Rhetoric and Radicalization - Controlling the Terror Meme

Even as many (especially Reeps) have already rushed to judgment on the origin of the San Bernardino mass shooting, former CIA security specialist Michael Morrell - as well as columnist David Ignatius - have warned about getting ahead of the story. Morrell on CBS Early Show observed, while admitting the couple may have been "radicalized":

"They may not have been planning this particular event. They may have gone to this party, got angry and decided to do this event based on that anger rather than a series of plots they were actually planning"

Which would explain the huge store of weapons left in their home, including 4500 bullets and 12 pipe bombs.  It also discloses the case may not as be as simple as labeling it "Islamic terrorism' when a workplace anger issue could have been the proximate trigger. Indeed, one of the victims - a 52 year old health inspector - Nicholas Thalasinos was one of the victims and a "Messianic Jew" who also "wasn't afraid to give his political and religious opinions" according to reports on MSNBC yesterday afternoon. One can then easily imagine him getting into a ferocious argument with Syed Farooq leading to him rushing out in a fit of anger then returning with a hell-bent Pakistani wife (who indeed may have radicalized him as some co-workers believe). The argument scenario is backed up by this report from The Times of Israel:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-victim-of-california-attack-had-argued-with-shooter-about-islam/

The piece notes "a heated argument weeks before the attack" but it may well have been revived at the party before Farooq "lost it" and decided to respond with violence. This also may be a lesson for us all, when we gather with family at Christmas to leave out politics and religion as topics for discussion! Because it turns out close family members are the prime murderers though you wouldn't know it from the media reports.

Morrell added one of the most salient points of all and Reepos ought to take note:

"Although they may have been (radicalized) terrorists, this may not have been a terrorist event. It depends on their motivation."

Morrell isn't being cute but simply separating proximate from distal causes. If in fact Farooq was enraged by what Nicholas Thalasinos said weeks earlier or at the party, say that he also "needed to be saved"  - then the motive wasn't explicitly a terrorist one, to sow fear in a community. It was to get even with Thalasinos and any perceived as backing his views.

As for David Ignatius, he warned on 'Morning Joe' that it is unwise to jump to conclusions (as the Reeps have done) just based on the names of this pair, and also added that Obama is wise not to move too far ahead of the actual facts.

What worries many of us, as Charlie Pierce framed it on Chris Hayes last night, is how hateful rhetoric may stir the pot even more - leading to brutal attacks on peaceful Muslims just trying to live their lives - and who condemn this recent attack as vigorously as any white Anglo.  This take recognizes how hateful rhetoric can prey on weak minds and lead to tragedies such as we've seen lately,

While the GOP candidates' histrionics is now forming a convenient political prop for exploitation, they forget that the actual nature of the shooters is not so critical as their access to mass destruction weapons and the rhetoric that triggered their radicalization. This is where "the bear sits with the buckwheat".  Whether lone wolf killers infected by right wing memes (Robert Lewis Dear), or garden variety lone nuts (Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza), or right wing terrorists (Dylan Roof, Tim McVeigh)   or Muslim terrorists (Nidal Hasan) - none could have wrought the slaughter they did without: a) access to lethal weapons, and b) having brains triggered by hateful rhetoric.

In the case of (a) irrespective of who or what group, none of the mass slaughters and mass shootings would have transpired if this nation had serious gun laws such as Australia's. (See the end of yesterday's post for details). Nattering gun lobby nabobs always insist "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but that trope got demolished when the first doggie that accidentally plopped on a loaded shotgun (resting on a couch) killed its human owner.  One exception disproves the rule, or the trope.

The unholy truth is that most shootings are  NOT ideological or random but rather domestic (in people's homes) - either suicides or one spouse (usually male) killing the other after a fiery argument.   Assaying all mass shootings between 2009 and 2015, the Huffington Post found that 70 percent occurred in the home. Of these, 57 percent involved a family member or current or former intimate partner. 81 percent of the victims were women and children. These killings were not done by 'crazies' but usually normal people who simply lost it in the midst of a heated argument and reached for the weapon nearest and dearest - a gun.

The true fact here is that over the past several decades, the U.S., which once scrutinized the use and ownership of guns, has now been gutted by the crazies and their lobbies, mainly the NRA. Meanwhile, craven politicos genuflect to them at every turn and even yesterday the Repukes didn't even have the balls to vote for a sane law to close the terrorist watch list loophole (allowing those on the terrorist watch list to buy guns).

In respect of the hateful rhetoric issue (b), no, it doesn't have to be ISIS that creates the rhetoric to turn people into murderous zombies. In the case of Robert Lewis Dear, even in the wake of his butchery at the Planned Parenthood clinic here in the Springs, politicos were making excuses and blaming the target. The Denver Post in its Dec. 2nd Editorial ('Disgraceful Talk After The Shootings'), noted the vile words from Rep. JoAnn Windholz (R-Commerce City)   even as the victims' bodies were laid to rest:

"Violence is never the answer but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit. The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves"

Which is nearly as disgusting as Hitler blaming the Jews for being gassed in his Auschwitz death chambers because they should have been sensible enough "to leave when they could".  (cf. 'The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler', Robert Payne) . As the Post put it, the words:

"are almost chilling in their implicit acceptance"

Not only that, but many of us understand those  words as a cue for other weak minds, or frustrated, angry ones - to take violent action.

On the same page, an article ('The Moral Blame for Violence in Colorado Springs')  by the WaPo's Ruth Marcus makes this very point and ties the despicable rhetoric of the Right and Repubs in the months leading up to Dear's violent act. As she writes:

"If initial reports of alleged gunman's Robert Lewis Dear's comments about 'no baby parts' prove true - and logic suggests it was no coincidence, the Republican politicians who fueled the overwrought and unsupported controversy over selling baby parts bear some measure of responsibility"

Indeed, and as reported on the front page of the same edition, Colorado Dem Diana DeGette - on the Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives- reported that in the course of the hearings eight Republican member used the phrase "baby parts" no less than 33 times. Did they not realize what they were seeding with their rhetoric? I have to believe they knew as much as ISIS does when it seeds the social media landscape with its own PR, hateful rhetoric and propaganda.

The ultimate source of the anti-PP rhetoric is encapsulated again by Marcus:

"The current effort to demonize Planned Parenthood....is a manufactured issue, cobbled together from doctored videotapes and overheated accusations. The organization has been so mischaracterized, and the practice of providing fetal tissue so overblown and manipulated by lawmakers and politicians that blame for the ensuing violence falls more heavily on them."

This again, re--introduces the issue of the limits of "free speech" and whether it can be prosecuted when it veers into hate speech or terrorist instigation. If we can prosecute ISIS renegades for spreading ISIS crap (like making homemade bombs) then surely we can go after right wingers for sowing mental bombs in the febrile minds of too many of our fellow citizens..

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/65051/what-rough-beast-slaughter-is-the-standard-in-the-us

Powerful Allies Join Water Fight Against Frackers In Colo.

A frack well goes at it in Weld County, CO

It was heartening to read in the (Feb. 9)  Denver Post about a powerful new organization that includes civil rights groups, breweries and environmental activists united in demanding a fracking moratorium in Colorado. The organization (Don't Frack Our Water) vows to fight hard against plans to lease out hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land for fracking in the South Platte River - which is a major source for Denver metro drinking water.

The activists, which also include the Colorado Interfaith Alliance, Colorado Jobs with Justice and the Colorado Progressive Coalition, fear contamination from spills and they are right to do so. (Already some leases plan for frack wells within a quarter mile of Denver's northeast limits) Not only that, but the continued drain on Colorado's dwindling water supplies - given the state is in a high desert area.

We already know fracking can deplete and contaminate local water stores by the very nature of the process: injecting millions of gallons of water and chemicals into underground formations. But why should the fracking industries care, since they're not the ones who'll have to cough up the money for chemotherapy and other treatments for the poor victims. Thanks to a trio of diligent Democrats: Henry Waxman of California, Diana DeGette of Colorado, and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, we now know the extent of the pollution of our precious watersheds thanks to the hydro-fracking industry. We know, for example, the oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005- 09. In one spill in Pennsylvania, site of the photo below



tens of thousands of gallons of contaminated drilling water leaked from a well cap and flowed downhill onto a farm property, extirpating a 50' swath of forest and killing a pond - leaving not one single bass or even insect in all of it. Even after the accident, the frack pump remained running.


In the words of Diana DeGette:

"It is deeply disturbing to discover the content and quantity of toxic chemicals, like benzene and lead, being injected into the ground without the knowledge of communities whose health would be affected."

According to the report, the product of an inquiry by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010-11, fourteen of the nation's most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of chemical fracturing products, and more than 650 of the chemicals named in the report were known carcinogens, supposedly regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. (Which was rendered toothless for fracking by lobbyists) Among the most toxic of the chemicals used (11.4 million gallons in all) were: benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene.

As we know from Devra Davis' landmark book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, the first two of these toxic chemicals have well known correlations to brain carcinomas and chordomas. The other two, to liver, breast and prostate cancers. Davis' book is critical in blowing away the smokescreen that organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS) have used for decades, in blaming people's eating habits and foods for cancers rather than toxic chemicals in the environment.

The ruse is easy to understand since it follows capitulation to the fundamental attribution error (known from psychology) in assigning the burden of cause to victims, rather than a systemic, out of control toxic energy and chemical industry. This way, guess what? It makes it almost impossible to sue for any kind of monetary satisfaction or even to get a local or state moratorium!

None of this even touches on the extent to which the arid West's water supplies are being fracked right down, despite states like Colorado facing a water crisis.  It is downright criminal in this case, to continue dissipating our most critical resource just for a low-grade energy. After all, you can live without oil shale energy (most of which is shipped overseas anyway) but can't survive without water.

Thus, the anti-fracking ally we need has arrived none too soon!

See also:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/05/fracking-water-america-drought-oil-gas

Advances on Many Fronts Following Passage of Colorado's MJ Law

Rep. Diana Degette has advanced the ‘Respect States’ and Citizens’ Rights Act’ to exempt states like Colorado and Washington from the Federal Controlled Substances Act provision governing marijuana

Multiple advances are being made following the passage of Colorado's Amendment 64 on November 6th, allowing for the recreational use of marijuana (1 oz or under) for those 21 years or older. While the initial implementation phase is still about 30 days from now, legal progress is being made as lawmakers, DAs, prosecutors grasp that the PEOPLE have spoken and with a 55%-45%  clarity FOR recreational use and state regulated retail outlets.

Among the more noteworthy initiatives with possible national implications is U.S. Rep. Diana Degette's bipartisan legislation, introduced on Friday which would ensure the marijuana-legalization passing states are not overrun by federal interlopers seeking to overturn the laws ('DeGette Pushes Pot Bill', The Denver Post', Nov. 17, p. 4A). As Ms. Degette put it:

"My constituents have spoken and I don't want the federal government denying money to Colorado or taking other punitive steps that would undermine the will of our citizens."

Bingo! And I imagine this savvy lawmaker also grasps that any such draconian strategies will not be lost on the many youth who voted for the Amendment - as well as Obama and the Dems! 

Degette's legislation is coined 'The Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act'. 

Never mind the 'States' Rights' misnomer (states actually have prerogatives, not rights) the bill seeks to exempt states that have legalized pot from the marijuana provisions of the Federal Controlled Substances Act.  Interestingly, even one of the most conservative Republicans in Colorado, Rep. Mike Coffman, now stands behind the act where he once opposed it (prior to the election). As he noted (ibid.):

"I strongly opposed the legalization of marijuana, but I also have an obligation to respect the will of the voters given the passage of this initiative, and so I feel obliged to support this legislation."

All very noble and sincere-sounding, but I suspect a more powerful underlying reason is he saw the pro-initiative votes at 55% and realized they were more than most congressional reps up for re-election received, on either side of the aisle. Hence, those who joust against the implementation of the initiative are liable to be punished later - with their parties - at the polls!

Meanwhile, Degette's proposed legislation comes on the same day a handful of members from the state's congressional delegation were part of a coalition of lawmakers who sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to respect the new voter-approved laws in Colorado and Washington. In the letter, as the Post noted, all the lawmkers wrote that:

"it would be a mistake for the federal government to 'focus enforcement action on individuals whose actions are in compliance with state law".


Indeed. Of course, the subtext to that is Mr. Holder and his DOJ also showing they respect the rights of the voters proper.

As The Denver Post noted in its editorial 2 days ago, contrary to Gov. Hickenlooper's jokey take after 64's passage ("Let's not all go for the goldfish and cheetos now!") the citizens who voted for 64 were not loopy stoners, but stone-cold sober citizens who understood the prosecution of petty drug possession is a waste of resources, and additionally only adds terrible costs to not only enforcement but incarceration. Beyond that, it's hypocritical given MJ has not caused ONE single death while alcohol use in the state has caused hundreds of DUI incidents, more than half with fatalities. Beyond that, we all recognized that the legalized product in addition to the medical MJ dispensaries, provides badly needed revenues to the tune of over $170m a year.

Interestingly, 'Hick' (who has interests in a brew co.) wrote a letter to AG Holder, co-signed with Colorado AG John Suthers, not defending the voters' will like Diana Degette, but opting for a craven pitch that "emphasized punitive actions the feds could take like 'blocking the implementation of Amendment 64' and 'prosecuting growth and retail operations'" ('Kowtowing to Federal Authority', Vince Carroll in The Denver Post, today, p. 3D). Anyone wanna bet that Hick's tenure may not be overly long if he goes along with such a cowardly tack?

Finally, Degette's and Colorado lawmakers move comes two days after Boulder County District Attorney Stan Garnett made headlines when he announced his office "will dismiss any pending cases that deal with less than an ounce of marijuana. " (Denver Post, Nov. 16, 'Limits on Pot Prosecution', page 4A)  This was just before Denver prosecutors vowed to no longer charge those 21 and older for carrying less than an ounce of mairjuana.

Of course, the state still has its hardasses (as opposed to known conflict-of-interest clowns)  who will wait until the last minute and the last dog is hung to get off their keysters. One notable case is Weld County DA Ken Buck who said in a statement Thursday that his office has an obligation "to prosecute offenses that were crimes at the time they occurred". Recall this is the same character who ran for a Senate seat in '10 and insisted his same office would only prosecute rape cases if it could be shown they were "forcible rape". Hmmm.....anybody wondering why he lost?

Despite the usual state knuckledraggers like Buck,  progress is being made, and hopefully, once the law is fully implemented it will be seen that what has transpired was true citizen-mediated democracy in action. If our own democratic values and aspiration for other nations mean anything, this new law ought to stand!