people than left wing ones. But historically, psycho's have been all over the political spectrum (I cannot believe I'm having a conversation about the political leanings of psychotics). Mao and Stalin's enforcers? Leon Czolgosz, the self proclaimed anarchist who shot a president? the Symbionese Liberation Army? Were they all right wingers, too?

You know me well enough to know that I'm not some right-winger trying to paint this ludicrous incident as some kind of trend, but I think what people are a mite upset about is that your reaction to heinous act committed by a self-proclaimed leftist (italics mine, because most leftists I know would be getting out the straightjacket after listening to this guy for five minutes) was basically to say "He did something bad? Oh, he's actually a right-winger."

C'mon you're smarter than that. Don't equivocate on this out of some misguided sense of loyalty,because this kind of shit is what makes the left lose credibility with a lot of people.
posted by jonmc at 5:24 PM on April 4, 2005

I'm surprised the article didn't mention Luke Helder. Remember him? Crazy kid who was blowing up mailboxes to, you know, bring about a revolution or something?

From the article: In one of his online postings before he was arrested, Mickel says he chose New Hampshire because its state constitution contains a passage offering what he interpreted as the right of citizens to revolt: "Whenever the ends of government are perverted and public liberty manifestly endangered and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may and of right ought to reform the old or establish a new government."

Of course, the ol' Declaration of Independence said the exact same thing, but better:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

But you know what? It don't mean squat. If you or I or anyone tries to abolish The Government, you can be damn sure The Government will fight back and protect itself. The Government won't care about your so-called "Right" to overthrow them. You can wave a copy of The Declaration of Independence in front of you as The Powers That Be mow you down.

"But-- but-- I've got all the right paperwork!"
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:25 PM on April 4, 2005

Too bad it was just one.
posted by Lusy P Hur at 5:29 PM on April 4, 2005

Do you think we are living in a police state right now?

Yes. Take a look outside. How many cameras can you find? How many don't you know about?

Here's hoping the guy serves Life, gets serious counseling while incarcerated, and the families involved are somehow able to pick up the pieces.

Why "Life"? Why not kill him? And why does he need counseling if he's going to be in jail for the rest of his life? The other prisoners will surely take care of his "counseling," right?

libertarian/rightwing

I don't get this. Despite the lip service American pols give it, small government is not really characteristic of right-wing movements, is it? True "libertarians" are anarchists. The minarchists haven't fully gotten it yet, but I wouldn't call either right-wing.

the suspected assailant had Army Ranger training

There's your biggest clue to his problems. That Army fucks people up bad. What do you expect when you train people not to value certain lives?

Things did not work out nearly so well for the French

Hmm. I think it worked out great in the long run. The first one didn't pan out completely, but they got there eventually. The king/queen had to go bye-bye somehow.

Dude, corporations (and soylent green) are people!

Exactly. Fight capitalism, not corporations. Kill the beast, not the "little Eichmanns." (Best way to do that? Good question! Let me know when you get an answer.)

Btw, there will never be another armed revolution in America, unless something cataclysmic occurs. The weaponry of the U.S. military cannot even be approached by private citizens, despite being the only damn reason I can think of to support the 2nd amendment. I suppose if we somehow managed to gain the support of "defense" companies ... not gonna happen.

The game is already over. Accept your fate, and give up now. Go back to your regularly scheduled programming. TV is not bad for you. It is good for you. Rinse and repeat.

provaocateur
posted by mrgrimm at 5:42 PM on April 4, 2005

provaocateur

*pinches cheeks*

isn't he cute?
posted by jonmc at 5:45 PM on April 4, 2005

But the fact that's he's probably insane and certainly a killer does in NO way imply that _all_ he saying is totally out of whack.

Absolutely agreed. Kaczynski had some cogent points too.

Corporate executives buy gold-plated plumbing fixtures, stay in $3,000 a night hotel suites, take $2,000 wine-tasting classes, or buy $20,000 worth of rugs, and then have their corporations write these expenses off on their taxes.

True, though that *is* cheating in a lot of cases.

Laws are even invented specifically for corporations which enable them to avoid paying taxes in ways that the average person is denied.

Certainly true.

less than $23 billion dollars is spent on Welfare annually, whereas over $100 billion is given away to big business each year to help them do things they should pay for themselves, such as buying new equipment or advertising their products.

I'm not gonna look up the numbers, but we all know that corporate welfare costs much more than general assistance.

If we refuse to recognize what our government is doing and why, if we refuse to realize that American lives are no more, and no less, valuable than other nation’s, then we deserve the ‘terrorism’ that we are forcing these people to commit.

I gotta agree there too, but then again I'm a nutball too. At least I'm not violent ... yet. ;)
posted by mrgrimm at 5:51 PM on April 4, 2005

Do you have some kind of delusion that leftists are incapable of being murderous nutballs?
Yes, jon, i do.


Deep down, the Pol Pots & Stalins & Maos of the world were just misunderstood proto-neocons, jon; you didn't know? They weren't really Left, which is to say, inherently pacifist. Or something.

I'm still interested to hear some elaboration on how Homeland Security is conspiring to pay necon journalists at the WaPo, and how an anti-corporate/WTO/Capitalism pro-Palestine college kid is a 'rightwing/libertarian'.

amberglow, little help?


Too bad it was just one.

Nice. Try here.
posted by dhoyt at 5:52 PM on April 4, 2005

btw, all this guy really needed was a good fuck. On a regular basis.
posted by mrgrimm at 5:54 PM on April 4, 2005

That was unneccessarily harsh, grimm. But I'm just allergic to hubris.

Absolutely agreed. Kaczynski had some cogent points too.

I'm sure if you look hard enough Manson had some 10 cent insights, too. And believe it or not, I'm upset about a lot of the things you just mentioned, too. But I just believe that the smartest thing the left could do is condemn this bozo and distance themself from him as much as possible so their very sane ideas don't look crazy by association.

Deep down, the Pol Pots & Stalins & Maos of the world were just misunderstood proto-neocons, jon; you didn't know? They weren't really Left, which is to say, inherently pacifist. Or something.

dhoyt, no offense, but even though that comment has me clutching my head in disbelief, I know amberglow well enough to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he just misstated the point he was trying to make...maybe that when lefties become fanatical they become so rigid they might as well be rightwingers. That I'd buy.
posted by jonmc at 5:56 PM on April 4, 2005

But you know what? It don't mean squat. If you or I or anyone tries to abolish The Government, you can be damn sure The Government will fight back and protect itself. The Government won't care about your so-called "Right" to overthrow them. You can wave a copy of The Declaration of Independence in front of you as The Powers That Be mow you down.

This is a fascinating problem inherent in governments, addressed by both Hobbes and Spinoza, not some unfortunate dumbing down of a revolutionary institution. The problem is, a government cannot be the authority to allow for its own overthrow, except insofar as it allows for election. But if violent overthrow is deemed necessary, it will by definition not be deemed necessary by the sitting government.

We cannot have a government which acquiesces to the preferences of the individual; that would be anarchy, which sounds much better in theory and when considering the 90% of people who would live all right by it. But all you need is 10% to try to use it to their own advantage (committing actions which would have been against the law for their own gain) to ruin it for everyone & make hobbes' statement about life without governance ("nasty, brutish & short") true. Considering what percentage commit crimes even with laws in place, it's no stretch to assume anarchy is simply untenable in a global culture (or, basically anything exceeding a tribal culture). That's why our government is meant to be based on a certain set of rules (the constitution) rather than any particular authority or personality.
posted by mdn at 6:00 PM on April 4, 2005

love, love, love, do do do, love, love, love
posted by Satapher at 6:00 PM on April 4, 2005

jon, he's not self-proclaimed at all. i actually see equivocation in listing historical figures, none of whom have been active in 30 years or more. It's also equivocation (and offensive) to equate this loser with McVeigh, who killed hundreds in a calculated act against the government, or any of the many others. It's equivocation to say that both sides have psychos, shrug your shoulders, and say, "what are you gonna do?" It's also misleading, and paints a false picture. The uses to which this specific picture has been painted in this manner is what i'm unhappy about, because it's patently false and contributes to the shit the Limbaugh and all the many many others spout. If it looks like i'm sticking up for this guy, you're wrong. I'm disassociating him from all others on the left, who don't murder, unlike more on the right. People forget that when Oklahoma happened, it was blamed on a Muslim at first, and people were shocked, shocked, to see it was a white guy, who didn't even take credit for his actions, but ran off.

Isn't it weird that automatically the story is framed as a "leftist" thing, and words like "jihad" are thrown around immediately? How different this guy is treated compared to a "rightist jihadist" mass murderer, no? i'm sorry you don't see that.

This guy had the right to revolt--we all do, as Americans. Killing a cop is not revolution. That's not my point.

But i will continue to say that they're absolutely not equal and this one guy is not at all equivalent to all the rightwing psychos who have killed and bombed for years--everyone from doctors at abortion clinics to radio djs to patrons of gay bars to ...

I am completely disgusted by the spin this story was given, and the way it's used to paint the "left" as "jihadists"-- something still not done to the actual murderers/bombers/terrorists on the right. The words used and the spin given have power--and are not motivated by fact or history. dhoyt's quick jump to Stalin and Pol Pot is part of the same game, but i expect better from people with actual brains (he didn't even read the Indymedia page he linked to, listing peaceful protests, one of which i just saw in Montreal). They're not the same, no matter how little faith you may have in humanity, jon.
posted by amberglow at 6:04 PM on April 4, 2005

anarchy, which sounds much better in theory and when considering the 90% of people who would live all right by it.

you have a much rosier veiw of human nature than I.
posted by jonmc at 6:06 PM on April 4, 2005

I'm disassociating him from all others on the left, who don't murder, unlike more on the right.

Fair enough. That's all I wanted to hear when I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
posted by jonmc at 6:12 PM on April 4, 2005

This is one nutjob acting alone, and he won't be able to do any more harm. All these arguments about which side he was are pretty meaningless in the end, because this man was representative of no one and the beginning of nothing.
posted by orange swan at 6:18 PM on April 4, 2005

re: depression -
"After all a murderer is only an extroverted suicide."
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 6:20 PM on April 4, 2005

amberglow-
I disagree with your premise, I think it is you who are equivocating. And I've read a lot more of your comments than you have of mine, so please believe me when I say that I am very far left on most issues, and not given to granting any kind of legitimacy to the rhetorical tricks or traps of the right. And I can understand your anger at how the story was painted in the WashPost, but that story was not the story, and that anger is righteous only insofar as it's directed at that particular news story.

You seem to want to expand it further, and to say that because there are more violent nut cases on the right, then we can ignore this guy who uses and abuses leftist rhetoric as an excuse for his actions. That reasoning just does not hold up. I agree that there's more violence coming from the right, that violence is a deeper part of the fabric of rightist discourse, that disrespect for other Americans is part of the (current) foundation of the Republican and rightist political movements in the US. All that I agree with.
I also think, however, that there is a growing segment of the Left that is espousing or even just winking at the idea that violence is the only way to respond to that violence. If you haven't seen that, that desperation, that kind of mis-step, then I'm very surprised. But I don't think that ignoring it is going to make it go away. I also don't think mentioning it, and admitting that it probably contributed to this guy's actions, makes the Left's relationship to violence equivalent to the Right's. This guy isn't equivalent to McVeigh in the damage and destruction he caused, he's equivalent in his motivations. And not just a little bit, strikingly so. Remember that McVeigh styled himself a revolutionary as well. Not admitting that similarity is offensive, and plays into the hands of the Right, who want to excuse their own bad behavior by pointing to similar behavior on the Left. Don't give them the satisfaction.

On preview-When do you start to talk about it in terms of a trend? I mean how many people have to die before it's not a betrayal of the Left to talk about it?
posted by OmieWise at 6:30 PM on April 4, 2005

I don't need the benefit of the doubt--I need absurd, dangerous, terrorist-associating spin and rhetoric stopped, whether it comes from Senators about judges--or anyone they don't agree with, or the rightwing noise machine, or reporters at "respectable" newspapers.

and what orange swan said, altho that's not what the article says.
posted by amberglow at 6:30 PM on April 4, 2005

Omie, i'm not saying we can ignore anyone. I do say that equivocating one psycho (that kills a cop thinking he's "revolting") to another that bombs a federal building, killing hundreds, is wrong. Both in scale and in planning and in forethought and calculation. I find it offensive to call them similar, and think doing so exactly plays into the right's plan, and this reporter's spin. Pointing out the one instance in years of a murder so that you can exactly paint both sides as similar is exactly what's desired by the right. It's why i linked to Limbaugh calling the salad dressing people "terrorists". It's completely what they want, and completely what's being done, with or without this guy on the scene.
posted by amberglow at 6:35 PM on April 4, 2005

I don't need the benefit of the doubt-

Easy. I was defending you, remember. Figuring that you and dhoyt got your wires crossed. And it is a simple fact that many people who are ordinarily left-leaning find themselves alienated from the rest of the left over shit like this and the response to it.. I don't think it's some kind of heresy to say that and that it's an problem that needs adressing (from within, I'm not talking about the government).
posted by jonmc at 6:37 PM on April 4, 2005

mdn: you've got some interesting points there.

My own point was basically that when lofty ideals-- be it Anarchy, Democracy, what have you-- meet stone cold reality, something's gotta give.

Take for example David Koresh: Koresh thought The Constitution gave him the all-encompassing Right To Bear Arms (Article 2) and Protect His Property (Article 4). He decided to exercise his constitutional rights by getting into a gun battle with the ATF. Koresh found out that regardless of what any document says, if one tribe (Koresh & The Branch Davidians) kills someone from another tribe (The ATF, representing The U.S. Government), the rest of the tribe (The FBI, representing The U.S. Government) will come gunning for revenge.

mdn writes: That's why our government is meant to be based on a certain set of rules (the constitution) rather than any particular authority or personality.

Of course, rules are only as good as the people enforcing them.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 6:46 PM on April 4, 2005

If it makes the wingnuts&trade feel any better, this extreme leftie thinks the "minutemen" protecting the border from corporate slave labor are also lunatics and not representative of say, dhoyt. I have faith that as long as our resident righties stay involved in the blue and keep up the readin' N' thinkin', they won't exhibit the behavior of America's vast stores of the bored and extremely dangerous. But all in all, it doesn't matter. A loon's a loon. And we've got 'em comin' out of our ears, don't we wingers? We have, afterall, only you and yours to thank for the Christian right's situational ethics written into law because you were too lazy to listen to the experts and authorities on social problems. You fellas thought you had it all figured out didn't ya?

Well guess what? It's all goin' to shit. And frankly, I consider this murder a direct manifestation of the ignorance the corporate and theofascist right uses to stir us into all sorts of tragic directions. The insanity at issue here is not in this young man's head, it is in the cruel rightist culture which has redefined the meaning of the word "life" to actually designate "death".

Shocking and awful I know.
posted by crasspastor at 6:47 PM on April 4, 2005

amberglow, ok, I think we still disagree about this point, although we're still solidly on the same side of the larger issue.
posted by OmieWise at 6:47 PM on April 4, 2005

.

(for Officer David Mobilio and his family, since nobody else feels like taking time out from the usual righties vs. lefties food fight to bother)
posted by jonmc at 6:53 PM on April 4, 2005

Well.

If he had written what he had written, and ended it with "so the purpose of this new corporation is to identify the corporations that are doing these horrible evil things, and use the power our country grants corporations to overcome and conquer these other bad corporations in a perfectly legal way, who's with me?" I might be feeling different about this whole thing.

But he killed an innocent person (doesn't have to be a cop, or the father of a toddler, to be tragic). On purpose. Premeditated. And I render everything else he might have to say moot.

Would I feel differently if he kidnapped and killed the CEO of a company that was fighting paying benefits to the widow of someone killed due to to company's obvious and documented negligence? I have no idea.

Kinda hard to root for death ever, knowwhatImean?

Oh, and to all of you who decided to make this a leftie-rightie issue -- seriously, is that the only thing you can think of? Gee whiz.
posted by davejay at 6:53 PM on April 4, 2005

I do say that equivocating one psycho (that kills a cop thinking he's "revolting") to another that bombs a federal building, killing hundreds, is wrong.

I agree with you there, in recent decades the rightwing extremists have been much more likely to use violence in this country than leftwing ones, incident for incident. but I still disagree with your original statement that McCrae "is totally libertarian/rightwing a la McVeigh". He was a leftist in his core beliefs, though his actions are not representative of those considered valid by the vast majority of leftists, the same way McVeigh's actions are considered beyond the pale by the vast majority of right wingers.

People are murdered everyday. It's terrible: to me personally it means that we are still an utter failure as a species and we are all culpable in every single one that happens on some level. But it's not somehow insensitive, shameful or disrespectful to talk solely about the political aspects of this crime, and shame on the posters here trying to pile shame on others for doing that. If we're talking about the structural problems of the Titanic and how they contributed to the disaster does everybody have to make sure they say "and it's a shame all those poor people drowned", or can we maybe take that as read?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:16 PM on April 4, 2005

davejay - I can dig it.
posted by Kloryne at 7:16 PM on April 4, 2005

Seems to me that what needs killing is the federal government administration. Cut off the hydra's head.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:34 PM on April 4, 2005

In his opening statement to the jury, the Associated Press reported that Mickel said, "I want to tell you that I did ambush and kill David Mobilio." The police officer's widow was weeping in the courtroom. Mickel did not express remorse. He has pled not guilty.

This piece of shit is not worth the pixels we've wasted on him. May he never breathe free air again.
posted by jonmc at 7:40 PM on April 4, 2005

Andy Mickel was in Drama Club;

Why am I not surprised?
posted by jonmc at 7:43 PM on April 4, 2005

This guy had the right to revolt--we all do, as Americans. Killing a cop is not revolution. That's not my point.

as americans, we all have the right to voice our disagreement, to attempt to change people's opinions, to vote for a new government... but do we have the "right to revolt"? Really depends what you mean; if you mean we have the "right" to storm the whitehouse, well, that's a complicated issue of political science, sort of true, sort of not, but be assured, even if you have the "right" to start bloody revolution, the gov't in that situation will have the "right" to shoot back.

you have a much rosier veiw of human nature than I.

I think the point is stronger if you make it using the most optimistic numbers - even if we assume 90% of people would live well by anarchy, it can't work, because it demands 100% compliance. Laws exist for the (10%*) who would thwart them if they could get away with it.

(*whatever you think this number is - the point is, it's not 0, and it's not 100%)
posted by mdn at 8:10 PM on April 4, 2005

This guy had the right to revolt--we all do, as Americans.

Well, that's an interesting statement. What is the nature of this "right", amberglow? How does that "right" square with the capital offense of treason?
posted by pardonyou? at 8:12 PM on April 4, 2005

Crap! Beaten by mdn!
posted by pardonyou? at 8:14 PM on April 4, 2005

The rebel undoubtedly demands a certain degree of freedom for himself; but in no case, if he is consistent, does he demand the right to destroy the existence and the freedom of others. He humiliates no one. The freedom he claims, he claims for all; the freedom he refuses, he forbids everyone to enjoy. He is not only the slave against the master, but also man against the world of master and slave. Therefore, thanks to rebellion, there is something more in history than the relation between mastery and servitude. Unlimited power is not the only law. It is in the name of another value that the rebel affirms the impossibility of total freedom while be claims for himself the relative freedom necessary to recognize this impossibility.

- "The Rebel," Camus
posted by iamck at 8:56 PM on April 4, 2005

"What The Fuck!".
posted by nola at 9:09 PM on April 4, 2005

anarchy, which sounds much better in theory and when considering the 90% of people who would live all right by it.

Sounds to me like you'rr confusing Anarchism and anarchy.
posted by Lusy P Hur at 9:21 PM on April 4, 2005

.

(for Officer David Mobilio and his family, since nobody else feels like taking time out from the usual righties vs. lefties food fight to bother)

As though the period meant anything, or required any sort of effort on your part. It's a punctuation mark, not a freaking statue. Discussing the issue is much more meaningful, and requires much more thought and effort. Continue the food fight.
posted by Hildago at 9:32 PM on April 4, 2005

.

(for the cop and his family)

i would have done this even if jonmc hadn't ... and andy whathisname is an idiot and if that's what the revolution's going to be about, you can count me right out of it

we could start a revolution by being better to each other ...
posted by pyramid termite at 1:32 AM on April 5, 2005

holy crap, did you guys hear what fucking Senator Kennedy said about this case on the Senate floor?

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of cop killing in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of cop killing recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where cops are making bad decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence."

thanks to pitchblende

and amberglow, you ingrate, don't you know that you must bow with gratitude when being defended by Lord Jonmc? thank god we have His Reasonableness here to tell us what to think.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:40 AM on April 5, 2005

I'm, uh, here for the food f-- oh. It seems to be done. Damn.
posted by blacklite at 3:08 AM on April 5, 2005

a homeboy makes it big, way to go!!!
posted by joemeek at 3:52 AM on April 5, 2005

My two cents:

In between the debate about how left he is, whether he's anything like McVeigh, etc etc etc., and whether he's insane or not (he's certainly not clinically insane, even if his moral compass is somewhat, to put it euphemistically, askew) there's one thing that's been lost.

A few people upthread asked why didn't he go after a CEO, or attack some Evil Corporate Headquarters? Why kill an innocent man?

Mickel's reasoning: because that's what corporations do every day.

That doesn't make what he did right; let's not shirk from the fact that he murdered an innocent man, leaving a widow and a now-fatherless kid. That he was a policeman really is neither here or there; Mickel could just have as easily walked up to you, me, a beggar on the street, pumped a couple of bullets into any one of us and handed himself in to the police. But he wants media coverage; he wants exposure. He's obviously far from stupid, and he knows that killing a cop is one way to go about getting publicity for his cause.
posted by Len at 6:01 AM on April 5, 2005

As though the period meant anything, or required any sort of effort on your part.

It's a gesture, Hildago, that's all. I was just noticing that in all the yelling and screaming nobody even seemed to have bothered to mention the officers name. I don't claim that requires any effort on my part, but I figured he deserved to be remembered in this conversation, since he was an actual person, not a hypothetical construct.

and Hat Maui, me and amber know eachother offsite, I was just trying to make sure he understood me. But thatks for thinking of me.
posted by jonmc at 6:49 AM on April 5, 2005

As I said, I hope that people follow his lead, and keep killing cops until the people behind corporate crime are finally forced to answer for their actions.

Advocating cop-killing on metafilter is a great way to cause some serious fucking trouble for the whole site.

I hope I'm just being paranoid. But seriously, advocating murder of cops? I wouldn't shed a tear if the FBI decided to give you a nice long uncomfortable questioning for shit like that.
posted by beth at 8:28 AM on April 5, 2005

Advocating cop-killing on metafilter is a great way to cause some serious fucking trouble for the whole site.

And paying your taxes is complicity in murder. I really don't see the point of this discussion.
posted by iamck at 8:38 AM on April 5, 2005

That was unneccessarily harsh, grimm

No offense taken. My girlfriend says I'm awfully cute too. ;;)
posted by mrgrimm at 9:57 AM on April 5, 2005

The problem is: you have guns perfectly accessible, but mass media nearly inaccessible. A capacity for violence but no voice. A smart monkey will recognize this and put 2 & 2 together.
Bang - shoot cop - get attention for cause.
(Which is ultimately self-destructive to one's cause. Not to mention innocent humans - But this is by design)

So the problem here is not with the addition (2+2 = fame), but the math system. (Allow me to go Godel) the range of thought here is sharply limited - as sharply limited as it was in say - the 60's with the protests.
Protesters essentially argued with the cops while trying to offset the plans of "the Man" (in his myriad forms).
So you have civil servants blocking the path to those who are truly responsible, the monied folks, corporations, etc. and people blame them and the government.
The bull charges the flag not the matador.

So within the system you have very critical and divergent views and debate and even actions so it looks like we're actually getting somewhere.
Meanwhile we all support the assumptions that keep the system in place whether through talk or action no matter how extreme.
Shooting a cop - as bad as it is - is not outside that system.
You can't oppose something without tacitly supporting it.
This instance is a perfect example. Shooting a cop is a giant exclaimation in support of law and order. This cop-shooting doofus might not think so, but that is why he is a doofus.
Violence is only a tool for control. One does not shoot one’s pack animal if it doesn’t do what one wants. One hits it with something, causes it pain.
Again - a smart monkey knows this, but this does not cause pain to anyone who can change the system.
In addition causing pain to the system only causes it to morph. We switched from limited monarchy to corporate oligarchy in two centuries - blink of an eye really.
And we still had slavery for one of those two centuries (much longer before then).

As much as I enjoy killing, it isn’t the answer. Robespierre learned that (Tom DeLay in another form?). And anyway, a true revolutionary must be essentially egoless - particularly if he is the leader, even more so if he is a symbol. (I think only Ken Kesey pulled that off, but he just wanted to have fun, not run a revolution).

The one man with a gun changing things thought-set is pure movie bullshit.
They’re not scared of men with guns. They’re not scared of well trained, heavily armed militia. Consider ‘the enemy’ here: mobile, monied, hidden, protected and surrounded by ignorant innocents.
What they’re afraid of is mass communication and revelation (not in the biblical sense).

With that perpective in mind - this guy goes and shoots a cop to bring attention to his cause.
Could you do a better job fucking up the message of change?

If I had my tinfoil hat on I’d say this guy was programmed to spread just this kind of message.

...but gee, you don’t think people with little empathy, thousands of brilliant minds, millions of soldiers and billions of dollars at their disposal would go THAT far do you?

Eh. Any good conspiracy is unprovable.
I can’t wait to get to heaven to see what it was all really about.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:07 AM on April 5, 2005

Smedleyman, I salute you for the well thought out and well written post. And this:

Eh. Any good conspiracy is unprovable.

is something that can't be repeated often enough. I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means but I find conspiracy nuts and their detractors suffer from the same rigid thinking: Either everything is, or everything isn't. With the thems that do, it's easy to see how they may be coming unhinged. With the thems that don't, it's not as easy, and it frustrates me to no end that they can't see that a combination of self-interest, opportunity, power, and silence, can make for one hell of a great conspiracy. (Not necessarily talking about this case.)
posted by a_day_late at 11:55 AM on April 5, 2005

There is very little in politics that is not conspiracy, but they're mostly small conspiracies with petty actors who are looking to improve their own stations in some short-term way.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:05 PM on April 5, 2005

You'd think that a guy with Ranger training could/would have planned an attack plan that would methodically rid the country of high-profile CEO's...serial killer ninja style.

"The Earth is not dying. It is being killed... And the people killing it have names and addresses." ~ An Earth First! rallying cry originally popularized by singer Utah Phillips

I think that wingnuts from both sides are prone to extremism. However, right wingnuts are more likely to target people, whereas left wingnuts are more likely to target property. At least the left wingnuts I have known and loved claimed the moral high ground because they would never kill a human...
posted by schyler523 at 12:34 PM on April 5, 2005

"[T]here are better ways to respond to corporate irresponsibility than "starting a revolution."

I wish critics of revolution would explain why America still has "corporate irresponsibility", given that every other attempt to fix it has FAILED.

If you know a better way than "starting a revolution", a way that you know will work, that will protect our people and our planet and that most Americans will go for, then dammit SAY SO and START ON IT. And don't let being in Northern Ireland or not being American stop you: Patrick Henry wasn't born here either. We're waiting, Messiah Knapah! Tell us all about your better way!

As for the cop, remember this: in the US police carry guns and are "authorized" to use them, that is they are armed and dangerous combatants, and that if one does not accept the legitimacy of the regime they "protect and serve" the police are nothing more than occupation troops. Furthermore they freely and voluntarily enlist: I know of no jurisdiction in the US that drafts people into the police department. I am not advocating cop killing, but I am saying that, as killing a cop cannot be considered as wrong as opening fire on an elementary school playground, I cannot praise Mickel but I can't condemn him either.

As for the "But he had a wife & kids!" complaint, maybe law-enforcement officers, and Marines and other "troops", should be required to take an oath of celibacy and chastity; otherwise your "objection" is bullshit, because if it's wrong to shoot cops with families then it's also wrong to shoot robbers with families.

And kudos to iamck for quoting Camus like that.
posted by davy at 1:00 PM on April 5, 2005

I spotted something this past few days about a bill before the US congress. It basically intends to absolve corporations of all penalties of law. Downright scary, it was.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:10 PM on April 5, 2005

Just when I was starting to give davy the benefit of the doubt, he spews crap like that.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:12 PM on April 5, 2005

You'd think that a guy with Ranger training could/would have planned an attack plan that would methodically rid the country of high-profile CEO's...serial killer ninja style.

So I take it you're recommending assassinating "high-profile CEO's" now? Are you thinking one "guy with Ranger training" can demolish the Corporations that way, or do you think a conspiracy is required? Or maybe you mean "we" should simply declare "open season" on CEOs, though as with hunting moose it's better if people get some training first?
posted by davy at 1:12 PM on April 5, 2005

five_fresh_fish, I bet the benefit of YOUR doubt smells bad and tastes funny. "Fresh" compared to what?

Anyway, what exactly is your objection to what I posted?
posted by davy at 1:18 PM on April 5, 2005

By the way, I think incidents like the one we're talking about show the need of active dissidents becoming organized. Yes, even (and especially) anarchists; again I'll point to the Platform . [Warning: that link points to a site the FBI and its ilk might be monitoring.]

If Mickel were in a "bunch" instead of a lone loose cannon, I'd bet his fellow cell-members would have pointed out that might not be such a great idea. ("Maybe we should do what Schyler523 said instead.")
posted by davy at 1:34 PM on April 5, 2005

I remember what the bill was: a complete overhaul of monopoly law, to the benefit of monopolies.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:05 PM on April 5, 2005

davy, nowhere in my post did i condone the murder of a CEO...what i expressed was suprise that someone with his training (and obvious imbalance) did not do as i suggested (i.e. be more like the unabomber.) Did you read the last paragraph of my post, or was the knee jerk too fast to suppress?
posted by schyler523 at 2:23 PM on April 5, 2005

sorry, the knee jerk comment from me was knee jerky.
posted by schyler523 at 2:30 PM on April 5, 2005

Or maybe you mean "we" should simply declare "open season" on CEOs, though as with hunting moose it's better if people get some training first?
Like the GOP in Congress have done with judges? We're smarter than that.

I don't know when violence is justified (if ever), but if and when it gets to that point, it will be much better targeted and focused than what this psycho did.
posted by amberglow at 3:27 PM on April 5, 2005

make that "like the GOP far right jihadis in Congress have done..." ; >
posted by amberglow at 3:29 PM on April 5, 2005

Just as a note: Rightists don't have jihads, they have kampfs.
posted by klangklangston at 4:27 PM on April 5, 2005

...kampfs

*shivers*
posted by amberglow at 5:35 PM on April 5, 2005

Interestingly, Ghandhi started a revolution on the principle of non-violence.

Funny thing that.

This guy can preach against the 'system' all he wants, by his actions he is equal to or worse than the 'system' or any corporation. Cold, direct murder of an innocent is far worse than any controlling corporation pushing SUV's or styrofoam cups into our hands. Politicians signing on to the military factory we have become need to be held accountable; that's our job folks and we suck at it.
posted by fluffycreature at 8:30 PM on April 5, 2005

jonmc: "Do you have some kind of delusion that leftists are incapable of being murderous nutballs?"
amberglow: "Yes, jon, i do"


posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:03 PM on April 5, 2005

Ambergow said: I don't know when violence is justified (if ever), but if and when it gets to that point, it will be much better targeted and focused than what this psycho did.

I happened to agree with you, but to me it's a practical matter, not a moral one.

And Schyler523, yes I read and grasped what you wrote, I was just picking on you. Trying, and in your case failing, to be funny. Please bear with me, I'm not very good at that tongue-in-cheek stuff -- at least not in my own cheek. But just in case and for the record: to whom it may concern, I do not believe schyler523 was advocating killing anybody, nor do I think it would be correct for anybody else to construe his remark that way. (And careful reading will show I did not advocate gunning anybody down either.)

And Steve_at_Linnwood, what in tarnation made you think Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (I'm guessing there) were Leftists? (Hitchens was never much of a Leftist either.) To go back a bit: Bakunin was far to the left of Marx. (If nobody finds that 2-axis left-right/authoritarian-libertarian scale before tomorrow maybe I'll remember where I found it.)

But fluffycreature, since when did an armed thug cop become an "innocent"? Look up the damn word, please.
posted by davy at 10:39 PM on April 5, 2005

fluffy, cops are hardly innocent bystanders.
posted by Lusy P Hur at 1:10 AM on April 6, 2005

posted by a_day_late at 3:12 AM on April 6, 2005

Steve: You do know that "Leftist" comes from the Left Wing of the French Assembly, who were liberals, right? So the etymology implies "Liberal" with Left?
And you do realize that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. weren't Liberals, right? They were authoritarians. You got that memo, right?
So you are just trying to make a poor sloganeering point, right? This isn't indicative of a fully thought-out idea on your part, right?
A Day Late is pretty good though...
posted by klangklangston at 6:44 AM on April 6, 2005

There's some interesting manuevering going on here. No ideology ever wants to admit that it can be made into something bad or that it might have dangerous people in it's ranks. And if they do, "They weren't really one of us."

Nice sleight of hand.
posted by jonmc at 7:02 AM on April 6, 2005

Nope. We admit it when it's true. No one here has said that no one on either side doesn't have dangerous people in its ranks. It's the "in its ranks" part. Whose ranks am I in? Whose ranks is Steve at in? How is that determined? By whom and for what purposes? To smear the other side entirely? Or because it's fact?
posted by amberglow at 7:09 AM on April 6, 2005

There's some interesting manuevering going on here. No ideology ever wants to admit that it can be made into something bad or that it might have dangerous people in it's ranks. And if they do, "They weren't really one of us."

Nice sleight of hand.
posted by jonmc at 10:02 AM EST on April 6 [!]

Common, #58. How is pointing to some dead guys that have no relevance to what is going on now connecting all lefties to them? That makes as much sense as saying the republicans are the Party of Lincoln. Nothing to do with today's reality.
posted by a_day_late at 8:06 AM on April 6, 2005

Jon: When tarring lefties with the "violent" brush, it would be better to mention Leon Czolgosz than Stalin.
Unless right-wingers are prepared to have Hitler trotted out every time they speak.

Oh, and to whoever mentioned upthread that revolutions only succeed against an imperial power: Mexico. Arguably Cuba. Nicaragua (kinda).
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on April 6, 2005

I Knew I'd get some delicious (and nonsensical!) cop-hate in this thread. Bonus prize: wonderful changing of the goalposts.

In conclusion: Mickel=murderous dumbass who had the balls/chutzpah to actually do what others condone.
posted by Snyder at 12:55 PM on April 6, 2005

Common, #58.

As usual, what I'm trying to say is being totally missed but here goes. I am not connecting all lefties to this asshole, merely saying that it's foolish to believe that the left is somehow magically immune to having violent nutjobs proclaiming themselves as leftists. Is that too difficult to figure out? I've encountered loons of every conceivable political stripe. The world is not divided into lefties=good righties=bad, or the reverse, despite everybody's wishful thinking for a simple cartoon world.

Sweet Lord.
posted by jonmc at 5:44 PM on April 6, 2005

Jon: We (at least, I) aren't denying that leftists can be lunatics, even murderous ones. I'm just arguing that the ones chosen by Steverino are poor examples, as they're not really leftists.
posted by klangklangston at 5:57 PM on April 6, 2005

That's debatable, klangklangston, although the ideologies they claimed were leftists in nature, but ultimately the world that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot dwelt in was so far beyond politics into pure murderous lunacy that the ideology is ultimately irrelevant. Which steve should realize, too, to be fair.

It's just frustrating to me, as someone who despite a lot of misgivings, still leans to the left, to hear all this hedging about this asshole. Do you think your average Republican says "Y'know, Matt Hale is just overzealous and misuderstood?" None that I've met have, and those who do are part of a small but loud minority. This conversation should have gone; "This guy is a murderous loon and an embarassment to the worthy cause of combatting corporate crime. To hell with him."

There was actually a thread when this guy was first arrested (I searched the archives, but no luck) where that raging right-wing fanatic fold_and_mutilate said something along the lines of "this idiot is an embarassment and a danger and what he did was inexcusable."

Foldy, my man, if you're ever in Astoria, I'll buy you a beer and a greek salad minus the feta.
posted by jonmc at 6:17 PM on April 6, 2005

...And hama7 used to claim Hitler was a Liberal, as I remember, which is just the photo-negative of what amberglow is trying to pull. It's a familiar & discouraging head-in-ass response to this kind of story for all the reasons jonmc listed.


posted by dhoyt at 7:05 PM on April 6, 2005

dhoyt, no need to get personally insulting. You've been an ally to me before in sticky situations but amber is my freind, too, so chill on that, all right. We're trying to make ourselves understood here not start a brawl.
posted by jonmc at 7:43 PM on April 6, 2005