Well, McVeigh the sequel is on at the movies. Remember after the building was blown up in Oklahoma, people started talking about Arab terrorists for no reason. Then it turned out to be a skinny white-bread punk from Shit Creek Idaho. Well, this time, surprise surprise, it's some dumb white-bread punk from Shit Creek Idaho, popping little bombs in letter boxes and such. News article
Um, that would be Shit Creek, Minnesota. Please get yer damn facts in line before ranting. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
From what I've seen on the tele this fellow seems to be a sly little bastard. I think they mentioned that he wasn't aware that he was facing life in prison for what he had committed, though.
I read today that he told the police he was planting the bombs so that when the locations were plotted on a map, they would make a smiley face.
Hey, Adam ... If you check it out, I think you'll find that McVeigh was from Pembrook, NY (in the Western part of the state). What have you got against 'Shit Creek Idaho'? I hear it's a great place to retire to. Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When I read the note this guy left, my first thought was that the writer had just put down his bong and stared at his hand for five minutes like he had never seen it before. Then they nab some 21-year-old art student. Ding!! Ding!! Ding!! Ding!! I also like the fact that he was in a band called "Apathy" whose biggest (and I use that term very, very loosely) hit was "Conformity." Like, wow, dude! That's so deep! And when I saw the picture of him in police custody in a Kurt Cobain T-shirt, people in the other offices at work wondered why I was giggling. I just wonder if Bush will give him the same "poor, confused young man" comments he gave J.W. Lindh. Peace.
I apologise to those who live in or for some other reason like Shit Creek Idaho. And I apologise to the people of Shit Creek Minnesota who were neglected from my previous post. Next time I mention dumb kids blowing things up, I'll be sure to mention Shit Creek Minnesota. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, a couple of things you've forgotten in the race to condemnation A couple of things that seem to have slipped by people. • Kaczynski (Unabomber) was a recluse with known psychological issues. • McVeigh was somewhat reclusive, as well, displaying obvious psychological issues. • International terrorists have bombed the United States. • Person or persons unknown have attacked the United States with biological weapons. • Kaczynski, McVeigh, Nichols, the Ruby Ridge guy, those yahoos down in Texas, abortion-clinic bombings ... This one was an art student. • The happy face. Does anyone get it yet? We've got your usual activists stirring trouble at economic conferences, anarchists coming out of the woodwork to make the show spectacular, increasing armed dissent, and now the artists have stepped up to join the show. I know it's nice to vent scorn, e.g. Shit Creek, Idaho; the Nirvana t-shirt; dumb white-bread punk; &c. But can anyone connect the dots? What, beside ridicule, does Cobain have to do with these bombings? A friend pointed it out when I told him it was an art student: Artists are coming to realize, as a collective, that we're dead. Society has, in its mad scramble for everything the artists aspire to, rendered us essentially useless. "No future," as the Connorism goes. Instead of putting the rifle in his mouth, he chose a reflection of the values of the world. It doesn't make it right, but haven't I been saying lately that life is performance art? Think about it. The reds we expect. The anarchists we expect. The backwater uber-conservative militiamen, we expect. But the art students? It's on, people. An artist has just put down and what bugs me is that most of my artist friends have been wondering when one of ours was going to step to the table and ante up. What is left is the so-called "establishment" itself. It's now about what you have, not how you feel, and that specific sentiment is one that is prevalent in our bomber's psychology. I'll stand on this statement to the ends of the earth. Aim all the scorn you want. But Life is Performance Art. As far as our bomber is concerned, he's already dead, and was before he planted the first bomb. Pour out your scorn--that's the point. The bombings leave you with a simple choice: Pour your scorn and reinforce his point, or simply ignore him and carry on advocating the status quo. In case nobody noticed, his one request for a peaceful surrender was to not be physically abused by the cops; this is also a piece of performance art. What's the point of surrendering peacefully if they're just going to hurt you anyway? And in front of the whole fucking world, he asked for this simple human dignity, and got it. And if anyone wonders why he had to request that point in the first place ... well, that, too, is part of the point. Pour your scorn upon him. I'm not going to tell you not to. But this is much bigger than petty sentiment. When the psychotics, the haters, and the militants stepped up, well, technically it was what we expected of them. But we've been bombed and hit with anthrax; they're killing the journalists; the world has put its foot down several times recently, including replacing the United States on two UN commissions with a notorious abuser of human rights (to the UN Human Rights committee) and a drug-producing nation (UN Drug Abuse committee); the Saudis cleared their throats; and now the artists, apparently, are stepping up to sound off. Many artists across the country tonight are wondering about this. No future? Are we no longer necessary? Is this the world the people want? And all I can tell you is that when one of ours steps up like this, it's a declaration that the game is afoot. It is my best hope that the artists should use their talents to win this fight. The poison pen, the musical spirit, the brushstroke of history, so to speak. But if there is no future, if the people are no longer paying attention ... well, what, really, is left restraining us? That's the nearest I can give you on the psychology of this. Personally, when I read the note, I fell over laughing. Our bomber was dead before he started. This is, believe it or not, his parting gift. All of us in the artistic corner are aghast because even in our pessimism, we're always hopeful. That it's gotten this far is a sobering moment. But put the happy face and "art student" together with the note, and you'll learn much about this bomber. It's like Littleton and WTC-9/11. It's terrible. It's tragic. But I'm not in any way, shape, or form, surprised. I am quite confident that, whether or not our bomber has read Mr Cady, he is aware of that to which Cady writes. It is a cold, cold feeling--bone cold. And if anyone who lived in either the 1980s or the 1990s has any doubt about the destruction of art taking place at the hands of economic demand, you haven't been watching. Who here saw The Fast and the Furious? Did you go see it for Vin Diesel's acting prowess? I cringed, after the release of Phantom Menace when people said they weren't impressed with the effects; of course, those people didn't realize what they were actually seeing. To do that work, to make it look that good, and then be told you suck because it wasn't so crappy as to be obvious? Go ahead and pour scorn on this bomber. I only wish he'd found Goldman before this; and if he found her, I wish he'd read her reflections on political violence. Once part of a cabal to assassinate an industrialist, Goldman would eventually renounce violence and stand by the assailant as a decent man, seeking through the rest of her work to prove it, and also to prove that humans are capable of learning from mistakes. It becomes clear that such a brand of political violence achieves little directly, and is not a proper agent of change. But our bomber, through this drama, has left you a clear statement that this is how far it's gotten. Does anyone wonder how or why it's gotten that far? Life is performance art. He will spend his life in jail and nobody will ever ask how it got this far. And that's the point. Things are bad in this country. But hey, at least we have someone to pour scorn on. So there's no need to worry about how bad it's getting, right? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry Tiassa, but the punk is not some martyr or fulcrum to an underground movement of angry and frustrated artists. His opinions on society are worth shit. He wandered about rtying to kill people. If anything, he is what's wrong with the USA, and as always people will want to blame Ninetendo games or taxes or the education system, instead of blaming the weiner who actually did it. The kid did it because he's a bastard who thinks it's okay to harm other people for his own gratification. He should be tossed in prison. If any artists in the USA feel frustrated with the way their country is going, I would think they might want to get into politics and make a change, or create some art which might inspire individualism and free thought, rather than revere a sick little turd who thinks it's ok to blow people up. He was not an artist. He was an art student. Does he represent "art students"? I doubt it very much. Cobain has noghitn to do with it; people always want something to blame. "Oh, my son isn't just a serial rapist, it's because the education system let him down..." Screw that crap. A total cop out. No, it's not bigger than petty sentiment. He's a dick, and deserves much scorn. Life is not performance art. Life is life. There is no parting gift from this bomber nut. I expect most Americans will forget the guy's name in a month or two. Without looking it up on the web, can you tell me the names of the people who attacked the WTC in New York and the Pentagon in Washington? Three thousand or so people died; surely that's a big enough statement about American society that you would remember their names? As for reasons and how it got this bad and all that, I would suggest you are ignoring the entire history of the world. There have always been arse-hole nutter losers who wanted to hurt people for some bullshit reason they invented in their mummy-doesn't-love-me little minds. Societies change, yes, but the appearance of such losers is not necessarily due to the downfall of empire. They just exist. And societies need to be protected from them; we don't need to revere them.
Adam--do you TRY to blow it out your ass, or is that an accident? And with such a statement, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the subject. Martyrdom is not the point here. Neither is justification. You're almost there. But such bland declarations only serve to avoid the point. I take it, then, that what you think we should do is get rid of all the dissenters? Is that Australian wisdom, or just Australian frustration? I know it's easier to imagine that you know what goes on in other people's heads. But such summaries of the situation only serve to stoke your righteous fury. They do nothing toward the problem. And he will be. In case you missed it, that's part of the point. Last major player meeting that qualification was Ronald Reagan. Be careful what you wish for. But stating the obvious doesn't help, either. What you have overlooked by resorting to the most simplistic possible solution is important. What, are you going to suddenly believe in the honest politician? Part of the problem here is that as a politician, an artist would be devoting themselves to something that is not their first calling and talent. They will be relying on secondary attributes to contribute to society, and thus will not be contributing their maximum potential. Who was the last "outsider" in the American political game? Ralph Nader, who did not spend his career painting pictures or writing novels. And before that? Ross Perot, a technology and security billionaire and player in international political scandals. It's a nice solution, I admit, but hardly a realistic one. You must have missed part of my post. We'll see how many revere him. In the meantime, artists are watching and wondering what point it's at, whether it's really at that point, and what that means. One need not revere someone to have a viable interest in an event. How hard should I laugh at you here? Thank you. That one lightens my spirits as much as a bong rip. You ought to package that shite and sell it for $15 a gram. It's simple: • When Littleton happened, I was not surprised. Why? Because I and everyone I know had our days when we literally wanted to blow up the world. But we didn't. I suppose we're revering Klebold and Harris if we wonder how it got that far? If we wonder what made the unacceptable solution the only solution? • My first reaction to WTC was, "Well, someone finally did it." What? Who didn't know it was coming someday? One need not revere terrorism in order to explore its reasons for existing. If one points out that poverty and illiteracy contribute to terrorism, are they advocating terrorism, or merely pointing out the factors in a society that lend to terrorism? • In the sense of Littleton: yeah, actually, he does to an extent represent art students. But they, as with myself and my friends, chose not to vent their frustrations in a harmful manner. One need not revere this bomber in order to wonder what that final difference is that makes the unacceptable solution the only solution. As you go on, you only prove yourself more and more dense. • Cobain does have something to do with it. I mean, it's years later and he's still wearing the t-shirt. He's listened to a lot of Nirvana to assuage his unhappiness. Or at least to find sympathy. That's why this town went nuts after the '92 explosion. People took that style and made it a trend. It wasn't. Nobody should feel that way; that was part of the point. And then everyone wanted to feel that way. I'll take the snobby road and say that that monster called "grunge" is incomprehensible if you're not here. However, what Cobain has to do with it specifically is only in the mind of our bomber. But do you understand that that whole artistic movement was about unhappiness? Was about misery? It was popular because it was a call to solidarity for the miserable. What each of them does with it is their own, but to say Cobain has nothing to do with it is ... ridiculous. What the hell topic are you posting in? What is your purpose in life? Just to bitch about people? Understand something, boy: the Revolution is starting and it's a very, very bad time for it to do so. You seem to miss the point that it's down to the art students. Hello?! How bad is it when it has spread to the chronically indifferent? In one related sense, I'm glad you're not American. See, Americans throw out their prejudices every once in a while, but only for new ones. The old prejudice is that art students are lazy, indifferent, and snobby. Dangerously activist cannot simultaneously be on that list. Maybe if it was his neighborhood post office I'd leave it at lazy, but not over that many states. Must be those Aussie schools that teach you how to know what people think. Life is performance art. Otherwise, there would be no letter, and there would be no happy face, and there would be more than damage and injuries; there would be a trail of bodies. More bodies from bigger bombs. You're talking about a country where people can't remember the names of presidential assassins. Hell, you're talking about a country where people don't even remember that assassinations took place. Again, you're talking about the United States. I'm an American. I never bothered to learn their names in the first place. We have twelve spellings for almost any given Muslim name. By ... eighteen pilots? No, I never bothered to memorize 216 names. But his name isn't important. I can say Kaczynski (and even spell it wrong), and people just blink. You usually have to say "Unabomber". Besides, it was a smiley-face. There will, most likely, be an ABC (American Broadcasting Company) weekly movie on it sometime next year. No, I would suggest I'm not. Because: As long as fuckup reactions like this are the standard, there will always be more coming. Maybe there's something you don't get about Americans. Part of our problem is a specific form of intracultural shock. After all the promises and ideals heaped on American children, they grow up and learn that it's all bullshit. Anyone can be president? My ass. White, male, Christian. With the exception of a couple of Deists at the beginning, presidents are white, male, and Christian. But damn, they used to tell children that a lot. They also used to tell children, and still do today as far as I can tell, that if they work hard they can be anything they want to be. Well, that anything really doesn't mean anything. Happiness or success is a state of working hard enough to have a home to come to and collapse because you're too tired to give a fuck about anyone. I know it's nice to speculate and generalize, Adam, but what is obviously clear is that you do not understand Americans, and furthermore I doubt your understanding of artists. Well, American artists I'll guarantee. I can't speak for Australian artists. Funny, that. I live in a country that was founded on revolution. You live in a country that was founded as a prison sentence. Perhaps this is one of those fundamental perspective things, but I don't tend to think of the men and women who kicked the British out of our territories to be losers. Nor do I consider the more radical characters of American history--e.g. John Brown, Emma Goldman, or others who committed acts deemed criminal by the society--to be losers. This guy? I'll let "loser" stand without objection. But I will also raise a toast to him because you've proven his point, and I have to at least give him that. But you oughta come on over, then. With so demonstratively little understanding of either the United States or the intricacies of human behavior, you'd make a fine American. I realize you prefer fewer obligations to your fellow human being than I prescribe, but as such you should consider that part of what you're missing by exscinding certain obligations to humanity is the experience of dealing with those obligations. There's nothing wrong with choosing fewer obligations. Except that you really shouldn't dare to pretend understanding of certain issues. In this case, you seem to simply be advocating your own judgment against a person, which is well and fine. But the spirt of revolutionary chaos is starting to spill over in this country, and I happen to give a rat's ass why. If I had a choice of what was important--why this happened or jumping on the condemnation bandwagon with Adam, I'd get in the Batmobile and run the bandwagon off the road. Oh, wait, I do have a choice. Perhaps you hadn't figured out that examining why a bad thing happens often helps you prevent the event in the future. The next stunt bomber will end up killing a load of people. Short of putting soldiers in the streets, installing curfews, and limiting liberty of movement, what ideas have you to offer toward preventing the next bomber from going into the field? This is about much more than the bomber himself. He's merely a symptom. And yes, life is performance art. Yours is, too, and I know you're aware of it. At least, for the amount of performance you put on, I would hope you're aware of it. Otherwise you're just being damned irresponsible. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm not sur ethat having a different opinion qualifies as not understanding. That attitude is what's called fascism. The good old "You don't agree with me so you're wrong" when it is a matter of opinion and not self-evident fact. If they try to blow people up, absolutely. The legal system has that duty, that obligation to the people. I have no righteous fury about this matter. I don't care enough for that. Is it justification? For what? No, it's called protecting a society from those who wish to harm it. Someone starts blowing up members of a society, you toss them in prison, protect society from them. The bomber's reasons are basically irrelevent. Now if the guy had gone into politics to voice his opinions reasonable, without trying to kill his countrymen, then his opinions would have value. One of those civilised behaviour things. I'd hardly call Ronald Reagan an artist. Unless you consider the artistry of getting people to vote for him. Haha. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe not. But I'd like to believe that a citizen would have the wits to make a decent choice between A) blowing up his neighbours, and B) Trying to do something productive if he doesn't like the status quo. I think the same is true of many people in politics. We have lawyers, accountants, actors (Ventura, apparently an artist because he worked as an actor), and more. Since this is basically what all our politicians are like, I'd say that is the realistic situation. That sacrifice is part of the price for working in politics. Ideally, you sacrifice your own time and effort for the good of the state. Unfortunately people tend to do it for money and power instead. Bomber boy, instead of having any kind of principles and making any kind of sacrifice to do any kind of good, would rather just kill or maim people. Xev might say "ad hominim". I say fascist, as pointed out above. So friggin what? He probably read Shakespeare in high school. Does that make Shakespeare responsible? Does Willy have something to do with this? I'd say a big part of the popularity of "grunge" was that it required very little skill or talent. Garage bands popped up everywhere, all playing the same fuzzy chords and hanigng their heads trying to immitate the guys on MTV. People did it because it made the dream of becoming a rock star a little easier, since they didn't actually need to play the instuments. Fair enough. Then it is fair to say Shakespeare, Marilyn Manson, the Beatles, that animated Bambi movie, his seventh grade history teacher, and everything else that he ever had contact with was also something to do with it. I don't think that can be true. I have probably had many common experiences in my life, yet I don't go around blowing people up. My Credence Clearwater Revival tape does not make me want to kill people. Nothing I own, have seen or heard, or feel or think right now, makes me want to put bombs in letter boxes. Why? Because our thoughts and actions based on those thoughts are not autonomic bodily responses. We choose what we do. I was spanked as a kid. I do not reflexively kill and maim people. No popular rock star, music, or movies can be used as a reason or excuse for what this idiot did. Blame the one thing responsible: him. I recall people said that in the 60s. I didn't miss the point, I simply disagreed with it. I think it's wrong to assume that art students are a cohesive or identifiable group within society, or that as a whole they feel the same thing. Why not say "it's down to the Cobain fans" or "it's down to the skinny white kids"? His being an art student has no bearing on other art students. You are imagining some measure or meaning where none exists. It is like saying that "it is down to the business administration students" when George Bush Junior starts blowing people up (he was one). Oh no! It's down to the business administration students! Surely this is a sign that business admin students across America are finally fed up with our society! I suggest you start a thread called "Life is performance art" and try to explain your position logically. Don't just assume that life NOT being performance art means more corpses, with no rationalisation. Have a shot at defining why you think this, rationally. It is entirely possible that I don't understand Americans. But I can't see any reason to use "artists" to refer to any identifiable group or type of people. I'm pretty sure Hitler liked to paint. I guess he's one of that type of people who are fed up with American society? There is no unifying condition which makes up "artists". Thus there is no class or type of people in America called "artists" who feel that "the Revolution is starting". Actually, the whole prison thing, although an ongoing joke, was only a tiny part of Australia's beginning. Most of our original European settlers were simply free people looking for free land, a chance to own land and have a better life than living in tiny little slums in older countries. The settling of Australia by Europeans was not based on a prison sentence or, as in the case of the USA, on people killing people over a difference of opinion (remarkably similar to the case of this bomber punk); it was based on people seeking better lives. That's because they won, by killing people. They were disruptive elements in a changing society, and killed an enormous number of people. Now a new society exists there, is reasonably stable, and has another guy running about killing people over his opinions. In both cases, the society in question has a duty to defence itself. This kid is dumb punk who wanted to kill to get some gratification, whatever form that gratification took for him. The founders of the USA - from the slave owners to the Founding Fathers to the settling pioneers who totally fucked over the natives there - did what they did for their own gratification, and in doing so killed about eight million locals and built the wonderful nation you have today. So yes, your nation was founded by people willing to kill to get their own way. Think of them however you wish. Please clarify. Again, you equate disagreement with invalidity. Fascism. Absolutely the opposite is true. I beileve we have a duty to our fellow humans to not blow them up if we feel frustrated about the taxes or the mystical brain-control waves coming out of Hollywood and piercing out tinfoil caps. Bomber boy felt no such duty to his neighbours. Not at all. I advocate a self-evident standard: that a society can not exist if its members are free to physically seek their gratification at the cost of other members of that society. In other words, society can't exist if the members of a society are allowed blow up the other members of that society. Yes, perhaps. Or perhaps I see that such an activity has basically been dragged too far and is now simply an excuse. And perhaps I see that whatever the reasons, your opinions are not enough reason to go out and kill your neighbour. Understanding the reasons is fine, as is attempting to prevent such actions in the future by trying to "fix" the reasons, but those are not at fault. The kid has free will. He chose to blow up his neighbour to make himself feel better. I've given my ideas about this before. I would suggest a radical change to the formal education system. First hour each school day should be martial arts training. This takes some of the nervous energy out of the kids, and would, I think, leave them less restless and more able to sit and learn for the rest of the day. It may also reduce bullying and such in school, if a bully realises that his target can break his nose. It may instill some self-discipline in the students. After that hour, I suggest an hour of the kids and the teacher just sitting around discussin world events, politics, philosophy, et cetera, with the class goal being to have kids learn that opinion is fine, but don't beat someone up over it. This one simple concept, if held in later life, would probably mend a great many of the world's problems. After that hour, normal school studies.
What, do people suddenly NOT suck? Integrity, Adam, or at least consistency So you'd rather insist that bitching is the point? Look, I don't give a fuck if the only reason this is important to you is that it gives you someone else to condemn. Flat out, your response to my post showed that you're responding to side issues. Thus, you demonstrated your lack of understanding of the subject. But that your first responsorial point that the punk is not some martyr or fulcrum is a great point for a different issue. Can you understand that? Or does your opinion that you understand all mean you won't bother? Like I said. So much for the revolution. By your standard, we'd still be a British colony. Oh .... This is a great line, Adam, and I'll tell you why. All you have in this topic is your scorn and self-admitted hatred of people. Furthermore, you admit that you don't actually care about the topic. In that sense, you're only encouraging more scornful apathy. Good show, good show. I always wonder why it is that people would rather condemn instead of figure out what's going on. I consider it a weakness in people that; stand in the synagogue, as such, and proclaim your faith in the idea. Unfortunately, it's the wrong idea for the wrong topic. Personally, I think you just get off calling people fascist, or "white-bread punk" (a racist term, by the way), saying "Shit Creek", and reminding us how much you hate people because they suck. It really does look quite stupid. You're playing the role of imbecile here. The manifestations of dissatisfaction have taken a dramatic and significant turn in this country, and it's enough for you to sit Down Under whining like the Queen herself. The bomber's reasons are largely irrelevant in terms of sentencing. Unless, of course, he's got one whopper of a story that he can prove, and it doesn't seem like he's going to bother trying that route. But for people who care about the situation beyond the benefit of having another person to cuss out and feel superior to, the motivations of the bomber are quite, quite relevant, indeed. It's like the post-Littleton craze. People wanted to know what happened, but they wanted the perpetrators' reasons to be irrelevant. They wanted to know why it happened, but they didn't want to pay attention to the reasons given. It doesn't matter whether or not you accept anyone's reason for doing it. Littleton happened--oh, fuck. What happens then is that everyone who's paying attention checks off a little note concerning the fact that mundane complaints about the world, some of them about things that allegedly "build character" have suddenly become lethal. Now, if people suck enough to hate them, I understand why you wouldn't want to care about how to prevent future events of such a nature. Of course, I would laugh if anyone expected me to respect that position. Hmmm ... I'll try to be short on this point so you can understand. I know you don't like it when I use words to explain the point. • Ronald Reagan was an actor • Drama (the business of actors) is part of the arts • There are bad artists, and there are good artists • Get it? Good. Now then, perhaps you might be kind enough to explain the plausability of your suggestion. How, for instance, is a 21 year-old art student at the end of his psychiatric rope to get enough credibility to run for president in fourteen years? Or Congress in four? Your suggestion pretends that "political credibility" is harmonious with dissent; that is, that he might continue to be a dissenter and be taken seriously enough by the financial powers that he can afford to make a good run for office. And that's a ridiculous fantasy. What are you pretending about people? Some of them are literally stretched that thin. It's like your stupid point about his mommy or whatever. Although I have no particular idea where it came from, hence the question about what topic you were posting in, such stupid points as your aforementioned mommy-bit are the result of people who would rather feel scorn than actually figure out what's going on. Mommy and daddy psychology as an excuse is actually a comedian's exploitation of a tough idea. But the point is that the people who develop those "understandings" of how things happen--it's their effing job to understand. Yeah, well, that must be the classic Australian education shining through again. Judgment, not knowledge. Judgment eternal. Are you sure you're not religious? You have no idea how the bomber measures his degree of sacrifice at what point. And your position indicates that you don't care about ever understanding that. And I might say your density is self-evident. All you seem to be able to focus on is the enumeration of reasons to condemn someone. Try looking beyond your own confessed misanthropy or don't pretend to understand the issue. Maybe if you spent more time trying to understand people, and less time holding them in contempt, you wouldn't need such clarification. I can't tell you exactly what is in his mind as regards Cobain. But, being Australian, I understand if you happened to miss the massive catharsis people endured here between '92 and 2000 that resulted in the horrifying revelation that people would rather bitch about their unhappiness than do anything about it. In the wake of Layne Staley's death, commentators are pounding on the issue that Seattle's music heroes are dropping. But all any of the misanthropes can do is take pleasure in this fact and remind us that drugs suck. Such misanthropes, unfortunately, are quite common. That they are well-placed is not coincidental; misanthropy is often what is required by convention to earn that placement. But, as with Layne and Landrew and Kurt, it's not enough to just remind us that drugs suck. It's like this guy I knew once, the husband of a friend of my college girlfriend's mother. He was a miserable wretch, as manifest by his actions. A drug addict with several drugs of choice (alcohol, cocaine, methamphetamine, &c), a crappy husband regularly violating his marital vows, a crappy father with anger-management problems, gambling problems (he once lost the family Cadillac in a poker game), ad nauseam. And they tried. They sent him to Gamblers Anonymous, to Narcotics Anonymous, &c. These are all reasonable control forums, but none of them really went beyond that. Maybe they do in better places than backwater towns, but in this case, what was clear was that nobody asked why he drank, snorted, f'd around, gambled, and so forth. Merely managing the symptoms does not alleviate the disease itself. It merely alleviates the symptoms. How Cobain figures into it is an issue known only by the bomber, and in the larger scheme of things, it's of lesser importance. But I do not understand why people need to box people into a category in order to justify a specific, preferred response. It accomplishes nothing. Although responding to this is, technically, a digression, you must understand that "grunge" is part of the reason Kurt killed himself. Listen to the bands at the core of that movement: Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Nirvana. And then listen to the crap that came after: Bush comes to mind, and most of those bands are so far out of mind now that I can't even recall their names. Hell, one AiC ripoff even borrowed a title from an AiC song for their album. Mudhoney, a branch of the Green River-Pearl Jam evolution, is the last band standing and very few people have noticed them. However, a chap from Australia I worked with back in '93 told me that Mudhoney was known in Australia, so there's that. (One of the best grunge compilations I ever heard, centered wholly around Seattle bands, came out of Australia. I'll have to dig up the vinyl.) But if assessments of talent are so prevalent in your criteria, I'm not entirely sure what to say. We might, comparatively, throw out all of the hope, all of the kinship, all of that positive spirit that, say, punk music, gave to a generation of disenchantment. People feel, Adam. They don't just imitate. First of all, you're right on with the first part of that. I'm sorry you reject it. But this does explain a good deal to me. If you think of humans as being that simplistic, it's no wonder you hate them. And that's good, Adam. But it's quite irrelevant, isn't it? Or do you think everyone should feel like you do? Something about "fascist"? Maybe? Is it your education or your misanthropy that compels you to such silliness? Nobody's going to blame it on a rock star. But perhaps in your melodrama you've missed the fact that a good number of degrees exist between having nothing to do with it and being the "excuse" for it. Reality falls somewhere in between. Oh, we will. And then someone else will do it. And the people who watched this one happen will look at each other, as they did after the shooting in Littleton, and say, "How did this happen? Why, God, why?" Funny, that. Catch the director's edition of Easy Rider on DVD ... some of those people in the 60s address that very point, and also the reasons why it didn't happen then. Some of the interviews on that disc are amazing. This time, though, the Revolution is using bombs, and not sunshine and friggin' rainbows. Disagreement is fair enough. But beyond identification, there is the fact that the sickness has infected the artistic sector. Perhaps you don't get it, but our revolution is with the pen, the brush, the sculptor's chisel; it's in the bodies and forms of dance and the emotions of drama. It's not supposed to be stuffed in mailboxes across several states. And when that happens, and its one of ours, and his tantrum sounds that familiar, we owe it to ourselves to examine the situation. Because I can guarantee you this had more to do with philosophies understood in art than philosophies understood in being white and skinny. Right. Nobody says it has to. Stop. Check that. Rather, Adam says it has to so he can refute the point. You have to feel, Adam. Hating and condemning are acts of deliberate will; they are not feelings. And let's clear up this hating and condemning thing right now, so you don't have to ask about it (dates and times are GMT -8): • People suck. I hate people. (Am I Severely Outdated? 5.10.02, 10.54) • People suck. I hate people. (Uganda's army--kids, 5.10.02, 10.30) • I hate people. People suck. (LOTR - How stupid can people get? 5.09.02, 20.27) • People suck. I hate people. (Weight prejudice, 5.09.02, 20.19) • I hate people. People suck (Mac: The Satanic and Communist OS, 4.21.02, 22.52) • I hate everyone. People suck (Zero Tolerance Teasing Policies, 4.15.02, 2.22) • Crappy as it is to say it, people suck, and life is painful because of that. (ibid. 4.11.02, 23.44) • Fuggin idiots. People suck. I hate people. (Cat commits hate crime, 4.11.02, 23.27) • People suck. I hate people. (We mustn't forget, 4.8.02, 17.12) At least you're consistent, Adam. Oh, wait. No, you're not. But I'll get to that in a moment. Actually, being that I am among American artists, I'd say you're the one imagining things. Well, we do blame the coke-addicted economic devotion of the American 1980s on a glut of MBAs who, instead of provided services to accommodate needs, helped to create the illusion of need in order to foster better profits. Anyone who saw the US in the 1980s should know enough to leave the MBAs out of the current situation. After all, this is a continuation of 1980s politics in the Bush administration. Well, they were fed up with society and so they hollowed its soul. Vote for a few cycles in America. You'll still believe that people suck, and you'll still hate them. But after a few cycles, political descendancy becomes quite clear. Oh, it's in the works. I'm taking my time with it because it's an important subject to me. I suppose I could just write it off the cuff and bash whatever I feel like bashing and remind you all that people suck and express hatred, but I'd rather make my point. Look: our bomber didn't want to actually kill people. His moral paradigm, yes, degraded to the point where the consequence was somehow acceptable. But the primary intent was not to kill. Had this not been carefully devised to make a statement pertaining to abstractions (e.g. performance art) and merely about killing people, he would have used bigger bombs and probably not gone to the trouble of the smiley-face. There is a psychology of political violence. Political violence manifests itself in many ways, but the common factor in all political violence is the perception of a lack of any other means of addressing the situation. My father once pointed out that people don't revolt en masse until they or their children are starving in the streets. I agree with this point because it demonstrates a certain lack of consideration (e.g. Why are people starving?) and because it is largely observable. In 1776, our people answered the call to arms against the authority. In 1861, people answered the call to arms against the authority. It hasn't happened since. And, considering the number of calls to arms against authority the people have endured ... well, we haven't answered any, en masse, in 141 years. But this individual perceived a lack of options, stepped onto the box, and placed the call. As of yet, nobody is answering that call. Well, we could start here. The number of bullshit tit-for-tat yes/no exchanges people get into. Or there's you, who doesn't seem to care about anything yet sees the need to bitch as if you had a point. After a while, the "People suck, I hate people" routine gets to be a little comedic. What, how seriously should we take you? Should we notify the embassy that a guy in Australia is repeatedly pronouncing his hatred for humankind and may pose a danger? That would be a little too seriously, I think. But you're onstage and you know it. Furthermore, people stand every day for moral abstractions, making points with their actions. Do parents in Australia censor their language or actions in front of the children? Why? Role models, positive examples .... Heck, the current US military action is a piece of performance art. What does it say? It says, "Fuck with us and we'll fuck you." If it was a more legitimate expression of common welfare and defense, we might find more of that American way that's apparently at stake present within the drama itself. Why is it significant, for instance, that the protest movement of the American Vietnam era centered on college campuses? There are certain motifs that run through subcultures. It just happens that this art student has seized on a common motif within the artistic subculture and elevated it to fanaticism. It is its own form of moralistic, philosophical fundamentalism. Well, if the stock market goes down, is there any unifying condition among brokers? I mean, when the numbers are plunging into the shithole, is there any common condition among brokers and investors? If art had a stock market, you'd see a downward line that begins somewhere off the chart, and ends somewhere off the chart, and you'd see several marks at different points on the Y axis that represent prior speculations of what equals "Zero". But it just keeps plunging. This somehow reminds me of our recent discussions on atheism. Let's prove that you cannot objectively classify something and thus disprove something else. It doesn't work that way. The realization is not cohesive or uniform, but it's there. The artists I know are standing with their jaws open like codfish. Someone finally got around to what many people were decent enough to not countenance. The transition is important. You may call yourself Australian, but you're still Her Majesty's tool. That tendency to undermine the self is deserving of both admiration and scorn. I sometimes think the primary difference is that part about consent of the governed in our Declaration of Independence. The idea existed in Europe, but was not manifest except abstractly--that the people weren't revolting implied their endorsement. It seems that frequently, the people I meet who come from present and former British territories still think as if the people exist to serve and obey and uphold the government. Now, maybe they don't believe this, but they do hold attitudes that reflect it. But, for the record, the disagreement: /font]Technically, the response to this, in addition to the Revolution, is the Bill of Rights. I've boldface above complaints that have direct response in the Bill of Rights: 1. Free speech, religion, press; right to assemble. 2. Right to keep and bear arms. 3. No quartering of troops. 4. No unreasonable search & seizure. 5. No obligation to incriminate oneself before the law; guarantee of due process; no double-jeopardy. 6. Speedy trial before jury of peers. 7. Common law, civil suits; 8. No cruel or unusual punishment, no excessive bail. 9. Procedural--reservation of rights to the people. 10. Procedural--reservation of rights to the states. The rest of it is actually addressed in the primary Constitution itself, but being that you don't like to read long posts, and being that I am, in fact, getting long on this one, I'll spare us both that examination. But here's one to consider: how much of that Declaration can be restated of our American experience? Quite a bit. Quite a bit. • Refusal to assent to laws most necessary for the public good • Forbidding the passage of laws of immediate and pressing importance • Refusal to pass (accept) laws for the accommodation of large districts of people • Refusal to cause others to be "elected" (e.g. fight over federal judiciary is now into its third presidential term) • Multitude of new offices. (This despite "smaller government", and this goes beyond the current administration and taps an historical vein in the American experience. cf de Cleyre, Anarchism & American Tradition) • Standing armies • Affected to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil power • Combined with others to subject us to jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws • Quartering troops • Protecting troops from punishment for murder of civilians • There still exists, in the US, taxation without representation • The current administration, though not the first, is trying to deprive the accused of the benefit of trial by jury • The current administration, though not the first, is transporting people beyond the seas for pretended offenses (e.g. John Walker Lindh; they had to invent things to charge him with because technically, he hasn't broken any standing law, despite his choices.) • Removal of charters, abolishment of most valuable laws • Excited domestic insurrections among us (e.g. WTO'99) The point of all this, Adam, is that you've managed, in your contempt, to do something I had not thought of doing. You have directly elevated our bomber to the status of our founding Revolutionaries. Not all of those offenses can be tacked onto a president or the federal government, but such were the grievances of the people, and such are the conditions today. And everybody laughed at the Anarchists, for instance, when they compared themselves (even legitimately) to the Revolutionaries. I do truly find this experiential trend to be interesting. How do you manage to argue against yourself like that? It may be so fundamental as the purpose of government and citizen, but by law do the people of Australia exist for their government, or does the government exist for them? To qualify murders, unjust imprisonments, and such acts against the people by a government as a mere disagreement or difference of opinion strongly implies that people exist for the benefit of governments. And I find this notion both ridiculous and detrimental to the human species. Like I've pointed out in other threads, though, it might be that equality and freedom are bad for the species. Nonetheless, such a possibility changes nothing of the fact that you've elevated the bomber in your attempted condemnation. Good show, mate. So the people shouldn't have revolted? There's that Aussie education again? Or is it ESP? I love it when people who are part of the empire draw their lines for the Crown. Yep. That's the pointlessness of war. I'm one who finds all warfare unacceptable, so I find at least equally unacceptable the British willingness to kill to get their own way. It was a bad situation. But all this, then, points toward the idea that the Revolution should not have happened, and that the Crown should have been permitted to harm people in order to get its own way. So, Adam, do you have the balls? Go on, do it: Tell the American people they should still be British subjects. I know you want to. Do it. Well, in performance art, few things are made clear by the artist. Case in point: an artist in (I think) New York, went down onto the street and addressed the people. It was interactive performance art. Tell your frustrations, and the artist would respond. Focus your frustrations. Soon enough, the crowd was cussing and spitting at her. Shortly thereafter they began to tear out her hair and rip away her clothing. Police finally stepped in when people took out their coke razors and started cutting her to pieces. You can't do this trick more than once, really. And nobody was charged for attacking her, and the cokehead MBAs went along their way, chuckling about the stupid bitch who just let them have the pleasure of cutting her open. And that sentiment was the point. Yes, Mr. Cokehead MBA, you hate people so much that you'll arbitrarily try to destroy one if you think you have the chance. In the present case, you've proven his point with your lack of comprehension. Inasmuch as I can tell from your posts, the only merits are in dishonesty and the entrenchment thereof. People suck, so it's okay to do wrong if you're a large enough collective (e.g. a government) but if you're an individual, there's something somehow more wrong about the same behavior. That is at the essence of what you're pushing with your condemnation and reservation of human empathy. By focusing your anger at the sucky people you hate on him, you're undermining your own integrity. It's a bad thing that's happened here, but leave it to a subject of the Crown to lend it such slapstick irony. You're so desperate at this point I don't get why you bother. Really, if you could do anything but this pathetic condemnation and justification of condemnation, if you could show any dimension beyond being a soapbox bitch you might be able to put a couple of good points together. Scream fascism all you want. It is, as I understand, easier than comprehending the subject at hand. See? You stay so deeply within the realm of the tangible that it's actually a little sad. Empathy is less tangible. Your obligations toward people seem to have something to do with what they can give you and what you stand to lose to them. Extend that into the intangibles. After all, what's important, what you have or how you feel? Your reduced obligations to people are quite apparent in your hatred of people and your need to condemn instead of understand. That you're responding to the point with a diversion ... hell, is that your understanding, or am I a fascist because you are avoiding the point? You continually dismiss your obligation to understand your neighbors, and it shows in your devotion to your obligation to hate and condemn them. First off, why do you reduce this discussion to being "allowed to blow up" people? It seems that you are incapable of understanding what a pacifist (e.g. me) is, and therefore are devoted to disproving points that only you bring to the table. Instead of looking toward the greater benefit of people by understanding what has happened, you choose to condemn because it makes you feel better or something. But yes, you seem to be advocating your own condemnation of others instead of your own acquisition of understanding or the alleviation of circumstance that can come with that understanding. So because you're either sick of it or unable to understand it, condemnation and hate is the best you can manage? I'll take a page from your book: Who's dead? So, such attempts are good, but not for you? Those Aussie psychics ... by gawd, you know all, don't you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How would you make that happen? What studies? In that point, you're leaving a great amount of latitude to nullify any progress you hope to achieve by your plan. But really, how would you go about causing this change in society? In other words, convince 100,000,000 American parents to change their paradigm about education? Okay, now then ... Adam, you're officially on. Please address a this prior point of yours: So, why are you so pissed off at this guy? He's using what you've described as a damn useful tool in order to defend himself against the perceived people who suck. See, I'm starting to wonder if any of these posts have anything to do with the topics you're pretending to address. It's starting to look a little more like performance art of your own. That is, it seems as if you're merely talking out of your ass for the pleasure of condemning things. Satisfying that deep-down hatred you harbor towards people. Truly, maybe it won't be "necessary" someday. But I find your position in this thread laughable in light of your prior acknowledgement of the usefulness of violence and your long-standing hatred of people. Get over it, Space Monkey. Christ on a chalupa, man ... you and your sucky people .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
could soemone explain to me what message the kid was trying to convey by blowing people up? (in less than 200 words) thanks
I think Im going to have to side with ADAM on this one. The problem I have with this kid is that he chose innocent/RANDOM people to try and blow up. He didnt know if a kid would check the mail. I understand the hatred he had to do something like that - but I dont understand the targeting of innocent people. Its an inexcusable act - period. Its not right. It doesnt matter what your trying to say or whats the matter with you - thats what therapy is for. And there are other ways to make statements. Spraypaint your feelings across the city, rent a billboard, whatever... As long as it doesnt involve the demise of innocent people. Take carePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Far too much free time on my hands this weekend... I never insisted bitching is the point. You don't give a fuck? Would that be a lack of caring? The very thing you seem to be complaining about? Again, a lack of agreement does not constitute a lack of understanding. Responding to side issues? I believe I have been focused entirely on the matter of the bomber and what his acts mean. However, you seem to be trying to turn this thread about a bomber into a thread about what you think of me. I never claimed to understand all. In fact in these very forums I have made quite plain that I have more quetsions than answers. Not at all. I scorn the apathetic people. And no, a lack of really giving a damn about this matter does not make me generally apathetic. 1) No, I get off on sex. 2) I'm quite happy to call violent psychos "white-bread punks" and any other names I can think of. 3) At the core of fascism is the idea that any opinion other than the accepted one is incorrect and invalid, rather than just difefrent. 4) All this "stupid" and "imbecile" is really quite petulant, and again very far off topic. 5) The Queen does not whine. 6) I do feel, and am, far superior to that bomber punk. As for that guff about Reagan, it was simply to point out once again that "artist" does not refer to any cohesive layer of American society, et cetera... Figuring out what's going on is fine and good, as I mentioned in my previous post. However, it should not be seen as an excuse. Such reasons should not excuse such actions, as they seem to do quite often in both Australia and the USA. There is a very big difference between understanding these things and accepting/forgiving them. 1) So now Australia's educational standards are lacking? I recall a global survey recently found that Australia came far above the USA in both literacy and numeracy. I think we were second in literacy, behind Finland. 2) Judgement does not indicate religion. It indicates responsibility. Prejudice has tended to indicate religion quite often, however. 3) I have no idea of that bomber punk's standards, true. I don't need to. I understand that there are certain basic logical concepts involved in society and community, and in civilised behaviour, which this punk completely ignored. 4) Again, you assume I don't understand rather than that I have a different opinion. 1) Ad hominim or fascism yet again, take your pick. 2) Damn right I condemn the punk, that was kinda the point of the thread. To feel better, which to him in this case meant having said something about his society, he decided to blow people up. He deserves much scorn. 3) I would consider myself a misanthrope if I distrusted all people, but I don't. I tend to hope for the best from people, but in many cases am disappointed. This punk definitely gets on my list of bad people. I'm pretty sure that does not constitute misanthropy. 4) You saying "You don't understand the issue", with no qualification other than your own opinion, is really wearing thin. No shit Sherlocke. I have no doubt that "the core", as you say, of the grunge movement had value, maybe even talent. I like a lot of Nirvana's stuff. However, like just about any other trend, it spawned a bucket-load of prue crap, lazy talentless knock-offs. When it comes to blowing people up, yes indeed. Violence should be used to defend ourselves and others who are under attack, and of course to attain food. Acceptance of the idea that violence is just fine and dandy to resolve differences of opinion, or attain gratification in any form such as religious or political, is bloody pathetic. It is contrary to the way many our societies function. Now if we were Spartans, it might be a good idea to accept violence as a valid method of dealing with any small problem. But we are not Spartans. Even you admitted that people have short memories. I recall that after the Columbine high school thing, some political and religious brass-doorknobs blamed Marilyn Manson. This happens quite often. This has always been the case. It is not new, it is not a response to recent developments in American society, it is not some incoming wave. Artists have always been there to publish Equality, Brotherhood, Democracy, to paint funny pictures of politicians, to mock kings in song, and so on. This is nothing new. They are not an incoming wave; rather, they, like many others, are part of the balance of society. If you are interested in more of my thoughts on this particular type of thing, please feel free to read some of my stuff at my website. Did I ever mention that people suck, and I hate people? Nah, you are! No, you are! Did not! Did too! Good grief Charlie Brown... Bullshit. If he did not want to kill and maim people, he would not have put bombs here and there. Sorry to tell you this, but some things are that simple. As for the smiley face, well, many bombers have signatures, as do many serial killers and such. A serial killer collecting fingers does not indicate that he/she is making some artistic or political statement. We have very different views of what constitutes a revolutionary political statement. Your view seems to be: a punk who likes to blow up innocent civilians who may or may not have anything to do with the government/system he (in your opinion) despises. If this is what passes for an educated view of politics in the USA these days, then no wonder there is trouble a-brewin'. Odd that, don't ya think? Common motifs indeed. I mentioned in a thread ages ago that I once attended one of those anti-globalisation rallies in Melbourne, just out of curiousity. I asked them why they were protesting. None of them ave a rational, well-considered response. Some mentioned socialism, yet could not tell me what the word meant. A large number of the people there were university students. Why do we see so many uni students at such things? Universities hold large numbers of young people who are suddenly having their eyes opened to a larger world, yet they don't yet have much experience or (unfortunately, in many cases) much reasoning ability. Being young and full of beans, seeing the injustices of the world but not yet prepared to sit down and do some serious research and consideration of solutions, these young people massed at universities gather in groups and shout about it at the most obvious target: them. The people with the financial and political power. The common motif is youth and inexperience. The Queen does not actually hold any political power in Australia. I respect the Queen, as a role and position, as part of our history. I do not believe the people exist to serve the goverment. I believe the government exists to serve the people, or at least it should. I believe individuals have a duty to protect the state as a means of maintaining their own safety and their neighbour's safety; and the state has a duty to protect the individual. Practically, no. Conceptually, yes. How do I manage to argue against myself like that? I don't see that I did. I described both as people/groups who used violence to get what they wanted. And I clearly stated that what you think of each is entirely up to you. Have I elevated the bomber? I guess that depends on your outlook. I recall someone posted a link to a personality test a while ago. One of the results described scale, for example whether we would apply the same standards to one person or one million people, a brother or a stranger, et cetera. I scored 100% in that one. In other words, there is no philosophical difference between murdering one person and murdering one million people. In the same way, the bomber punk is the same as a state which would bomb the crap out of a city to gain an oil concession. A lemon is a lemon, regardless of its size. I hope I have explained this clearly enough for you. I suggest you read that website of mine to get some ideas of what I think of these matters. I'm not sure if I've violent revolt yet. Of course he did it for gratification. He was discontent with something - politics, religion, television, his society as a whole, something. Taking action to alleviate dissatisfaction is seeking gratification. Actually Australia is not part of the British empire. That empire no longer exists. We are, however, part of the Commonwealth. No you don't know that. Whether another silly assumption or a little attempt at goading me into saying things you might enjoy refuting, the fact is you are wrong. You don't know I want to say any such thing. The short version: I can understand both sides of the matter. You're making things up out of whole cloth again. I deplore dishonesty, and have not claimed otherwise. Refer to my comments about scale up there. I never condemned human empathy. 1) No, your own imagination is undermining images you have created by yourself, which really has very little to do with me. 2) This continual reference to the Crown demomstrates a lack of knowledge of Australia's status as a sovereign nation. Fine, I'll refrain from describing you as "fascist", since you seem to take offence. I shall use instead one of Xev's favourite terms: ad hominim. An entire paragraph of it. I'm really sorry to be the one to let you in on this little secret Tiassa, but those bombs were tangible. Deaths and mutilations are tangible. I'm sorry if you don't like the idea that dead and injured people are more important to me than the bomber punk's possible attitudes toward performance art or his government. I highly doubt he did it to make himself feel worse. Very simple. As described, I see violence as fine for defence. Nobody was attacking this punk. If he had a disagreement with anyone, he was free (Freedom of speech over there, remember?) to make a big fuss about it. Instead he chose to be one of the sucky people and deploy bombs against a civilian population. He was not under attack. Ad hominim (Like that term better?) Good grief Charlie Brown, another entire paragraph of it...
*Puts on glasses and looks sternly at Adam* It is ad hominem, not hominim. Actually, that's about what everybody had been saying from day one, here. Never really thought it was a Arab terrorist. CNN has already tried and convicted him - screw "alleged" and the presumption of innocence. They also show some strange sympathy for him - he is 'misguided' and 'probably dosen't know the trouble he is in'. Fuck that. He injured several people, one is partially deaf. He does not deserve sympathy. Yeah, I know that age. I am that age. I can't pick a feild - but I do not go around hurting people. If guilty, throw him to the fucking wolves. Comparing him to our revolutionaries? No. They did not target innocent people at random. They targeted soldiers - and not randomly.
I keep hearing stuff about how he is a misguided kid and all that. We are seeing all these people offer all kinds of excuses for this kid, trying so VERY hard to understand why he went so "wrong". Now, I do not doubt the kid needs understanding and help, and I am not a "retribution as justice" kind of guy, but I want to ask one thing: What would all these people be saying if, instead of blonde WASP boy next door, this kid was middle eastern? Or ANY minority for that matter? We would not be hearing a damn word about "why", we would just be hearing, "kill the bastard!"
So your saying a person shouldn't be held accountable for their actions? Do you think the same way about the Unibomber or Timothy McVeigh or anyone that commits crimes? What if a close family member was killed by one of his bombs, would you think differently? Rehabilitated from what? Rehabilitation is a joke. It may work for some alcoholics or drug addicts - but it dont work for criminals. Take care Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
