This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1timspalding
Any thoughts?
I suspect attention here will be focused on the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian nationalist and anti-muslim zealot. There is something ghoulish about thinking about about him at all, and especially about his ideas. He is a monster. He and his ideas do not deserve the publicity they are getting. However, I read the Unibomber's work. I watched the Loughner videos. I've read Bin Laden's speeches. There may be something here to understand.
The media has decided to call him a "Christian fundamentalist." But the evidence is quite clear that he was no "fundamentalist" at all. He wasn't very committed either. He was instead a so-so Lutheran, drawn primarily by the prospect of Christian culture as a the opposite of his real obsession, Islam. He was obsessed with Islam, and the whole "Islamization" of Europe. He went after the government and the Labor Party children because they were "multiculturalists" or "multiculti traitors."
To get a sense of his motives, you can check out his YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5_Uz5nMbg). The most direct access to his motives, however, comes in a "book" he wrote, A European Declaration of Independence, which is available various places online (eg., here).
The book, which is in English, makes for fascinating reading—ghoulish sometimes, but the phrase "banality of evil" came to my mind more often. It is a mishmash of things—treatise, history, collection of excerpts, resume, Q&A, diary, advice for revolutionaries, bomb manual. It goes into extraordinary detail about his life—from banal (who he's partying with) to chilling (preparations for the attack).
His politics and religion are mostly "new" not old. He was not a Nazi and didn't hate Jews--putting him at odds with some of his potential allies. He was not by his own reckoning a racist; he advises building bridges to non-Muslim Indians, Chinese, etc.
He was a Christian, specifically a Protestant--he writes that his joined the Norwegian State Church. But he was NOT a fundamentalist, not matter what the media has been repeating--apparently from the Norwegian police. Indeed, he attacks fundamentalists, especially on being anti-science. He writes that he wants a "secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage." Elsewhere he writes that he has gone from "moderately agnostic" to "moderately religious." While I think it's fair to identify him as a sort of Christian terrorist—Christianity was part of his "message," not incidental to it(1)—his focus was on nationalism and his interest in Christianity focused on "Christendom" rather than on "Christ." As he put it:
The Islamicization of Europe was his driving issue. Although his targets were Norwegian, they were selected because they were "multiculturalists," who aided or ignored the Islamicization of Europe. His enemy was Islaim, his friends anyone who fought it. He was deep into the books of the contemporary anti-Islamic movement (Ibn Warraq, Robert Spenser), as well as its websites (Jihad Watch), vocabulary ("dhimmitude"), interests and positions. In terms of sources, arguments and assumptions, we've seen much of this on this site before. I find this chilling.
About four years ago he turned from talk to action, cashed out of a business he had and starting cutting himself off—though in a half-hearted way, as he continued to party and go on trips with high-school friends, and advance among the Freemasons! He started buying stuff. Scouting. Writing. Gathering emails from Facebook and elsewhere. Destroying hard drives with incriminating evidence. Manufacturing the bomb. And finally... hiring two very expensive prostitutes to have one last memorable experience with, before going out and killing 80 people.
1. This is a key difference. People often say that muslim terrorists are called muslims but Christian ones are not. But the real question is whether their religion was part of their terrorism of not. Some Basque terrorists are Catholic, but they are fighting for and motivates for nationalist not religious goals. Similarly, one could say that most PLO attacks were motivated by nationalism, not religion. All of these differ substantially from attacks by Al-Qaeda (muslim terrorist) or Eric Rudolph (a Christian one).
I suspect attention here will be focused on the suspect, Anders Behring Breivik, a Norwegian nationalist and anti-muslim zealot. There is something ghoulish about thinking about about him at all, and especially about his ideas. He is a monster. He and his ideas do not deserve the publicity they are getting. However, I read the Unibomber's work. I watched the Loughner videos. I've read Bin Laden's speeches. There may be something here to understand.
The media has decided to call him a "Christian fundamentalist." But the evidence is quite clear that he was no "fundamentalist" at all. He wasn't very committed either. He was instead a so-so Lutheran, drawn primarily by the prospect of Christian culture as a the opposite of his real obsession, Islam. He was obsessed with Islam, and the whole "Islamization" of Europe. He went after the government and the Labor Party children because they were "multiculturalists" or "multiculti traitors."
To get a sense of his motives, you can check out his YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5_Uz5nMbg). The most direct access to his motives, however, comes in a "book" he wrote, A European Declaration of Independence, which is available various places online (eg., here).
The book, which is in English, makes for fascinating reading—ghoulish sometimes, but the phrase "banality of evil" came to my mind more often. It is a mishmash of things—treatise, history, collection of excerpts, resume, Q&A, diary, advice for revolutionaries, bomb manual. It goes into extraordinary detail about his life—from banal (who he's partying with) to chilling (preparations for the attack).
His politics and religion are mostly "new" not old. He was not a Nazi and didn't hate Jews--putting him at odds with some of his potential allies. He was not by his own reckoning a racist; he advises building bridges to non-Muslim Indians, Chinese, etc.
He was a Christian, specifically a Protestant--he writes that his joined the Norwegian State Church. But he was NOT a fundamentalist, not matter what the media has been repeating--apparently from the Norwegian police. Indeed, he attacks fundamentalists, especially on being anti-science. He writes that he wants a "secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage." Elsewhere he writes that he has gone from "moderately agnostic" to "moderately religious." While I think it's fair to identify him as a sort of Christian terrorist—Christianity was part of his "message," not incidental to it(1)—his focus was on nationalism and his interest in Christianity focused on "Christendom" rather than on "Christ." As he put it:
"Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."From news reports and so forth he seems to me a fairly normal and well-adjusted person, at least externally. He was not insane (though probably a psychopath). He was a hard-core autodidact on his core interests; he had read a lot of books (all of a certain type). He was drawn to fringe opinions, but he had steered away from some of them.
The Islamicization of Europe was his driving issue. Although his targets were Norwegian, they were selected because they were "multiculturalists," who aided or ignored the Islamicization of Europe. His enemy was Islaim, his friends anyone who fought it. He was deep into the books of the contemporary anti-Islamic movement (Ibn Warraq, Robert Spenser), as well as its websites (Jihad Watch), vocabulary ("dhimmitude"), interests and positions. In terms of sources, arguments and assumptions, we've seen much of this on this site before. I find this chilling.
About four years ago he turned from talk to action, cashed out of a business he had and starting cutting himself off—though in a half-hearted way, as he continued to party and go on trips with high-school friends, and advance among the Freemasons! He started buying stuff. Scouting. Writing. Gathering emails from Facebook and elsewhere. Destroying hard drives with incriminating evidence. Manufacturing the bomb. And finally... hiring two very expensive prostitutes to have one last memorable experience with, before going out and killing 80 people.
1. This is a key difference. People often say that muslim terrorists are called muslims but Christian ones are not. But the real question is whether their religion was part of their terrorism of not. Some Basque terrorists are Catholic, but they are fighting for and motivates for nationalist not religious goals. Similarly, one could say that most PLO attacks were motivated by nationalism, not religion. All of these differ substantially from attacks by Al-Qaeda (muslim terrorist) or Eric Rudolph (a Christian one).
2Amtep
This paragraph made me think (from here):
I live in Finland, a society with strict gun control, and I'm generally happy with it, but... didn't anyone on the island have the means to shoot back? He had free reign for more than an hour because he was the only one with guns.
Breivik surrendered to an armed, specialist police unit which said it had arrived on the scene about 40 minutes after being called out by youngsters at the camp, organised by the youth wing of Norway’s ruling Labour Party. By then, Breivik, who had two guns when he was arrested, had been shooting for 90 minutes without anybody able to stop him.
I live in Finland, a society with strict gun control, and I'm generally happy with it, but... didn't anyone on the island have the means to shoot back? He had free reign for more than an hour because he was the only one with guns.
3OldSarge
If I read correctly, the max this guy could get is twenty-one years under Norwegian law. Really?
4lriley
After reading the synopsis of his 'book'' I don't see a particular need to go slogging through it on my own. Anyway it seems from the description to be a mishmash--at times protraying someone confused exactly on what he thinks or feels--or a very contradicted person.
A monster?--or just an insane psycho/sociopath? He seemed to get along well with others at least when he wanted to. Joining politcal parties--the freemasons. Having a social life. One wonders whether he tuned into a Norwegian version of a Rush Limbaugh?--I don't suppose the USA is the only country that has an outraged media voice spurring on an outraged sector of its citizenry.
What's to be done with him?--apparently he'd like to explain that it was all for a good reason. Not worth bothering about giving him that kind of attention. If space travel were cheap enough I'd put him on a rocket with two days worth of frozen dinners or better yet maybe dog biscuits and let him find some other better world.
As for religious fundamentalism--the Moslem terrorists would like to bring Shariya to us all. Take us back into the 13th century and carefully prescribe all thought and action. I don't believe this to be the general view of most Moslems but there does seem to be a significant % of this thinking within the Islamic world and those people are at war with anything western or alien to their beliefs.
I think the problem some Christians and Jews have is trying to force a modernity on people in the Moslem world without bothering even to look at the root causes of the disenchantment--for instance Israel's tendency towards might = right policy making when it comes to the Palestinians and the USA's Iraqi occupation and support of 'friendly' middle eastern dictators pushing their free market globalized agenda to people who don't have a pot to piss in and is really more about making wealthy people wealthier and exploiting everyone else. 'One day you'll thank us for bringing you Wal-mart and McDonald's'.
And we do have our own Christian crazy people as well. Was Breivik one of them? Who knows. The last go round with the two prostitutes would argue probably not but personally I'm not speculating how the guy saw himself.
A monster?--or just an insane psycho/sociopath? He seemed to get along well with others at least when he wanted to. Joining politcal parties--the freemasons. Having a social life. One wonders whether he tuned into a Norwegian version of a Rush Limbaugh?--I don't suppose the USA is the only country that has an outraged media voice spurring on an outraged sector of its citizenry.
What's to be done with him?--apparently he'd like to explain that it was all for a good reason. Not worth bothering about giving him that kind of attention. If space travel were cheap enough I'd put him on a rocket with two days worth of frozen dinners or better yet maybe dog biscuits and let him find some other better world.
As for religious fundamentalism--the Moslem terrorists would like to bring Shariya to us all. Take us back into the 13th century and carefully prescribe all thought and action. I don't believe this to be the general view of most Moslems but there does seem to be a significant % of this thinking within the Islamic world and those people are at war with anything western or alien to their beliefs.
I think the problem some Christians and Jews have is trying to force a modernity on people in the Moslem world without bothering even to look at the root causes of the disenchantment--for instance Israel's tendency towards might = right policy making when it comes to the Palestinians and the USA's Iraqi occupation and support of 'friendly' middle eastern dictators pushing their free market globalized agenda to people who don't have a pot to piss in and is really more about making wealthy people wealthier and exploiting everyone else. 'One day you'll thank us for bringing you Wal-mart and McDonald's'.
And we do have our own Christian crazy people as well. Was Breivik one of them? Who knows. The last go round with the two prostitutes would argue probably not but personally I'm not speculating how the guy saw himself.
5ErlendSkjelten
3:
If he is sentenced to prison, the maximum penalty is 21 years.
If he is sentenced to 'forvaring', a term I suppose could be translated as 'custody', the maximum initial sentence would also be 21 years, but if at the end of that sentence he is still considered a threat to society, the period can be extended with up to five years. This process of extension can be repeated indefinitely, so it can end up being a life sentence.
Forvaring is used in cases where a crime has been committed endangering the life, health or liberty of others. Unless Breivik is deemed insane, he'll almost certainly be sentenced to forvaring.
If he is sentenced to prison, the maximum penalty is 21 years.
If he is sentenced to 'forvaring', a term I suppose could be translated as 'custody', the maximum initial sentence would also be 21 years, but if at the end of that sentence he is still considered a threat to society, the period can be extended with up to five years. This process of extension can be repeated indefinitely, so it can end up being a life sentence.
Forvaring is used in cases where a crime has been committed endangering the life, health or liberty of others. Unless Breivik is deemed insane, he'll almost certainly be sentenced to forvaring.
7Jesse_wiedinmyer
I spent a good half hour yesterday listening to someone tell me that what happened in Oslo was a Liberal flag attack to discredit conservatives and justify the police state and new world order.
8timspalding
>7 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Time to leave that bar, or whatever.
X did it to discredit Y is a great rhetorical strategy. Everyone does it. Can anyone think of a good case where it was true?
Time to leave that bar, or whatever.
X did it to discredit Y is a great rhetorical strategy. Everyone does it. Can anyone think of a good case where it was true?
9Jesse_wiedinmyer
It was poolside, from an upper-middle class couple in their forties outside of LA.
And the Reichstag fire would be the paradigmatic example.
And the Reichstag fire would be the paradigmatic example.
10Jesse_wiedinmyer
I believe he gets his news here.
11AsYouKnow_Bob
Apparently much of Breivik's manifesto was a direct lift from the Unabomber's:
(Norwegian:) http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080704
Google Norwegian-to-English translation:
(Norwegian:) http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10080704
Google Norwegian-to-English translation:
In Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto, which was announced on Saturday, he explains, among other things, the ideological background for the bombing and mass killing of Utøya.
What he does not say anything about, is that key parts of his manifesto is directly copied from the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski's manifesto.
It is document.no, the Islam-critical site where Behring Breivik should have been an avid debater, who reveals plagiarism.
He has replaced the concepts, so it should fit better into his own ideology. For example, switching him out the word "Leftism" (left orientation) with the words "Multiculturalism" and "Cultural Marxism" (Multiculturalism and cultural Marxism)
12timspalding
>9 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Not a very good example as most contemporary historians believe that van der Lubbe did it and acted alone. That the Nazis used it is uncontestable. That the Nazis themselves did it is not widely accepted.
Not a very good example as most contemporary historians believe that van der Lubbe did it and acted alone. That the Nazis used it is uncontestable. That the Nazis themselves did it is not widely accepted.
13krolik
>8 timspalding: X did it to discredit Y is a great rhetorical strategy. Everyone does it. Can anyone think of a good case where it was true?
For generations the Soviets blamed the Katyn massacre on the Nazis, when of course they did it. This atrocity still has its deniers in Russia; in contemporary discourse, Putin has equivocated and manipulated and avoided apology; and the lasting grotesquerie still hasn't received the attention it deserves in "the west".
Closer to home: although the Americans didn't do it, in the 80s they blamed the poison gas attack on the Kurds in Halabja on Iran instead of Iraq--despite a consensus to the contrary--in order to further an agenda. The Americans later changed their tune when it became expedient, for reasons we're still living with...
For generations the Soviets blamed the Katyn massacre on the Nazis, when of course they did it. This atrocity still has its deniers in Russia; in contemporary discourse, Putin has equivocated and manipulated and avoided apology; and the lasting grotesquerie still hasn't received the attention it deserves in "the west".
Closer to home: although the Americans didn't do it, in the 80s they blamed the poison gas attack on the Kurds in Halabja on Iran instead of Iraq--despite a consensus to the contrary--in order to further an agenda. The Americans later changed their tune when it became expedient, for reasons we're still living with...
14timspalding
>13 krolik:
Different, though. The Soviets didn't kill the Polish officers in order to discredit the Nazis. They did it for another purpose, and found it expedient to blame them later.
Different, though. The Soviets didn't kill the Polish officers in order to discredit the Nazis. They did it for another purpose, and found it expedient to blame them later.
15timspalding
"Killings in Norway Spotlight Anti-Muslim Thought in U.S."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html?hp
Drawing the connections I drew above in message 1.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/us/25debate.html?hp
Drawing the connections I drew above in message 1.
16Makifat
From news reports and so forth he seems to me a fairly normal and well-adjusted person, at least externally. He was not insane (though probably a psychopath). He was a hard-core autodidact on his core interests; he had read a lot of books (all of a certain type). He was drawn to fringe opinions, but he had steered away from some of them.
The Islamicization of Europe was his driving issue. Although his targets were Norwegian, they were selected because they were "multiculturalists," who aided or ignored the Islamicization of Europe. His enemy was Islaim, his friends anyone who fought it. He was deep into the books of the contemporary anti-Islamic movement (Ibn Warraq, Robert Spenser), as well as its websites (Jihad Watch), vocabulary ("dhimmitude"), interests and positions. In terms of sources, arguments and assumptions, we've seen much of this on this site before. I find this chilling.
Yep. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
The Islamicization of Europe was his driving issue. Although his targets were Norwegian, they were selected because they were "multiculturalists," who aided or ignored the Islamicization of Europe. His enemy was Islaim, his friends anyone who fought it. He was deep into the books of the contemporary anti-Islamic movement (Ibn Warraq, Robert Spenser), as well as its websites (Jihad Watch), vocabulary ("dhimmitude"), interests and positions. In terms of sources, arguments and assumptions, we've seen much of this on this site before. I find this chilling.
Yep. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
17BruceCoulson
Very.
18jjwilson61
I keep reading the subject in my thread view and find myself wondering if I should head for the bomb shelter.
20theoria
19> The old bogeyman: Jews!
Again, it's remarkable that three individuals (Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse in the main), writing with Hegelian clarity, have so decimated American culture, and did so while in exile from the Nazi gangster state.
Again, it's remarkable that three individuals (Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse in the main), writing with Hegelian clarity, have so decimated American culture, and did so while in exile from the Nazi gangster state.
21JGL53
In terms of sheer insane stupidity the guy managed to do something as insane and stupid as the muslims who killed all those U.N. workers because their asswipe god was insulted by some redneck preacher in Florida who worshipped a different asswipe god.
All murder is senseless, of course, it's just that when some turd kills a lot of strangers because of ideological reasons, it makes a person who kills his/her spouse for fucking around look semi-sane in comparison.
All murder is senseless, of course, it's just that when some turd kills a lot of strangers because of ideological reasons, it makes a person who kills his/her spouse for fucking around look semi-sane in comparison.
22Makifat
20
"Cultural Marxism," described as a conspiratorial attempt to wreck American culture and morality, is the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right.
This is what gets me about the right: their sincere belief that there are elements in American society that stay up late dreaming up ways to "wreck American culture and morality". Hell, "American Idol" does an effective job of that, and with much less effort.
"Cultural Marxism," described as a conspiratorial attempt to wreck American culture and morality, is the newest intellectual bugaboo on the radical right.
This is what gets me about the right: their sincere belief that there are elements in American society that stay up late dreaming up ways to "wreck American culture and morality". Hell, "American Idol" does an effective job of that, and with much less effort.
23timspalding
CNN did a piece on whether "Christian fundamentalist" was the right term. Typically, they didn't quote the actual passages at issue—where Breivik indicates he is not a fundamentalist or even very committed Christian, but they got the general point—his Christianity was real, but very much subordinate to his nationalism.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/25/understanding-christian-fundamentalist-...
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/25/understanding-christian-fundamentalist-...
24ajdeus
Breivik: Oslo Terror Knights initiating anti-Muslim counter-Reformation
The general idea of the Christian Terror Knights is to provoke the Muslim communities in the West to take more extreme positions and be drawn into violence. Thinking or hoping that Breivik is not a Christian fundamentalist is missing the core of his manual: the creation of a European Church under the Catholic papacy (he is a disenchanted Protestant). Read the background information on http://www.ajdeus.org/articles/437
The general idea of the Christian Terror Knights is to provoke the Muslim communities in the West to take more extreme positions and be drawn into violence. Thinking or hoping that Breivik is not a Christian fundamentalist is missing the core of his manual: the creation of a European Church under the Catholic papacy (he is a disenchanted Protestant). Read the background information on http://www.ajdeus.org/articles/437
25bnielsen
Not sure if this is already covered in the english speaking media, but his lawyer is convinced that Breivik is nuts. I.e. Breivik thinks he is in a war and that this justifies his actions.
Breivik will surely be put away for life, no matter what, so I don't think the lawyers opinion is anything but his honest reaction to what his client has told him so far. (And yes, lawyers here have a better reputation than American lawyers :-)
Breivik will surely be put away for life, no matter what, so I don't think the lawyers opinion is anything but his honest reaction to what his client has told him so far. (And yes, lawyers here have a better reputation than American lawyers :-)
26theoria
Not nuts enough to prevent him from orchestrating a complicated set of attacks. True believers are nuts from a limited point of view (they use unrealistic means in the pursuit of impossible goals).
27JGL53
This is why when I hear the words "fox news" now I always throw up a little bit in my mouth:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/laura-ingraham-blames-norway-terrorism-on-muslims
http://www.politicususa.com/en/laura-ingraham-blames-norway-terrorism-on-muslims
28timspalding
People throw around terms like "nuts" and "crazy," but there's no question this guy was lucid and logical, capable of careful and detailed planning and execution.
29BruceCoulson
The terms 'crazy' and 'capable of careful and detailed planning' are not mutually exclusive.
30faceinbook
>28 timspalding:
Sometimes "crazy" allows for even greater lucidity, a tunneled sense of logic and an ability for hightened focus on planning and details.
"normal" individuals have way too much on their minds to accomplish something like this..... it takes a "crazy"
Sometimes "crazy" allows for even greater lucidity, a tunneled sense of logic and an ability for hightened focus on planning and details.
"normal" individuals have way too much on their minds to accomplish something like this..... it takes a "crazy"
31Arctic-Stranger
One of the patients in the pysch ward, on an involuntary hold, asked for one of his books. It was a physics textbook, and when I handed it to him, I realized when he said one of "his" books, he meant one he wrote, not just one he owned. He was still writing physics texts during his many hospitalizations, all involuntary.
So, certifiably "crazy" and a published science author.
*This in no way implies anything whatsoever about scientists, physics or textbooks.
So, certifiably "crazy" and a published science author.
*This in no way implies anything whatsoever about scientists, physics or textbooks.
32timspalding
>29 BruceCoulson:
Well, crazy isn't either a medical or a legal term. In a legal sense there is NO question he was sane.
Well, crazy isn't either a medical or a legal term. In a legal sense there is NO question he was sane.
33faceinbook
>32 timspalding:
Which brings me to the question : Does this excuse him from being held fully responsible for his actions ?
He was perfectly capable of planning and executing this event....he was also aware that he was taking lives.....is the fact that he had a "crazy" or "insane" reason for doing this, make him unable to understand what he was doing ?
Personally, I don't believe so.....
Which brings me to the question : Does this excuse him from being held fully responsible for his actions ?
He was perfectly capable of planning and executing this event....he was also aware that he was taking lives.....is the fact that he had a "crazy" or "insane" reason for doing this, make him unable to understand what he was doing ?
Personally, I don't believe so.....
34Arctic-Stranger
In America all they need to prove is that the person knows the difference between right and wrong and is able to act on that. I am not sure what the requirements are in Norway.
35BruceCoulson
>33 faceinbook: and 34
According to my police sources, in the U.S. an understanding that what you were doing was illegal means that you are sane in legal terms. Insanity means that you can't understand that what you did was illegal or would be considered wrong by others.
This has nothing to do with psychiatric uses of the term. Someone can be psychotic and yet quite sane, or very neurotic and insane (probably for other reasons).
By U.S. standards, Breivik appears sane; he understood that what he was doing was highly illegal.
According to my police sources, in the U.S. an understanding that what you were doing was illegal means that you are sane in legal terms. Insanity means that you can't understand that what you did was illegal or would be considered wrong by others.
This has nothing to do with psychiatric uses of the term. Someone can be psychotic and yet quite sane, or very neurotic and insane (probably for other reasons).
By U.S. standards, Breivik appears sane; he understood that what he was doing was highly illegal.
36lawecon
~25
Breivik thinks he is in a war and that this justifies his actions.
==============================
I didn't know that Fox News reached Norway.
Breivik thinks he is in a war and that this justifies his actions.
==============================
I didn't know that Fox News reached Norway.
37timspalding
>32 timspalding:
He's certainly sane enough to be responsible for his actions.
Anyway, I'm not even sure he's mentally ill—just full of hate. If so, his situation is similar to those of Islamic terrorists. He believes things. Those things impel him toward terrible violence. He's sane with evil beliefs, and no "wait-a-second!" check on converting evil ideas into evil actions. Bin Laden wasn't insane, not are his followers. There's no reason that, to put it crudely, dark-skin people commit heinous acts while sane but white people have to be insane to do it.
He's certainly sane enough to be responsible for his actions.
Anyway, I'm not even sure he's mentally ill—just full of hate. If so, his situation is similar to those of Islamic terrorists. He believes things. Those things impel him toward terrible violence. He's sane with evil beliefs, and no "wait-a-second!" check on converting evil ideas into evil actions. Bin Laden wasn't insane, not are his followers. There's no reason that, to put it crudely, dark-skin people commit heinous acts while sane but white people have to be insane to do it.
38sorchah
His lawyer now says Breivik is insane.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8663946/Norway-killer-An...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8663946/Norway-killer-An...
39Arctic-Stranger
His lawyer is his lawyer. What he says does not mean jack. Except that he might use that defense in court. Unless Norway's laws are different from ours, the man is sane. Crazy, but legally sane.
40timspalding
>39 Arctic-Stranger:
Do you see my point, though? Do we say that the 9/11 hijackers were crazy? I at least don't. They were perfectly sane. They were monsters.
Do you see my point, though? Do we say that the 9/11 hijackers were crazy? I at least don't. They were perfectly sane. They were monsters.
41Arctic-Stranger
I do see your point. I remember when there was a sense of relief that the OK City bomber was a white guy too. Can we settle on crazy monster? For both skin tones?
42sorchah
>39 Arctic-Stranger:
Right. I think it's interesting that that card is being played though. Total cop out. And it's not like he needs to do that do avoid the death penalty, etc.
Right. I think it's interesting that that card is being played though. Total cop out. And it's not like he needs to do that do avoid the death penalty, etc.
43timspalding
>42 sorchah:
The lawyer is doing the right thing for his client. I very much doubt Breivik is telling him to say it. Indeed, I'd bet he's telling him NOT to.
The lawyer is doing the right thing for his client. I very much doubt Breivik is telling him to say it. Indeed, I'd bet he's telling him NOT to.
45faceinbook
>35 BruceCoulson:
How many, of the individual's who plead insanity do you really feel are not aware of the notion that taking someone's life is not acceptable behavior ?
Just wondering......I am guessing that it is a lot fewer than those who would try to use it as a defense.
>37 timspalding:
How does this make him any different than the guy in Arizona ? Longiener's (spelling ??) motives were based on hate...it may be that hate made him crazy but I would hesitate to believe that it drove him insane to the point where he did not realize that he was killing people and that it was wrong to do so.
Have my doubts that many of the supposedly insane are really not aware that what they are doing is wrong.
>42 sorchah:
Maybe it will be used to make a case for less than a sentence of 21 years ?
How many, of the individual's who plead insanity do you really feel are not aware of the notion that taking someone's life is not acceptable behavior ?
Just wondering......I am guessing that it is a lot fewer than those who would try to use it as a defense.
>37 timspalding:
How does this make him any different than the guy in Arizona ? Longiener's (spelling ??) motives were based on hate...it may be that hate made him crazy but I would hesitate to believe that it drove him insane to the point where he did not realize that he was killing people and that it was wrong to do so.
Have my doubts that many of the supposedly insane are really not aware that what they are doing is wrong.
>42 sorchah:
Maybe it will be used to make a case for less than a sentence of 21 years ?
46krolik
>40 timspalding:
OK, I'll bite. Yes, I agree with the description that (based on what we know) the people in these examples were basically sane.
But the word "monsters" risks being an easy out, about "otherness" and all that. I probably don't have to walk you through the steps.
Suffice to say they were horrible assholes who committed heinous crimes, and should answer for them.
OK, I'll bite. Yes, I agree with the description that (based on what we know) the people in these examples were basically sane.
But the word "monsters" risks being an easy out, about "otherness" and all that. I probably don't have to walk you through the steps.
Suffice to say they were horrible assholes who committed heinous crimes, and should answer for them.
47lawecon
I was about to write something similar about ~40 before reading down through the rest of the thread. But thank you for kicking off the football in the right direction. However, I don't think that your response to the self-congratulatory tone of the term "monsters" goes quite far enough.
Let's see. This murderer believed that by killing a bunch of innocent nondecision makers, some of whom may have generically had views he didn't like, but none of whom were in charge of the State of Western Civilization or Immigration Into Europe or any of the Big Issues of the Day, he was waging righteous war.
How does that, exactly, distinguish him from the crew of the Enola Gay or those who, more recently, waged "shock and awe" on the heads of the residents of Baghdad?
Oh, that is right, most of those righteous killers didn't look their victims in the face and they were taking orders from those who were taking orders from men and women who could, any day of the week, order more such murders without the slightest pang of conscience and with resulting cheers of their fellow "civilized men and women."
Truly a worthy distinction between "monsters" and we "normal types." In the former case we debate how long the murderer should be imprisoned and lament the lack of a death penalty. In the latter case we debate whether the pensions and other benefits bestowed are sufficient for "saving us" from, ah, from,......... ah........ well, those barbarian hordes who would gladly rape and kill our grannies.
Yes, a worthy distinction........ Well reasoned. Well expressed, ~40.
But I do agree with your description of all such types, ~46, as "horrible assholes who committed heinous crimes, and should answer for them." The problem is, of course, that the assholes never pay for their heinous crimes if they are officially approved assholes blessed by a higher level of assholes, rather than free lance unauthorized assholes.
Let's see. This murderer believed that by killing a bunch of innocent nondecision makers, some of whom may have generically had views he didn't like, but none of whom were in charge of the State of Western Civilization or Immigration Into Europe or any of the Big Issues of the Day, he was waging righteous war.
How does that, exactly, distinguish him from the crew of the Enola Gay or those who, more recently, waged "shock and awe" on the heads of the residents of Baghdad?
Oh, that is right, most of those righteous killers didn't look their victims in the face and they were taking orders from those who were taking orders from men and women who could, any day of the week, order more such murders without the slightest pang of conscience and with resulting cheers of their fellow "civilized men and women."
Truly a worthy distinction between "monsters" and we "normal types." In the former case we debate how long the murderer should be imprisoned and lament the lack of a death penalty. In the latter case we debate whether the pensions and other benefits bestowed are sufficient for "saving us" from, ah, from,......... ah........ well, those barbarian hordes who would gladly rape and kill our grannies.
Yes, a worthy distinction........ Well reasoned. Well expressed, ~40.
But I do agree with your description of all such types, ~46, as "horrible assholes who committed heinous crimes, and should answer for them." The problem is, of course, that the assholes never pay for their heinous crimes if they are officially approved assholes blessed by a higher level of assholes, rather than free lance unauthorized assholes.
48krolik
>47 lawecon:
assholes never pay for their heinous crimes if they are officially approved assholes blessed by a higher level of assholes, rather than free lance unauthorized assholes
True enough. But it's nothing new. Not a scoop. And neither "conservative" (as I infer you describe yourself) nor "liberal" (as I describe myself) in our current context. It's human tragedy, which has an ancient pedigree, which has been going on as long as homo sap.
So we muddle on, do what we doodly do, what we muddly must...
assholes never pay for their heinous crimes if they are officially approved assholes blessed by a higher level of assholes, rather than free lance unauthorized assholes
True enough. But it's nothing new. Not a scoop. And neither "conservative" (as I infer you describe yourself) nor "liberal" (as I describe myself) in our current context. It's human tragedy, which has an ancient pedigree, which has been going on as long as homo sap.
So we muddle on, do what we doodly do, what we muddly must...
49bnielsen
#40: I agree. The 9/11 terrorists were sane. Here in Denmark we had a similar group (Blekingegadebanden) who robbed banks to send money to Palestinian groups. They did horrible things and planned even worse. They were sane too. I don't think Breivik is. I still think we should put him away for a long, long time.
#42: I also agree. Breivik is trying to become a martyr, not a lifetime patient in a mental ward.
(If this was a Stephen King book, they'll find a huge brain tumor when they give him a medical examination.)
#42: I also agree. Breivik is trying to become a martyr, not a lifetime patient in a mental ward.
(If this was a Stephen King book, they'll find a huge brain tumor when they give him a medical examination.)
50QuentinTom
Difference betwen Meruhcans and Europeans:
Europeans - even the guy's defence lawyer - declare Breivik insane.
Merhucans debate seriously the guys's 'ideas' and then elect him to Congress.
Europeans - even the guy's defence lawyer - declare Breivik insane.
Merhucans debate seriously the guys's 'ideas' and then elect him to Congress.
51BruceCoulson
>47 lawecon:
"How does that, exactly, distinguish him from the crew of the Enola Gay or those who, more recently, waged "shock and awe" on the heads of the residents of Baghdad?"
In the case of the Enola Gay, I would answer that a. a state of war existed (per Congressional declaration); b. 'total war' (a concept accepted by all sides) made civilians of an enemy nation legitimate targets; c. the crew of the Enola Gay were active-duty military, carrying out orders given to them by superiors.
(In the case of the Iraq conflict, only c. applies.)
"How does that, exactly, distinguish him from the crew of the Enola Gay or those who, more recently, waged "shock and awe" on the heads of the residents of Baghdad?"
In the case of the Enola Gay, I would answer that a. a state of war existed (per Congressional declaration); b. 'total war' (a concept accepted by all sides) made civilians of an enemy nation legitimate targets; c. the crew of the Enola Gay were active-duty military, carrying out orders given to them by superiors.
(In the case of the Iraq conflict, only c. applies.)
52timspalding
They were sane too. I don't think Breivik is.
Why do you think so? Non-confrontationally, what's your evidence?
Why do you think so? Non-confrontationally, what's your evidence?
53theoria
51> Nation states claim a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. From a juridical standpoint (rule of law), this is what distinguishes Breivik from the case of the Enola Gay/Shock&Awe bombers.
54lawecon
~48
Yes. Didn't say there was anything "we" could do about it, short of genetic engineering of the human race. It is just that the hypocricy is nauseating.
Yes. Didn't say there was anything "we" could do about it, short of genetic engineering of the human race. It is just that the hypocricy is nauseating.
55lawecon
~51 nd 53
Yes, thank you, I am familiar with the rationalizations.
However, one slight modification, "rule of law" has nothing to do with Total War. In a law-like situation you don't rely on concepts like "collateral damage" or "they're the enemy, there are no civilians, kill 'em all, let G_d sort 'em out".
Yes, thank you, I am familiar with the rationalizations.
However, one slight modification, "rule of law" has nothing to do with Total War. In a law-like situation you don't rely on concepts like "collateral damage" or "they're the enemy, there are no civilians, kill 'em all, let G_d sort 'em out".
56BruceCoulson
Total War was a concept that all combatants utilized to the best of their military capabilties. Therefore, it was an agreed-upon, acceptable tactic iin warfare.
And the idea that a 'rule of law' should apply after war has been declared is ludicrous. By definition, war is a breakdown in normal civil procedures. Exactly what power does a 'neutral' court have to enforce any judgements during a war?
And the idea that a 'rule of law' should apply after war has been declared is ludicrous. By definition, war is a breakdown in normal civil procedures. Exactly what power does a 'neutral' court have to enforce any judgements during a war?
57bnielsen
#52: Good question, since I cannot read minds. I think both the 9/11's and the Danish gang had a fairly realistic view about what they were doing and what the results would/could lead to.
Breivik seems to think that killing Gro Harlem Brundtland would have a drastic effect and that killing lots of people in the youth organisation of Arbeiterpartiet would acceive something.
So basically I think Breivik suffers from some serious delusions and I don't think the others did.
My evidence - for what it's worth - is what he did. I really think his deeds - however tragic the consequences for the victims - are sort of pointless.
So I think he is insane, but I'll still lock him up for the next twenty years or so.
Breivik seems to think that killing Gro Harlem Brundtland would have a drastic effect and that killing lots of people in the youth organisation of Arbeiterpartiet would acceive something.
So basically I think Breivik suffers from some serious delusions and I don't think the others did.
My evidence - for what it's worth - is what he did. I really think his deeds - however tragic the consequences for the victims - are sort of pointless.
So I think he is insane, but I'll still lock him up for the next twenty years or so.
58lawecon
I think both the 9/11's and the Danish gang had a fairly realistic view about what they were doing and what the results would/could lead to.
=======================
This is interesting. Could you tell us more about your reasoning?
Personally, as to 9/11 I have seen only one out of context quotation by Bin Laden that comes close to predicting the consequences. Two Islamic countries decimated. Anyone with the remotest connection to Bin Laden or his associates captured and tortured or killed out of hand. Strange goals if you had good foresight.
=======================
This is interesting. Could you tell us more about your reasoning?
Personally, as to 9/11 I have seen only one out of context quotation by Bin Laden that comes close to predicting the consequences. Two Islamic countries decimated. Anyone with the remotest connection to Bin Laden or his associates captured and tortured or killed out of hand. Strange goals if you had good foresight.
59bnielsen
#58: One of Bin Ladens goals was to show that it was possible to attack US on its own soil. And they thought that this would lead to a weakening of US involvement in the Middle East, I think that might very well still be the long term result.
I'm also sure that Bin Laden was quite certain that the US would go for him and his organisation with all means after the attacks. For someone seaking to become a martyr that isn't a bad thing.
The Danish gang wanted to help Palestinian militant groups and decided that they could do this most efficiently by stealing large amounts of money and giving them to PFLP (for further details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blekinge_Street_Gang ).
Breivik on the other hand seems to think that killing lots of young Norwegians will help his cause. I don't think anyone else agrees.
I'm also sure that Bin Laden was quite certain that the US would go for him and his organisation with all means after the attacks. For someone seaking to become a martyr that isn't a bad thing.
The Danish gang wanted to help Palestinian militant groups and decided that they could do this most efficiently by stealing large amounts of money and giving them to PFLP (for further details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blekinge_Street_Gang ).
Breivik on the other hand seems to think that killing lots of young Norwegians will help his cause. I don't think anyone else agrees.
60lawecon
~59
One of Bin Ladens goals was to show that it was possible to attack US on its own soil. And they thought that this would lead to a weakening of US involvement in the Middle East, I think that might very well still be the long term result.
========================================
You think that conquest and occupation of two countries is "weakening... involvement"? If so, I feel fairly certain that other regions of the world hope for much more concentrated involvement. And, again, it has now been a decade of this situation. When is the "long term"?
One of Bin Ladens goals was to show that it was possible to attack US on its own soil. And they thought that this would lead to a weakening of US involvement in the Middle East, I think that might very well still be the long term result.
========================================
You think that conquest and occupation of two countries is "weakening... involvement"? If so, I feel fairly certain that other regions of the world hope for much more concentrated involvement. And, again, it has now been a decade of this situation. When is the "long term"?
61BruceCoulson
Decades, perhaps? There are some serious questions about just how long the United States can continue to pay for wars that only benefit a small handful of beings, especially given our current economic crisis.
And I'd debate that 'conquest and occupation' bit, too. We are present in Afghanistan and Iraq; but just how much of those countries do we actually control? (And considering that we have no 'boots on the ground' in Libya, we don't control anything there.)
And I'd debate that 'conquest and occupation' bit, too. We are present in Afghanistan and Iraq; but just how much of those countries do we actually control? (And considering that we have no 'boots on the ground' in Libya, we don't control anything there.)
62timspalding
The wars we've engaged in are costly. Unfortunately, they are nowhere near as costly as the unfunded and escalating entitlements we've committed ourselves to. (And I don't mean that flippantly, I think we have serious moral commitments to continue paying them as best we can.) At present rates of taxation, entitlements and demographic change entitlements will literally consume the entire Federal Budget by 2049.
63jjwilson61
62> I'm not sure how this relates to the current thread but I agree about the long-term non-sustainability of Social Security and Medicare but to hear Republicans talk the debt crisis is all Obama's fault (and no one, not even Democrats, talks about the contributions of Bush's tax cut to the problem).
64Jesse_wiedinmyer
You mean things like this?
65Lunar
#64: Wow, those are some pretty deceptive graphs there. No wonder Democrats think they're smarter than their fellow idiots on the other end of the spectrum. They confuse "connect-the-dots" with "cause and effect." I especially like how they put in the Bush tax cuts as an expense (tax cuts don't "cost" anything) and put in a couple of other random areas of expenses that are either designed to diminish over time (TARP and recovery measures) or expected to remain constant (including the nebulous "economic downturn" category) and not include anything else in the budget to be paid for (increasingly or otherwise) and then pretend that the Bush tax cuts are this big chunk of a deficit pie in 2019.
That is one big slice of American bullshit. Fox News would be proud if only they had shared their crayons.
That is one big slice of American bullshit. Fox News would be proud if only they had shared their crayons.
66jjwilson61
I especially like how they put in the Bush tax cuts as an expense (tax cuts don't "cost" anything)
When you're talking about what caused the rise in the deficit a tax cut is as much a cause as spending money.
When you're talking about what caused the rise in the deficit a tax cut is as much a cause as spending money.
67jjwilson61
65> Also, I believe the purpose of the graphs is to counter Republican talking points about the deficit. To hear Republicans talk about it (including Boener's response to Obama's speech the other night) the deficit is largely the result of Obama's stimulus plan. The graph shows that Bush's tax cut had a larger effect on the deficit and it keeps on giving, unlike the stimulus which lasted a couple of years and is mostly over.
The Tarp item is interesting in that a lot of people believe that it was a huge cost, and it was, but it was mostly payed back.
The Tarp item is interesting in that a lot of people believe that it was a huge cost, and it was, but it was mostly payed back.
68JGL53
> 67
Plus the loans to the auto industry save MILLIONS of jobs and has been paid back WITH INTEREST.
Since when have the repubs done anything whatsoever to save jobs? Or create jobs? Many repub governors refused the stimulus money, as if their states were just doing great and they didn't need it. LOL. Or they were complete hypocrites, i.e., saying they would never take the stimulus money and then DID - then went around cutting ribbons and falsely taking credit themselves for the jobs created thereby. A-holes.
And how many bills have the repub-controlled house put forth for job creation? Last I heard that number was ZERO.
The economy will take decades to recover, if ever, from the s.h.i.t. that went down between 1996 and 2008. I believe that was BEFORE Obama was elected POTUS, yet we are to believe that Obama is the incompetent fool how got us into this economic turd pile?
So who will lead us forward out of our present situation and into a new and exciting future - Romney? Backman? Gingrich? Cain? Santorum? Paul? Perry? Palin? That other mormon guy?
Jesus H. Effing Christ on an Effing Crutch.
Plus the loans to the auto industry save MILLIONS of jobs and has been paid back WITH INTEREST.
Since when have the repubs done anything whatsoever to save jobs? Or create jobs? Many repub governors refused the stimulus money, as if their states were just doing great and they didn't need it. LOL. Or they were complete hypocrites, i.e., saying they would never take the stimulus money and then DID - then went around cutting ribbons and falsely taking credit themselves for the jobs created thereby. A-holes.
And how many bills have the repub-controlled house put forth for job creation? Last I heard that number was ZERO.
The economy will take decades to recover, if ever, from the s.h.i.t. that went down between 1996 and 2008. I believe that was BEFORE Obama was elected POTUS, yet we are to believe that Obama is the incompetent fool how got us into this economic turd pile?
So who will lead us forward out of our present situation and into a new and exciting future - Romney? Backman? Gingrich? Cain? Santorum? Paul? Perry? Palin? That other mormon guy?
Jesus H. Effing Christ on an Effing Crutch.
69lawecon
~65 & 66
Yes, I don't quite understand why Lunar is having a problem with this concept. If you are a government a cut in your taxes is the ultimate "expense," or at least a decrease in your net income position. If we are talking about the government's budget then we have to look at things from the perspective of the government.
Yes, I don't quite understand why Lunar is having a problem with this concept. If you are a government a cut in your taxes is the ultimate "expense," or at least a decrease in your net income position. If we are talking about the government's budget then we have to look at things from the perspective of the government.
70lawecon
~68
Plus the loans to the auto industry save MILLIONS of jobs and has been paid back WITH INTEREST.
==========================
Yes, indeedee. And, of course, everyone knew that this fix would work before it was tried.
Anyone ever offer you a job as an investment counselor?
Plus the loans to the auto industry save MILLIONS of jobs and has been paid back WITH INTEREST.
==========================
Yes, indeedee. And, of course, everyone knew that this fix would work before it was tried.
Anyone ever offer you a job as an investment counselor?
71JGL53
> 70
So if one never tries then one never fails? Or is it since one cannot predict the future infallibly then one should never attempt anything, especially the new and untried? Plus, there were only a couple of million jobs at risk there. Eff'em, right?
Yes, indeedee. Anyone ever offer you a job as a christian councilor?
LOL.
So if one never tries then one never fails? Or is it since one cannot predict the future infallibly then one should never attempt anything, especially the new and untried? Plus, there were only a couple of million jobs at risk there. Eff'em, right?
Yes, indeedee. Anyone ever offer you a job as a christian councilor?
LOL.
72jjwilson61
69> Lunar doesn't believe in gov't so it's hard for him to look at it from the perspective of the gov't.
73BruceCoulson
The government should not be in the business of saving businesses. No matter what the justifications.
Whatever happened to real capitalism? If you take risks, you get to keep the profits; but you also take the losses if you fail.
Whatever happened to real capitalism? If you take risks, you get to keep the profits; but you also take the losses if you fail.
74Jesse_wiedinmyer
Whatever happened to debtors' prison?
76lawecon
~72
Lunar doesn't believe in gov't so it's hard for him to look at it from the perspective of the gov't.
========================
You know, that is strange. I'm not certain that I "believe in" government either. Certainly I don't believe that government is any more than an institution who "we" agree can act like a thug when thugs are desirable. However, that doesn't mean that logic is discarded when considering issues of government.
Lunar doesn't believe in gov't so it's hard for him to look at it from the perspective of the gov't.
========================
You know, that is strange. I'm not certain that I "believe in" government either. Certainly I don't believe that government is any more than an institution who "we" agree can act like a thug when thugs are desirable. However, that doesn't mean that logic is discarded when considering issues of government.
77lawecon
~71
Yes, indeedee. Anyone ever offer you a job as a christian councilor?
LOL.
====================
Ah yes, Christian Economics. Want to tell us about how charging interest on loans is a bad idea and should be prohibited by Christian laws, courts and cops? After all, Aristotle, the source of all Christian Economics, told us that "money is sterile" and therefore interest is evil.
Here is a suggestion. Then next time you want to practice Christian Economics, do it by putting your hand into your own pocket rather than picking the other guy's pocket while you're pointing a gun at him. Christian councilor confused with armed robber, apparently.
Yes, indeedee. Anyone ever offer you a job as a christian councilor?
LOL.
====================
Ah yes, Christian Economics. Want to tell us about how charging interest on loans is a bad idea and should be prohibited by Christian laws, courts and cops? After all, Aristotle, the source of all Christian Economics, told us that "money is sterile" and therefore interest is evil.
Here is a suggestion. Then next time you want to practice Christian Economics, do it by putting your hand into your own pocket rather than picking the other guy's pocket while you're pointing a gun at him. Christian councilor confused with armed robber, apparently.
78lawecon
~73
Well put. However, you have to realize that 95% of the "capitalist" ideologues wouldn't agree with you if their business was at issue. You see, they've never quite understood that "capitalism" means COMPETITIVE markets. Ask American physicians, for instance.
Well put. However, you have to realize that 95% of the "capitalist" ideologues wouldn't agree with you if their business was at issue. You see, they've never quite understood that "capitalism" means COMPETITIVE markets. Ask American physicians, for instance.
79Lunar
#67: Also, I believe the purpose of the graphs is to counter Republican talking points about the deficit.
No, it's right in the title. The purpose of the graphs are to blame the tax cuts. You could take the first graph and substitute any other aspect of government growing in cost (however you define "cost") in place of the tax cuts and say "Seriously, it's the XYZ!" It's utter bullshit.
No, it's right in the title. The purpose of the graphs are to blame the tax cuts. You could take the first graph and substitute any other aspect of government growing in cost (however you define "cost") in place of the tax cuts and say "Seriously, it's the XYZ!" It's utter bullshit.
80lawecon
~79
So, you mean if the tax cuts hadn't occurred that the budget deficit would be the same as it is today? Or do you merely mean that if expenditures had been lower that the deficit would be lower than it is today?
The problem with this sort of "analysis" is that some factors in the budget are more "discretionary" than others, and the nature of that discretion varies. For instance, whether you and I think that massive "entitlement" programs are a good idea, some of them - for instance social security - have been there for some time. People have built their lives on expectations about these programs.
Now, of course, you can frustrate those expectations. You can do all sorts of things in theory if those doing these things are willing to bear the consequences. But is that the sort of strategy you are advocating? If not, maybe you want to think before you go "calling bullshit" with such vigor.
So, you mean if the tax cuts hadn't occurred that the budget deficit would be the same as it is today? Or do you merely mean that if expenditures had been lower that the deficit would be lower than it is today?
The problem with this sort of "analysis" is that some factors in the budget are more "discretionary" than others, and the nature of that discretion varies. For instance, whether you and I think that massive "entitlement" programs are a good idea, some of them - for instance social security - have been there for some time. People have built their lives on expectations about these programs.
Now, of course, you can frustrate those expectations. You can do all sorts of things in theory if those doing these things are willing to bear the consequences. But is that the sort of strategy you are advocating? If not, maybe you want to think before you go "calling bullshit" with such vigor.
81Lunar
#80: But is that the sort of strategy you are advocating?
Strategy? What strategy? I was talking about the bullshit of political gamesmanship, not about participating in it.
Strategy? What strategy? I was talking about the bullshit of political gamesmanship, not about participating in it.
82lawecon
My, how righteous of you. How nice that you are so far above your fellow citizens that you don't want to play any of their games. And I'm sure that they give you and your opinions the appropriate degree of consideration for someone who is so far above the game of life for the hoi poli.
But hey, why should you care? You're right, that's the end of the story.
But hey, why should you care? You're right, that's the end of the story.
83Lunar
#82: And I'm sure that they give you and your opinions the appropriate degree of consideration for someone who is so far above the game of life for the hoi poli.
You've got it the wrong way around. It's the hoi polloi who don't take everyday politics seriously, so it's hardly a case of me putting myself above the huddled masses. It's usually the chatterbox minority who concern themselves with forming strategies and political machinations.
You've got it the wrong way around. It's the hoi polloi who don't take everyday politics seriously, so it's hardly a case of me putting myself above the huddled masses. It's usually the chatterbox minority who concern themselves with forming strategies and political machinations.
84lawecon
~83
Ah, not a member of the "chatterbox minority." Much better. Sad to be ruled by a "chatterbox minority," isn't it? But then, they deal with the messy real world of actual grubby interests and collective choices, rather than the coming of the Messiah and the perfection of all things.
Ah, not a member of the "chatterbox minority." Much better. Sad to be ruled by a "chatterbox minority," isn't it? But then, they deal with the messy real world of actual grubby interests and collective choices, rather than the coming of the Messiah and the perfection of all things.
85Lunar
#84: Ah, not a member of the "chatterbox minority."
Odd, because I never said I wasn't part of the chatterbox minority, just that they weren't the same as the everyday people you claimed I thought myself to be above. And they don't "rule" anything. They (or we, if you wish to peg me into a hole comprehensible in your worldview) are just noisier. The world through your eyes must be very bizarre.
Otherwise, thanks for amply clarifying how much you think yourself to be above the hoi polloi and the self-important hubris you harbor just for being part of the chattering classes.
Odd, because I never said I wasn't part of the chatterbox minority, just that they weren't the same as the everyday people you claimed I thought myself to be above. And they don't "rule" anything. They (or we, if you wish to peg me into a hole comprehensible in your worldview) are just noisier. The world through your eyes must be very bizarre.
Otherwise, thanks for amply clarifying how much you think yourself to be above the hoi polloi and the self-important hubris you harbor just for being part of the chattering classes.
87Lunar
#86: There's no evasion to speak of. You're just stuck on the notion that I can't call bullshit without joining some stupid team.
88faceinbook
Clash of the Titans !
90faceinbook
I do !!
92ErlendSkjelten
As regards Breivik's mental state: He's apparently making demands of the police, and won't talk about the two alleged terror cells he claims to have worked with unless they are met. Some of these demands are the resignation of the government, the abdication of the king, and the installation of himself as commander in chief of the armed forces.
His lawyer seems to think this is a sign of a true lack of comprehension as to how society functions, but apparently there's a section in his manifesto advising terrorists to attempt a coup d'etat from the defence stand as some sort of psychological warfare.
His lawyer seems to think this is a sign of a true lack of comprehension as to how society functions, but apparently there's a section in his manifesto advising terrorists to attempt a coup d'etat from the defence stand as some sort of psychological warfare.
93faceinbook
>91 lawecon:
Thank you !
Thank you !
94Arctic-Stranger
He is also demanding a Japanese psychologist/psychiatrist, because only the Japanese can recognize his sense of honor.
95Makifat
94
That would be the "sense of honor" that legitimizes gunning down scores of undefended youths.
What's Norwegian for "STFU"?
That would be the "sense of honor" that legitimizes gunning down scores of undefended youths.
What's Norwegian for "STFU"?
96timspalding
Not the King of Norway!
97OldSarge
This guy is starting to sound like that fruit loop, Colin Ferguson, who murdered six and wounded nineteen on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. He fired all of his lawyers and defended himself in court. His actions in the court room and statements proved he lived in Bizarro world.
98bnielsen
#96: But he might end as the King of Solitary Confinement. In Denmark we have a guy, who killed four policemen. He was eventually released from prison after 32 years and 8 months.
#97: Yes, I agree. (I see that Colins earliest possible parole date is August 6, 2309. That's also ok with me. And I think the Norwegians will put Breivik away for a similar period.)
#97: Yes, I agree. (I see that Colins earliest possible parole date is August 6, 2309. That's also ok with me. And I think the Norwegians will put Breivik away for a similar period.)
