Skip to main content

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. - G2geek
An excellent diary was originally published in January 2011 by G2geek, who appears to no longer be active at Daily Kos. The comment threads are excellent. We are republishing it here in full to facilitate discussion of this important problem.

Sponsored by the Firearms Law and Policy Group



The Daily Kos Firearms Law and Policy group studies actions for reducing firearm deaths and injuries in a manner that is consistent with the current Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you would like to write about firearms law please send us a Kosmail.

To see our list of original and republished diaries, go to the Firearms Law and Policy diary list. Click on the ♥ or the word "Follow" next to our group name to add our posts to your stream, and use the link next to the heart to send a message to the group if you have a question or would like to join.

We have adopted Wee Mama's and akadjian's guidance on communicating.  But most important, be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle.


Stochastic Terrorism:  Triggering the shooters.


by G2geek on January 10, 2011

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do.  And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.

Continued below the fold.

Stochastic Terrorism:  Triggering the shooters, continued


The mechanism

[This section was updated by the author is to resolve some ambiguity.]

The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist.  The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Here's the mechanism spelled out concisely:

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.  

One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act.   While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. "given the provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such"), the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet).  

The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do."

The lone wolf who was the "missile" gets captured and sentenced to life in prison, while the stochastic terrorist keeps his prime time slot and goes on to incite more lone wolves.    

Further, the stochastic terrorist may be acting either negligently or deliberately, or may be in complete denial of their impact, just like a drunk driver who runs over a pedestrian without even realizing it.  

Finally, there is no conspiracy here: merely the twisted acts of individuals who are promoting extremism, who get access to national media in which to do it, and the rest follows naturally just as an increase in violent storms follows from an increase in average global temperature.  

And now we return to the rest of the original diary...
.

The lone wolves.

The term "lone wolf" is used in law enforcement and intel to refer to an individual who is emotionally unstable, who lacks obvious ties to known criminal gangs or terrorist groups, and who pops up seemingly out of nowhere to commit a violent or terrorist act.  

The three-letter agencies can keep an eye on organized groups, and do a damn good job at stopping violent actors associated with those groups.  At least three intended car bombings were stopped last year by the FBI intercepting the bombers and substituting fake explosives in time to save hundreds of lives and arrest the would-be bombers.  

Lone wolves don't have obvious connections through which they can be discovered.  They don't communicate much if at all about their intentions.  They keep their plans to themselves.  And then, apparently at random, they pop up from obscurity and commit murder.  They are law enforcement's and intel's worst nightmare, and on Saturday one of them became America's nightmare.    

Stirring the pot.

At any given time there are hundreds of thousands of Americans with combinations of personality characteristics (such as emotional instability, a paranoid ideology, and a propensity for violence) that put them at risk of going off the deep end and becoming lone wolves.  All it takes is the right push, the right nudge at the right time, to dislodge a few of them and send them on their way to fifteen minutes of fame surrounded by dead bodies.  

There's nothing mysterious about this process.  It is not much different to other instances where a person is almost ready to make a decision, and the right combination of inputs makes them act.  For example you have an old car and it begins to break down more often: now you're thinking about replacing it, and you might be swayed by something in an automobile advertisement.  Anyone who is familiar with marketing and advertising knows how this works, and advertisers often target their messages to people who are "ready to buy" and just need a little persuading.  Political candidates often target their ads to the undecideds, hoping that a little nudge will win them some votes.  This is perfectly normal and hardly insidious.  

It becomes insidious when these practices are used in such a manner as to deliberately or negligently stir up lone wolf violence.  

So let's take Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly.  There is no question that their emotional rhetoric appeals to people who are emotionally unstable.  And, since their audiences are tracked and analyzed in detail, there is no question that they know it.  

When they go on TV and shout and sputter, rant and rave, and weep and wail, they are not expecting to persuade liberals or even undecideds to change their votes.  They are "playing to their base," that they know includes people who are emotionally unstable.  In short they are "stirring the pot."  And if you turn up the temperature and keep stirring, you know that the pot will boil.  Little bubbles will come up from the depths and pop.  

Pop go the lone wolves.

Some lone wolves have no provable connection to the hate-talkers and pot-stirrers, other than memes in common.  One example of this type is James Wenneker von Brunn who shot and killed security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.  Another is Andrew Joseph Stack III, who flew a Piper Dakota into the Austin Texas field office of the Internal Revenue Service, killing IRS manager Vernon Hunter and himself, and injuring thirteen others.  At this point it appears as if Jared Loughner is one of these: all-over-the-map crazy, with an incoherent ideology that is mostly rightwing but difficult to trace to specific sources.  

(UPDATE: to be very clear about this: at this point I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that Loughner falls under the definition of stochastic terrorism, because there is nothing yet to link him to being a fan of one of the mass media hate-talkers.  However there are enough other cases out there to make this issue topical and relevant right now.)

On the other hand...

On 27 July 2008, lone wolf shooter Jim David Adkisson walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and shot nine people, killing two and wounding seven.  Adkisson said he was motivated by hatred of "Democrats, liberals, n-----s, and faggots."  A police search of his home found books by Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly.  

On 4 February 2009, he accepted a plea bargain: guilty on two counts of murder, in exchange for a life sentence w/o possibility of parole (LWOP).

On 4 April 2009, Richard Poplawski shot five Pittsburgh PA police officers, leaving three dead and two seriously wounded.    

According to people who knew him, he was a birther and white supremacist, was paranoid that Obama was going to take away his guns, and was consumed with anti-semitic conspiracy theories.  A police search of his computer found links to various groups and to a YouTube video of Glenn Beck talking about FEMA concentration camps.    

Poplawski's trial has been delayed until 25 April 2011, where it is possible he will face the death penalty for the murder of police officers.  

On 31 May 2009, lone wolf Scott Roeder shot and killed gynecologist Dr. George Tiller while Tiller was attending church services.  At first it appeared that he acted alone, but research by some fellow Kossaks and I uncovered evidence that he had at least one accomplice.  That issue is presently being investigated by a federal grand jury.  

In the months leading up to the assassination, Bill O'Reilly had waged a "relentless campaign" against Tiller, a campaign of exactly the type that would be expected to stir up violence against the doctor.  The details can be found here:  http://www.salon.com/...

In January 2010 Roeder was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole.  At present his accomplices and enablers have not yet been indicted and charged.

On 18 July 2010, Byron Williams set out from his mother's home in Groveland CA, heading for San Francisco to shoot up the Tides Foundation and the ACLU, with the intention of "starting a revolution."  

Williams, a convicted felon (two bank robberies), was stopped by the CHP (California Highway Patrol) for weaving in and out of traffic at high speed.  When stopped, he immediately opened fire on the CHP officers, wounding two.  They returned fire, wounding him in the leg, and then took him into custody.  At first they thought they were dealing with a garden-variety cop shooter.  Then they found the notebook in his car, with the details of his plans.    

Quoting the Wikipedia article on Williams:  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Quote:  Williams has identified Glenn Beck as his primary motivation for the shootings.  According to Williams, Beck is "like a schoolteacher on TV... he's been breaking open some of the most hideous corruption."  Continuing: "Beck would never say anything about a conspiracy, would never advocate violence. He'll never do anything ... of this nature. But he'll give you every ounce of evidence that you could possibly need."  End quote.  

Prior to Williams' planned attack, Beck had mentioned the obscure Tides Foundation 29 times on his program.  He had drawn numerous charts on his infamous blackboard, showing how Tides is the funding source behind much of the "liberal conspiracy."  He had stoked and fueled, turned up the heat on the pot, and stirred it real good.  He devoted two of his broadcasts to Tides in the very week preceding the shooting.  

Quoting the Washington Post article:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Quote: Beck has at times spoken against violence, but he more often forecasts it, warning that "it is only a matter of time before an actual crazy person really does something stupid." Most every broadcast has some violent imagery: "The clock is ticking. . . . The war is just beginning. . . . Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. . . . You have to be prepared to take rocks to the head. . . . The other side is attacking. . . . There is a coup going on. . . . Grab a torch! . . . Drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers. . . . They are taking you to a place to be slaughtered. . . . They are putting a gun to America's head. . . . Hold these people responsible."  Unquote.  

Every ounce of evidence you could possibly need.

One dead doctor.

Two dead churchgoers.

Seven wounded churchgoers.  

Three dead police officers.

Four wounded police officers.  

How many more that I couldn't remember while writing this?  

Meanwhile the jury is still out on whether Loughner's victims belong on the list of people who "got Becked."  

As someone on dKos wrote in a comment about this a few months ago, there was a saying among his buddies in the Air Force:  "Once is a tragedy, twice is a terrible coincidence, three times is enemy action."

If you were a media personality known for rants & raves on the air, and it came out that some random killer had possibly been influenced by you or one of your colleagues, what would you do?  Would you apologize?  Would you tone it down?

If it happened again, what would you do?  And if it happened yet again after that?  What would you do?  

It takes more than just a special type of sociopath to fail to be moved by the murders of doctors, churchgoers, and police officers in the line of duty, and the could-have-been-murders of more.  

I submit to you that it takes something between callous disregard and deliberate intent.  

Pulling the trigger by remote control.

If you wanted certain people dead, but you wanted plausible deniability, you would have someone else do the deed for you at a distance, the greater the distance the better.  

One way to do it would be to use your position on radio or TV to hurl emotional rhetoric that is calculated to appeal to people who are psychologically unstable.  Some of them will go out and vote, some will go forth and spread your rant-memes, some will get into bar-room brawls over one issue or another.  

But a few, who have already demonstrated a lack of respect for the law, will do more than that.  Maybe they'll assault someone on the street who is black or gay or speaking Spanish in public or wearing traditional Islamic garb.  Maybe they'll make a bomb and put it in the mail or plant it at a women's clinic.  

Maybe they'll go out and shoot someone.  Maybe they'll shoot someone who, in your heart of hearts, you want dead.  If you have a list of targets in mind, such as Operation Rescue's website with crosshairs on doctors, or Palin's crosshairs on elected officials, it won't matter who gets killed first and who gets killed later: any hit will do.

This is stochastic terrorism:  you heat up the waters and stir the pot, knowing full well that sooner or later a lone wolf will pop up and do the deed.  The fact that it will happen is as predictable as the fact that a heated pot of water will eventually boil.  But the exact time and place of each incident will remain as random as the appearance of the first bubbles in the boiling pot.  

And so the unstable shooter, the sick kid or crazy grownup, will be taken into custody where they will rant a disconnected version of your own rants.  The fact that they are clearly nuts will enable shifting the public discussion away from your hateful rhetoric and toward the overt insanity of the shooter or bomber.  

After that, you get to go on the air and tut-tut along with everyone else, and say Oh So Sad, and all that crap.  But behind the scenes you drink a toast and cheer: one down, a bunch more to go.  

Or perhaps you're just crazy enough to truly believe that you really don't have anything to do with it.  You collect your media star paycheck and tootle along to the next day in front of cameras and microphones, ready to do it again, as oblivious as the drunk driver who runs over a flock of schoolchildren and keeps driving, and then when the cops pull him over, says "Who, me??"

The guilty-knowledge test.

Someone needs to corral Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, and the rest of them, in front of a microphone and camera that are not of their own choosing.  

For example think of Sixty Minutes and their famed unannounced appearances at the offices and even homes of various wrongdoers over the years.  Or think of press conferences or other scheduled appearances, where someone pops up and asks the inconvenient question or two, and the question captures the headlines.  

And someone needs to ask them:  In light of this latest in a series of ideologically-motivated murders, are you willing to tone down your rhetoric even a little?  

Listen very closely to their answers.  They will duck and weave, evade and deny, or at most give the standard reply of "lone nuts, oh so sad."  But they may also let slip a subtle hint of guilty knowledge.

The author of the aforementioned WaPo article says in passing, "It's not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by people who watch his show."

I say it damn well is fair to blame them when it happens again and again and predictably again.  

Once is a tragedy, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.

And now we know how it's done: stir the pot and wait for the inevitable, and then deny it and do it again.  That's stochastic terrorism as surely as when Bin Laden does it.  And Beck and his fellow hate-mongers are terrorists by remote control.  




9:46 AM PT: Happy Mother's Day Threat From Florida Gun Instructor Here's a video featuring a contemporary act of stochastic terrorism.

11:13 AM PT: "It was like a mock execution" Profile of progressive activist Jennifer Longdon, victim of stochastic terrorism.

3:38 PM PT: Published this afternoon: Triggering the Trigger by Karen Hedwig Backman

7:33 PM PT: Published this evening "Thugs with Jugs" - Death Threats, Insults, Gun Rights Advocates Targeting Women by Rachel191



Sat May 17, 2014 at 11:58 AM PT: Thanks everybody, for participating in our discussion of intimidation tactics and implied threats. Incitement to violence is an established legal principle but there seems to be no agreement on what the phrase "stochastic terrorism" even means. Using it may even confuse people we are trying to persuade. I suggest that intimidation and implied threats are more specific and adequate to the task.


Thu May 22, 2014 at  1:56 PM PT:
Two rebuttal diaries have been published by Hugh Jim Bissel and G2geek.
Stochastic Terrorism - A Rebuttal and An Apology

Stochastic Terrorism - G2geek Replies




Originally posted to Firearms Law and Policy on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:32 AM PDT.

Also republished by Support the Dream Defenders, Shut Down the NRA, VAGV - Veterans Against Gun Violence, and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  like Putnam's Bowling Alone, (10+ / 0-)

    we can all be outliers, and in a modern capitalist democracy, everyone has the potential to be a Lone Wolf, making profiling an absurd exercise and hence stochastic modeling inherently flawed. better to focus on improving democracy and minimizing the deleterious psychological effects of capitalism....

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:56:08 AM PDT

  •  The extreme right has a concept called (22+ / 0-)

    "leaderless resistance." The idea is that there is no leader who can be identified by law enforcement or held to account in any other way. Instead, the ideology is put out there and "lone wolves" carry out the violence. Stochastic terrorism, as you say.

  •  Some Food For Thought (10+ / 0-)

    In my opinion, some more thought needs to be given to this idea of "stochastic terrorism"

    1) Is stochastic terrorism possible if the country was not awash with guns?  Would stochastic terrorism work if there were rules against selling guns and ammo to crazy people?  And IIRC, there are rules against selling guns to crazy people, so is the problem then not the "terrorists", but the sellers of guns and the lack of enforcement of laws regarding guns?

    2) The Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks will deny that they intend anyone to get shot.  What evidence exists that these public voices want people shot or killed?  Isn't it true that what the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks really want is more eyes and ears - more ratings - and saying outrageous things is a good way to get attention and ratings?  In what ways are the Madows and Mahers different from Hannitys and Limbaughs or are they also stochastic terrorists?  Many performers - from liberal stalwarts like George Carlin to gadflies like Justin Beiber - use shock and outrage to gain recognition and (occasionally) make political points  When is that permissible, even laudable, and when is it terrorism?

    3) Are you guilty of stochastic terrorism when you blame Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck?  Why or why not?

    Please understand I myself do not have answers to these questions.  I pose them for the purpose of thinking and discussion.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:07:35 AM PDT

    •  Excellent questions, all (7+ / 0-)

      Thanks, HJB

      And speaking of food. Time for lunch. BBL

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:20:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hannity egged on those at Bundy's ranch. I don't (15+ / 0-)

      remember Maddow or others egging on anyone to point guns at Federal agents or similar acts.

      Hannity should have known Bundy explicitly called this a "Range War" and he was coordinating with OathKeepers and Sovereign Citizens.

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:28:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hannity egged on the Bundy protesters (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        I agree: Hannity encouraged the protests at the Bundy ranch.  

        Are the protests at the Bundy ranch an example of terrorism or an example of civil disobedience?  Should racists be denied free expression of their political views?

        Remember, that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is largely determined by whoever wins the fight.

        Madow was largely sympathetic to the "Occupy" protests.  Is that an example of stochastic terrorism?

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:46:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh oh (11+ / 0-)

          False equivalence alarm!

          Could you give us a few details on anything that Maddow did that could conceivably be called "stochastic terrorism"?

          I mean, we have: O'Reilly targeted Dr. Tiller numerous times and he was killed by a lone nut.

          vs.: Maddow supported the "Occupy" protests.  

          Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

          by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:58:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bundy Protests vs. Occupy Protests (0+ / 0-)

            Where is the false equivalence?

            So far the Bundy protests have been non-violent (no hitting, no shots fired).  Indeed, there were actual episodes of violence (attacks of bank branches) as part of the Occupy protests.

            So yes, Hannity was sympathetic to the Bundy protests, and Madow was sympathetic to the Occupy protests.  How is one worse than the other?

            Can you remind everyone about what exactly O'Rielly said about Dr. Tillerman?  I myself do not recall.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:30:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  um - are you being obtuse, or conern trolling? (10+ / 0-)

              Hannity & the Bundy Bunch vs. Maddow supporting the "Occupy" protests.  

              Not equivalent. Not even close.

              Re-read the diary.

              Sheesh.

              “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

              by ozsea1 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:59:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The need for insults (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener, bastrop

                I have always thought that whoever insults first is losing the argument.

                If you have a point to make, I will respond in kind.  Do you have a point to make, or are you losing the argument?

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:17:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You haven't been insulted. (8+ / 0-)

                  What you're doing looks a lot like concern trolling.

                  I pointed that out, and then I suggested something you could do that would make the concern trolling option a lot less likely.

                  And calling you obtuse for conflating Maddow with Hannity and O'Reilly?

                  That's not an insult.

                  You could also try answering this:

                  Could you give us a few details on anything that Maddow did that could conceivably be called "stochastic terrorism"?

                  a little less glibly.

                  Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                  by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:25:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Would you care to help us? (0+ / 0-)

                    In the Firearms Law and Policy group we're trying for more discussion, let acrimony. Would you care to help us with that effort?

                    It's a common MO - snide ad homs and subtle insults and then when the target objects, faux anger... It just goes down hill from there.

                    Apparently you're so accustomed to giving and receiving insults it has become normalized for you. Just an observation.

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:43:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I appreciate (4+ / 0-)

                      your attempts at fostering discussion. Thing is, it should work both ways.

                      Mr. Bissell should have enough respect for his critics that he should avoid comparisons like the one he made about Maddow and O'Reilly. When he got called on that, he could have supported it or he could have admitted it was a bad comparison. He didn't do either. He evaded the criticism and continued to make the same false equivalence before he finally just claimed that his point was something else entirely.

                      I'm sorry if you think that pointing this out is mere name-calling. It's just that I am tired of dealing with the kind of intellectual dishonesty just demonstrated by Mr. Bissell.

                      When these kind of tactics are allowed, you can hardly have a meaningful discussion.

                      Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                      by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:21:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There is no comparison (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener

                        between Maddow's coverage and the right's egging on of violence.

                        The subject never should have come up. Glad you called it.

                        I think Israel (and/or AIPAC) has a large and problematic influence on our foreign policy and legislation as it relates to Iran and the Middle East. Since I've been hidden for saying this, I expect to be hidden every time I post with this sig.

                        by Black Mare on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:13:21 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Not an insult (5+ / 0-)

                  you made the comparison, not I, so it's incumbent on you to explain your assertion without resorting to false equivalence.

                  “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

                  by ozsea1 on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:59:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Do you have a point? (0+ / 0-)

                    Do you have a point or not?  What is it?

                    Is your point that Madow is allowed to support Occupy but Hannity is not allowed to support Bundy?

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:59:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Are you going (6+ / 0-)

                      to detail how Maddow's support for Occupy is just like O'Reilly targeting Dr. Tiller?

                      Or are you just going to keep substituting "Hannity's support for Bundy" for "O'Reilly targeted Tiller" as you continue to defend your false equivalence?

                      Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                      by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:10:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Here is MY point (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        kfunk937

                        Here are MY points:
                        1) Both left and right should be allowed to express their political opinions without being called terrorists.

                        2) Gun violence is a result of too many guns, not because of the talking heads on TV.

                        And here is my original comment - before it was dragged off-topic by others:

                        In my opinion, some more thought needs to be given to this idea of "stochastic terrorism"

                        1) Is stochastic terrorism possible if the country was not awash with guns?  Would stochastic terrorism work if there were rules against selling guns and ammo to crazy people?  And IIRC, there are rules against selling guns to crazy people, so is the problem then not the "terrorists", but the sellers of guns and the lack of enforcement of laws regarding guns?

                        2) The Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks will deny that they intend anyone to get shot.  What evidence exists that these public voices want people shot or killed?  Isn't it true that what the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks really want is more eyes and ears - more ratings - and saying outrageous things is a good way to get attention and ratings?  In what ways are the Madows and Mahers different from Hannitys and Limbaughs or are they also stochastic terrorists?  Many performers - from liberal stalwarts like George Carlin to gadflies like Justin Beiber - use shock and outrage to gain recognition and (occasionally) make political points  When is that permissible, even laudable, and when is it terrorism?

                        3) Are you guilty of stochastic terrorism when you blame Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck?  Why or why not?

                        Please understand I myself do not have answers to these questions.  I pose them for the purpose of thinking and discussion.

                        I did not raise the issue of the Bundy protests - some else did.  It was my mistake to go down that rhetorical path.

                        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:53:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Mr Bissell (6+ / 0-)

                          It sounds like we agree on a lot of things.

                          I'm glad you admitted that the "Bundy protests"  comparison was a mistake. You could have done that earlier and saved us a lot of grief.

                          Conservative critics make so many ridiculous comparisons that the "left" is as bad as the "right" that a lot of us in the progressive community have gotten heartily sick of it. I don't apologize for being persistent on that point. I suggest that you be more careful next time. If you make a bad comparison, admit it. Try to come up with a better example for a crazy leftist commentator, for example.

                          But I do apologize for not looking harder to see your original point. Your actual point is not something I would argue against. The right-wingers are not legally responsible for lone wolf terrorism.

                          But the trouble is that they don't seem at all concerned that they may be responsible in some other way - morally, socially, spiritually. And that is why I am so disgusted by their hypocrisy and their lies and their inflammatory tactics.

                          You don't do yourself any favors at all when you try to compare a Rachel Maddow to a Sean Hannity.

                          Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                          by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:13:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  In response (0+ / 0-)

                            I will say it again: I DID NOT SAY THE BUNDY PROTEST AND THE OCCUPY PROTESTS ARE THE SAME OR EQUIVALENT.

                            Now, at the risk of again being accused of making a false equivalency (which careful readers will see I am not making) I will point out that Hannity dropped his support of Bundy when Bundy's racism became apparent.  And I will take another step out on the limb by saying that Shawn Hannity should be allowed to be wrong.  Hannity was wrong in supporting Bundy, and when he saw his mistake, he publicly acknowledged it.

                            I will also point out that Sarah Palin has stopped making little gun site targets on Gabby Gifford's and other Dem districts.

                            Baby-steps to be sure.

                            Does right-wing TV incite madmen to violence.  Yes, I think it does.  And by making guns so freely available to even madmen, we as a society have a part to play in that violence.  Fewer guns would mean less violence, yet madmen are incited to do strange things when listening to "It's a small small world after all", or when watching puppies at play.

                            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:32:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Perhaps HJB was giving us all an opportunity (0+ / 0-)

                            to refine our arguments. You know some oppo research?

                            Thank you for alerting me that there was a problem and for sticking it out.

                            He was over the line in this diary and he now knows it. You'll notice I have responded to his argument and did not rec any of his bullshit arguments and probably should have pushed back stronger sooner. I was mostly engaged elsewhere, so I'll apologize for not interrupting the bull in a China shop.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:46:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  When you do go down a rhetorical path (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Black Mare

                          you need to spell out right from the beginning that you are doing that, otherwise you do read like a concern troll just pushing RW memes.

                          Reading through the thread you were thread jacking all the way. I welcome your passion but not expressed like this. High maintenance.

                          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                          by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:40:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, that's not the case here (6+ / 0-)
                  I have always thought that whoever insults first is losing the argument.
                  That proves nothing and you weren't even insulted.  And, yes, what you're saying is ridiculous.  (sorry if that's insulting!)  But people occupying a public space to protest is quite obviously different than heavily armed people threatening violence and pointing their guns at federal agents.  

                  When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

                  by Sun dog on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:48:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You have missed the argument (0+ / 0-)

                    What I have been saying is that right-wing groups have every bit as much right to protest the government as left-wing groups.

                    And both left and right should be allowed to protest the government without being called terrorists.

                    Now Bundy may not want the US government to exist (tho' apparently he pays taxes to the US government, tho' not grazing fees), but he is allowed to wave around a rifle.

                    You don't like his goals or the ways he protests?  Guess what, lots of people don't like the way Occupy movement protests.  

                    The question we should be asking is can people protest the government (or anything else) without being called terrorists?

                    But wait - Bundy IS a terrorist!!!  Well, funny - Hannity thinks Occupy are terrorists.  But wait - Bundy has guns.  And yes, Occupy riots destroyed private property - an act of violence.

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:08:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't miss it at all (5+ / 0-)

                      You're equating occupying public spaces with using the armed threat of violence.  Occupy didn't go into parks and say, "Stay out or we'll shoot you," while displaying high powered rifles.  

                      Just because people say two opposite things doesn't mean you have to pretend that they hold equal weight if one of those sides is patently ridiculous.  You just sound like another dull media talker who doesn't understand the Fair and Balanced fallacy.  

                      Yes, that one is probably an insult but based on what you're saying here, well deserved.  

                      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

                      by Sun dog on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:02:22 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Try persuasion. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        bastrop

                        It's not easy but it's much more satisfying.

                        Maybe he's not pretending. Have you ever heard of the Socratic method? Where someone poses a question for the purpose of discussion.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:08:40 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  THIS (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Sun dog, kfunk937
                        You're equating occupying public spaces with using the armed threat of violence.  Occupy didn't go into parks and say, "Stay out or we'll shoot you," while displaying high powered rifles.  
                        I want to rec your beautiful, focused, and cogent thought...

                        ... but I can't uprate your self-indulgence at the end.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:09:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Again (0+ / 0-)
                        But wait - Bundy IS a terrorist!!!  Well, funny - Hannity thinks Occupy are terrorists.  But wait - Bundy has guns.  And yes, Occupy riots destroyed private property - an act of violence.
                        Are they the same.  No, I do NOT think they are the same.  But I do think that both behaviors are frightening to onlookers who do not share the political vision of the protesters.

                        Look - your "false equivalency" is false.  And worse, prevents you from understanding my point about this diary.

                        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:40:11 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I finally see where you were going. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Black Mare, kfunk937

                      This framing is a problem:

                      Occupy riots destroyed private property
                      That's a false meme that should be retired. You have to be specific and you have to link. Occupy wasn't just one event or one group. The vast majority of Occupy protests were non-violent action. Sit-ins out in public, if you will.

                      But I finally get what you're driving at. Yes Occupy Wall Street did hold off the NYPD for months. But in NYC they did it with chanting and drums and by being a great place for anyone to visit and discuss. Passersby weren't threatened, they were invited in to share a meal or to borrow a book from the Occupy Library.

                      But you are right in a way that some might not  understand. Occupiers did not self identify as Dem or GOP or I, they weren't about registering voters either. That was even more true of Occupy Sandy. They wanted to effect change outside the political structure. They relied on the First Amendment. They weren't demanding that their local leaders disarm all federal and state police officers.

                      This argument is way out on a false equivalence limb.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:26:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  He's not concern trolling (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo, Themistoclea, bastrop, kfunk937

                Hugh Jim Bissel is an editor and he asked me those questions before I published. I invited him to post them here for the purpose of defining what these terms mean.

                Not necessary to fight. Just answer if you wish, or skip it if you think it should be obvious to everyone.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:20:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If he showed a little less (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  randallt, leftykook, ozsea1, Black Mare

                  intellectual dishonesty, I would be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

                  He is equating Maddow's support of Occupy with numerous examples of right-wing commentators singling out and lying about and making numerous inflammatory statements about individuals who have been targeted and killed by lone wolves who have been proven listeners of right-wing rhetoric.

                  There is no comparison. If there is, why has he not answered this question:

                  Could you give us a few details on anything that Maddow did that could conceivably be called "stochastic terrorism"?
                  with a few details?

                  Does he have any kind of a case or not?

                  I'm probably not the only person who would like to see him detail his claim of "stochastic terrorism" against Rachel Maddow.

                  Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                  by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:38:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And by details, (7+ / 0-)

                    I mean stuff like this Salon article on O'Reilly's crusade against Dr. Tiller where he was mentioned 28 times and repeatedly called a Nazi and a baby killer.

                    (This article, by the way, is linked in the diary above. That's why I told Mr. Bissell that it wasn't hard.)

                    So who did Rachel Maddow single out and demonize 28 times while showing her support for Occupy?  

                    (And I apologize for suggesting that Mr. Bissell might be a concern troll.)

                    Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                    by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:57:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I would like to see him detail it too (0+ / 0-)

                    Look. Lying is HRable. If you think he's lying you should HR the comment. Otherwise, knock it off.

                    Could you make your points and ask your questions focusing on the content of the comment and without resorting to personal attacks?

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:49:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  LilithGardener (4+ / 0-)

                      If you're interested in Mr. Bissell's defense of his claims against Maddow, could you direct some of your reponses to him instead of continuously calling me out for noting his evasions?

                      Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                      by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:13:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  He can take care of himself and so can you (0+ / 0-)

                        Repetitive meta is boring, but you begged for this, so I'll try.

                        I agree with you that at a glance his argument appears to be false equivalence. When I first read it I said to myself, WTF?! You appear to be stuck there, at your first glance and unwilling to stop and challenge your assumptions. I hope you can take a deep breath, broaden your perspective and get back in the conversation.

                        FWIW I have disagreed with HJB many times, and on some matters I think he is wrong. But with few exceptions, he is a patient and thoughtful person willing to open his mind to others ideas. You probably are too.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:03:35 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I did, however belatedly (0+ / 0-)

                        And for that I owe you an apology. I'm very glad you stuck around and wouldn't back down.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:52:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Please quote me (0+ / 0-)

                    Please quote any comment I made in which I claimed R.Madow engaged in stochastic terrorism.

                    I do not believe I made such a comment - remind me.

                    Will you have the intellectual honesty to report back that you cannot find such a comment made by me?

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:20:37 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Here's what you said : (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Black Mare
                      I agree: Hannity encouraged the protests at the Bundy ranch.  

                      Are the protests at the Bundy ranch an example of terrorism or an example of civil disobedience?  Should racists be denied free expression of their political views?

                      Remember, that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is largely determined by whoever wins the fight.

                      Madow was largely sympathetic to the "Occupy" protests.  Is that an example of stochastic terrorism?

                      You are certainly comparing Maddow to right-wing extremist commentary.

                      Here's what I said:

                      False equivalence alarm!

                      Could you give us a few details on anything that Maddow did that could conceivably be called "stochastic terrorism"?

                      I mean, we have: O'Reilly targeted Dr. Tiller numerous times and he was killed by a lone nut.

                      vs.: Maddow supported the "Occupy" protests.  

                      Even if you didn't quite accuse Maddow of "stochastic terrorism," you were certainly making a comparison between Maddow and some pretty awful right-wing commentators when such a comparison is completely unjustified.

                      Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                      by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:41:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Mr. Bissell (3+ / 0-)

              If you really care and aren't just concern trolling, you can look it up yourself.

              It's not hard.

              Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

              by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:15:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please see my comment above, Thx. nt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:21:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Grok this (0+ / 0-)

                Here is my point: just because you do not agree, you cannot call a political ideal or movement "terrorism".

                There is a long and rotten tradition of states using the label of "terrorism" to silence opposition.

                We should not continue that tradition here in the USA.

                I frankly oppose the label of "terrorism" as applied to Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck and other right-wing voices, just as I oppose the label of "terrorism" applied to the Occupy movement.  

                I do not care for the Bundy protesters, and I do not agree with their goals.  But I believe strongly they have a right to make their political views public - even if that view is to get rid of the US government.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:32:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Make their views public (6+ / 0-)

                  I agree. They have freedom of speech, and no one should stop them from expressing their views.

                  And I'm just shocked that you equate coming armed, pointing guns at federal officers, and preventing them from doing their job, forcing the federal officials to back down out of fear of violence, with making "their political views public."

                  "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                  by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:04:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I support the Black Panthers (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener

                    retroactively, due to age, for doing that exact thing. And I do not agree with them being called a terrorist, and Bobby Seales and Huey Newton were not stochastic terrorists. Bundy et. al. have done nothing more than those people.

                    •  Would you spell out what you mean? (0+ / 0-)

                      I think I know where you're going and might agree.

                      E.g. The Deacons For Defense and Justice weren't engaging in stochastic terrorism just because they were armed, they were defending themselves against a sustained Klan terrorism campaign.

                      Denise Oliver wrote and excellent diary about them.
                      Deacons for Defense

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:59:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I suggest you read some of (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener

                        Denise's work on the Black Panthers as well then. I'm pretty obsessive about reading her stuff, especially after having had a chance to get to know her a little bit through another channel.

                        Some Panthers initiated violence independently, arguably in response to incendiary speeches by some of the BP leadership. If they'd been acting today there'd be no doubt those Panthers would have been labeled terrorists. Were Huey, Bobby, or Angela therefore 'stochastic terrorists?'

                        Another potential 'stochastic terrorist' might be Edward Abbey. There is no question that his writings have directly inspired some of the more violent radical environmental groups. If we're going to follow this road to the end, Mother Jones pretty much fits the bill.

                        My point is that your stochastic terrorist can easily be my intellectual inspiration. Hannity, Limbaugh, et. al. are mice compared to the ones I've sited, but, other than their choice of subject what's different in their words?

                        •  But that is the definition, exactly (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          nickrud, kfunk937
                          My point is that your stochastic terrorist can easily be my intellectual inspiration. Hannity, Limbaugh, et. al. are mice compared to the ones I've sited, but, other than their choice of subject what's different in their words?
                          The fact that some may be inspired to go non-violent (for example) doesn't have anything to do with the definition. "Incitement to violence" is stochastic terrorism. incitement to peaceful creativity is not. The definition has to do with the inability to know who/where the lone wolves are and when they might go off.

                          And yes, Denise's scholarship and writing is always worth. She's a treasure.

                          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                          by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:40:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Did not police back down from Occupy? (0+ / 0-)

                    Did not the police back down from Occupy for a considerable period of time?

                    Why yes, they did.  

                    Will law enforcement ultimately do exactly what they want with Bundy and his gang.  Yes, I am sure they will.  (Tho' I am not sure that law enforcement will be as nasty with the Bundy gang as they were with Occupy - but that is a different fight)

                    The story of the Bundy protests are not yet told in full.  The may yet be violence, and there will ultimately be a reckoning.

                    Sometimes force appears as a gun, sometimes force appears as a large crowd.

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:16:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, but these are not the same things (3+ / 0-)
                      Sometimes force appears as a gun, sometimes force appears as a large crowd.
                      It feels surreal to have to try and explain that...especially since in some of your other comments you have made it clear that you're anti-gun (as am I), but you put using guns for intimidation on the same level as nonviolent protest (apparently). I'm confused.

                      "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                      by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:53:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  You mean like Dr. King's March on Washington? (3+ / 0-)

                      I hear that drew a really large crowd.

                      Are you saying that was a display of force?  Can you really not understand the difference between a peaceful political protest and people pointing guns at federal agents?

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:45:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Mr. Bissell (3+ / 0-)

                  An important part of the outrage directed at people like O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity is that they do not change their ways when links are shown between their rhetoric and actual acts of murder and violence.

                  So far, no one has even suggested that O'Reilly, Beck or Hannity should face charges for the possibility that they may be inciting violence.

                  But I think we can still criticize them for their hateful gibberish. (Despite popular belief among the right wing, speech rights don't stop for non-conservatives after a conservative is done talking.)

                  And comparing Rachel Maddow to O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity (and then doing everything in your power to evade any meaningful answers sparked by your accusations against Maddow) is simply going too far. It is hard to take anyone seriously when they make statements like that as if they are some kind of devastating rejoinder.

                  Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                  by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:07:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have real misgivings (0+ / 0-)

                    with this stochastic terrorist label for the simple reason that, as you said, 'so far'. Speech that doesn't call for actual violence, now, is not terrorism, and attempts to attach the label implies to me that someone, down the line, will try to make it a crime.

                  •  And if Hannity is shot tomorrow (0+ / 0-)

                    It is possible that someone may read the diary above and get it in their head to shoot Shawn Hannity.

                    If that were to happen would the author of the diary be guilty of "stochastic terrorism"?

                    Yes, I agree that you can criticize  O'Reilly, Beck or Hannity for their views and statements.

                    Remind me, what was my accusation against Madow?  That she was sympathetic to Occupy?  

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:22:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I've forgotten the point as well. (3+ / 0-)

                      Oh, I remember! I asked you if you would kindly offer up some evidence to support your false equivalence that Maddow's support for Occupy was the same as O'Reilly's repeated verbal attacks on Dr. Tiller.

                      (Link to O'Reilly's verbal attacks on Tiller provided for third time.)

                      No one would be guilty of "stochastic terrorism" if Sean Hannity were shot tomorrow. It is ridiculous even to suggest such a scenario. There is no comparison between O'Reilly's repeated and inflammatory attacks on Dr. Tiller and a single Web article that reports on what is said on Hannity's show.

                      Patriotism is the FIRST refuge of the scoundrel.

                      by Tony Seybert on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:47:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Please Provide a Quote (0+ / 0-)

                        Please provide for me a quote of my comment wherein I say that Madow's support for Occupy is the same as O'Reilly's attacks on Dr. Tiller.

                        I don't believe I actually said that - remind me.

                        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:01:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  No one here is encouraging violence (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener, Black Mare

                      against Sean Hannity. That is the rather obvious difference here. We're criticizing. He's free to criticize. But supporting a movement that is vowing violence against specific individuals (did you miss the direct death threat against BLM agents in Utah the other day?) is different than criticism.

                      "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                      by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:55:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  You know, HJB you should write a diary about that (0+ / 0-)

                  It's pretty far off topic from this diary, which is stochastic terrorism aka incitement to violence.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:54:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Really don't think carrying weapons is non-violent (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              spacecadet1, randallt, LilithGardener

              Would you consider the Bundy mob to be of so little concern if they were, for example, armed Al Qaeda sympathizers who had managed to prevent federal agents from doing their job? Mind you, in my little hypothetical, they would all be legally carrying.

              "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

              by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:02:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Occupy Protesters Did NOT Point Loaded (0+ / 0-)

              Weapons at law enforcement, & dare them to shoot at them. (more specifically: Their women & children).

              It IS false equivalence.

        •  Occupy were terrorists? (4+ / 0-)

          Could you please enlighten us with some examples of terrorist attacks carried out by Occupy protestors? Or how many of them were arrested for being armed?

          "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

          by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:06:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In some communities (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Black Mare

            The occupy protesters were declared anarchists and this was used to justify a dynamic swat team raid against them.

            For example: Chapel Hill, NC.

            Heavily armed officers raided a nest of 70 self-described "anti-capitalist occupiers" who took over an empty former car dealership a few blocks from the Occupy Chapel Hill camp. Police, who described the protesters as "anarchists," charged seven people Sunday with misdemeanor breaking and entering.
            Occupy Chapel Hill said it was outraged and disappointed at the "disproportionate and disturbing use of force" by police. "Officers pointing automatic weapons at the heads and bodies of unarmed and peaceful individuals ... raises serious questions about who they are meant to serve and protect," the statement said.
            (Chapel Hill Mayor) Mark Kleinschmidt told reporters Monday: "We had breaking and entering of private property downtown. The government has to respond."

            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

            by blackhand on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:22:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You Misunderstand (0+ / 0-)

            You misunderstand.

            I have not said the Occupy protests were done by terrorists or were acts of terrorism.

            And so far, the Bundy protests have been peaceful, tho' guns are indeed present.

            So as far as I can tell, neither the occupy nor the Bundy protests can be rightfully called examples of terrorism.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:33:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Peaceful (7+ / 0-)

              They came heavily armed and at times pointed weapons at federal law enforcement officers.

              This is not peaceful by any stretch of the imagination. Although I do agree with you that the word "terrorism" may not be the best term in the Bundy case. But this was not a peaceful protest.

              "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

              by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:48:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Back to My Original Point (0+ / 0-)

                I will concede to you the Bundy protests have included threats of violence.

                I am not here to defend the Bundy group.  

                My original point is that ANY truly political protest looks threatening to the other side.  

                AND that Hannity himself has not said publicly that the Bundy protesters should start acting violently.

                So is a public person like Hannity allowed to encourage a political protest for a cause he believes in or is that an example of inciting terrorism?

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:05:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're still relying on equivalence (6+ / 0-)

                  and they're simply not equivalent. If Hannity was encouraging an armed mob that was threatening law enforcement officers (and it was plenty clear to everyone that this is what the Bundy mob was), then no, that is not the same as encouraging a peaceful movement like Occupy. It's just not the same thing, because Occupy was never threatening violence, while the Bundy mob made the threat of violence front and center to their entire action. But please note that I'm not arguing that Hannity should be held legally responsible for any laws that the Bundy mob broke. I'm just saying that they're not they same thing as Occupy, so encouraging them is not the same thing as encouraging Occupy. An armed movement versus an unarmed movement is qualitatively different.

                  "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                  by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:50:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But Occupy WAS NOT peaceful!!! (0+ / 0-)

                    Hello!!!!!  The Occupy protests included street riots that destroyed private property.  And included language about overthrowing the government.

                    What I feel should be equal is the right of conservatives and liberals both to protest and speak their political views aloud.

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:28:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How many Occupy protests? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener, Black Mare

                      You're painting with an extremely broad brush here.  Out of all the Occupy protests that took place across the country, what percentage of them involved any violence by the Occupiers?

                      And while you're answering that question (or not, as the case may be), you can look into whether that violence occurred before or after police aggression against the protestors.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:48:42 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And how many are shot in Bunkerville? (0+ / 0-)

                        I agree that most of the Occupy protesters were peaceful.

                        It is equally true that so far, no one has been shot or physically assaulted at Bunkerville (tho' apparently some of the protesters have assaulted other protesters).

                        Look, we can go all night on the relative merits of Occupy vs. Bundy protests.  I am guessing that most leftys will clail Occupy is superior, and most rightys will claim Bundy is superior.

                        But that is entirely off-point regarding my arguments about "stochastic terrorism".  If you want to discuss my views of stochastic terrorism, I can elaborate.

                        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:09:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm afraid I can't . . . (4+ / 0-)

                          because that would require me to accept your BS premise that a bunch of people sitting in a park and doing drum circles is the same thing as heavily armed men showing up in significant numbers so that they can point their weapons at federal agents.

                          You're unwilling to acknowledge a very basic distinction between the two.  Pulling a gun on someone is by definition an act of coercion, and if done for a political purpose, it's an act of terrorism.  It seeks to win a political argument by force of arms rather than persuasion.

                          Peaceful protest, on the other hand, is just the opposite.  It's a form of mass expression of opinion.  It's not an act of coercion.  By your "logic," Dr. King was leading a mass act of terror on the Mall back in 1963.

                          Now, I'll grant you that many on the right (and perhaps you as well) have sought to claim that the Occupy movement was all about violence or anarchy or forcibly overthrowing the government, because they need to find something that's even arguably comparable to the armed displays by people on the right.  But those claims are just that -- claims.  They're the ultimate in false equivalence.

                          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                          by FogCityJohn on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:22:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Word. (3+ / 0-)

                            When one starts doing a body count its clear who does the shooting and bombing, and thats the right wingers.

                            Start with Abortion doctors and abortion clinics.

                               

                            March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of 1992. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
                                July 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside another facility, the Ladies Center, in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings. Hill received a death sentence and was executed on September 3, 2003. The clinic in Pensacola had been bombed before in 1984 and was also bombed subsequently in 2012.
                                December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi was arrested and confessed to the killings. He died in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
                                January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
                                October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death with a high-powered rifle at his home in Amherst, New York.[10] His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Slepian's murder after being apprehended in France in 2001.

                                May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by Scott Roeder as Tiller served as an usher at a church in Wichita, Kansas.[11]
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            2011 Norway attacks, LAX shooter, Oklahoma City bombing, Olympic Park bomber, Bank Bomber: http://www.oregonlive.com/...

                            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                            by Roger Fox on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:31:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Your persistnec with this is HRable (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FogCityJohn, Roger Fox, Black Mare

                      You're arguing a false right-wing meme.

                      I can't HR you and I leave it up to others whether they decide to. The discussion is valuable but you've been a dick here.

                      Knock it off.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:32:08 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  This is bullshit rhetorical argument garbage. nt (0+ / 0-)

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:07:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Facts vs. Opinion or Emotion (7+ / 0-)

                  I really don't know why you seem so intent on pursuing a line of argument that is so clearly a desperate attempt at false equivalence, but I'll try to explain why it's wrong.

                  You claim:

                  My original point is that ANY truly political protest looks threatening to the other side.
                  Putting to one side whatever difference there may be between a "truly political protest" and one that is presumably "untruly political," that certain people may perceive a protest as threatening does not make it so.  I have no doubt that the acts of civil disobedience carried out by Dr. King and others probably "looked threatening" to the southern racists at whom they were directed, but I would hope you wouldn't maintain that those CD actions were actually threatening in any meaningful sense of the word.

                  In fact, you admit that a distinguishing feature of the Bundy protests has been what you very charitably call "threats of violence."  

                  I will concede to you the Bundy protests have included threats of violence.
                  Yeah, I think we'd all agree that pointing loaded, high-powered weapons at people is pretty threatening.  Your problem is that you equate people using deadly weapons with completely unarmed Occupy protestors.

                  You then go on:

                  AND that Hannity himself has not said publicly that the Bundy protesters should start acting violently.
                  No, he hasn't, and that's precisely the point of the diary republished here.  Were Hannity to call explicitly for violence, he'd forfeit his plausible deniability, which, as the diary explains, is one of the key benefits of stochastic (as opposed to physical) terrorism.  What Hannity has done, however, is spread propaganda that suggests Bundy is being oppressed by the federal government, which has somehow used inappropriate means to squelch either his expression of opinion or his livelihood.  Hannity's propaganda is inspiring a sense of grievance among Bundy's supporters, despite the actual facts of the case.  (Which are, I'll note, that Bundy hasn't been willing to pay even the government's absurdly below-market grazing fees for decades, and the government has merely sued him to collect an indisputably lawful debt.)

                  More broadly, what you're doing here is something that has become increasingly (and depressingly) common in American political discourse.  You're treating all opinions or perceptions as if they are equally valid.  Thus, you treat those that are based on actual facts (i.e., concern about inequality because of empirical evidence demonstrating inequality) as no more valid than those that are based on demonstrably false assumptions (i.e., climate science denial).  

                  But facts are facts, and opinions are opinions.  So when Rachel Maddow reports on things like inequality or exploding tank cars, she generally has empirically verifiable facts to back her up.  Reporting actual facts is NOT stochastic terrorism, no matter how desperately you try to spin it.

                  I can't tell you what to do, but at this point I'd advise you to bow out of this discussion.  You're only discrediting yourself.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:14:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (4+ / 0-)

              Pointing guns at Federal employees is peaceful?

              I think not.

              •  Your Confusion (0+ / 0-)

                Allow me to make my original argument - that has now be badly derailed.

                In my opinion, some more thought needs to be given to this idea of "stochastic terrorism"

                1) Is stochastic terrorism possible if the country was not awash with guns?  Would stochastic terrorism work if there were rules against selling guns and ammo to crazy people?  And IIRC, there are rules against selling guns to crazy people, so is the problem then not the "terrorists", but the sellers of guns and the lack of enforcement of laws regarding guns?

                2) The Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks will deny that they intend anyone to get shot.  What evidence exists that these public voices want people shot or killed?  Isn't it true that what the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks really want is more eyes and ears - more ratings - and saying outrageous things is a good way to get attention and ratings?  In what ways are the Madows and Mahers different from Hannitys and Limbaughs or are they also stochastic terrorists?  Many performers - from liberal stalwarts like George Carlin to gadflies like Justin Beiber - use shock and outrage to gain recognition and (occasionally) make political points  When is that permissible, even laudable, and when is it terrorism?

                3) Are you guilty of stochastic terrorism when you blame Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck?  Why or why not?

                Please understand I myself do not have answers to these questions.  I pose them for the purpose of thinking and discussion.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:36:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My confusion? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener, Black Mare

                  Your comment is just a bastardized version of “both sides do it”. I'm not going to respond.

                  I was specifically referring to this:

                  the Bundy protests have been peaceful
                  Confused?
                  •  Please quote me (0+ / 0-)

                    You are confused about my meaning.

                    Please quote my comment wherein I say that both sides do it.

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:11:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is the third or fourth time I've read this (0+ / 0-)

                      kind of reply now. The first one I could just ignore, but this repeating "quote me" schtick is bullshit. I suspect by now you know it. You create a head ache for me, and I have to say something lest people think this is acceptable commenting behavior here.

                      Dear readers, Hugh Jim Bissell is an editor in the Fire Arms Law and Policy group. While I disagree with him on many points, I respect his ability to be persuasive. He is usually patient, detailed, and thoughtful. His attempt to use a Socratic method in this diary really missed the mark.

                      May the serve as a teaching example of how not to participate in our diariies. If you make your argument, and people don't agree, fine.  Doubling down and tripling down is never a good choice.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:14:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Hugh Jim Bissell (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener

                        has ruined the entire comment section.

                        I had recommended this diary, but to be clear I do not think this person is even remotely sincere and has done everything to detract from the original content.

                        I think Israel (and/or AIPAC) has a large and problematic influence on our foreign policy and legislation as it relates to Iran and the Middle East. Since I've been hidden for saying this, I expect to be hidden every time I post with this sig.

                        by Black Mare on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:50:11 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I read the republished diary (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      because it was thoughtful and interesting.

                      Trolls are neither.

                      If your intention was to taint the diary, you have succeeded.  

                      I think Israel (and/or AIPAC) has a large and problematic influence on our foreign policy and legislation as it relates to Iran and the Middle East. Since I've been hidden for saying this, I expect to be hidden every time I post with this sig.

                      by Black Mare on Fri May 16, 2014 at 12:44:13 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Let's unpack this BS: (4+ / 0-)
                  The Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks will deny that they intend anyone to get shot.  What evidence exists that these public voices want people shot or killed?
                  Sure they will, which is why the diary republished here spends some time on the issue of plausible deniability.  Maybe you should go back and read that part again.  

                  And before you ask for evidence, do you think maybe you need to adjust your burden of proof?  I mean, there aren't that many people in America who have outright called for Obama's assassination, but really, are you going to deny that that is the intent behind some of the denunciations of the president as some kind of totalitarian, foreign usurper who's trying to destroy America as we know it?  What does the phrase "Second Amendment remedies" mean to you?

                  Isn't it true that what the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks really want is more eyes and ears - more ratings - and saying outrageous things is a good way to get attention and ratings?

                  Yes, I'm sure they really want those things, a fact which is almost entirely irrelevant to the matter of whether they also want other things.  See, you may not know this, but human beings are capable of wanting more than one thing.  Sometimes we actually want many things simultaneously.

                  In what ways are the Madows and Mahers different from Hannitys and Limbaughs or are they also stochastic terrorists?
                  Gee, you've really stumped me here, but let me take a stab at it.  How about starting with the fact that Maddow bases her reporting on empirically verifiable facts?  We could add to that her practice of issuing corrections when she learns she's wrong.  That's called intellectual honesty.

                  Maher is, well, a comedian, so one wouldn't expect him to be in the same category as a journalist or a pundit.  (Unless, of course, you were desperately reaching for an example to support your false equivalence.)

                  Another difference is that Hannity and Limbaugh frequently imbue their discourse with thinly disguised or even open racism, sexism, and homophobia, to name a few.  They also freely invent "facts" which they then use as the basis of their "opinions."

                  Other than that, I guess I'd have to agree with you that Rachel Maddow and Rush Limbaugh are exactly the same.  Hey, you know what?  I just realized I've never seen the two of them in the same place at the same time.  Coincidence?  I think not!

                  Many performers - from liberal stalwarts like George Carlin to gadflies like Justin Beiber - use shock and outrage to gain recognition and (occasionally) make political points  When is that permissible, even laudable, and when is it terrorism?
                  See above for difference between entertainers and self-proclaimed journalists or pundits.  If you have to ask whether George Carlin was a stochastic terrorist, I think your question pretty much answers itself.

                  And Justin Beiber?  Really?  Really?

                  I know it's time to end this argument.  Not because it's gone Godwin, but because it's gone Beiber.

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:05:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK - so where is the proof? (0+ / 0-)

                    So where is the proof that TV talking heads want violence?

                    Suppose some one were to read this diary, get confused and decide that they should shoot Shawn Hannity.  Is the author then guilty of "stochastic terrorism"?  Did the the author post this hoping someone would shoot a Fox talking head?  Should we convict the author as also guilty of plausible deniability by the theory of stochastic terrorism?

                    We know from empirical studies that where there are more guns, there are more people getting shot.  Is the problem here right-wing talking heads who want violence or too many guns?

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:30:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So you missed my question: (4+ / 0-)
                      And before you ask for evidence, do you think maybe you need to adjust your burden of proof?
                      Yours is an argument we lawyers hear all the time in cases involving motive. Usually it's in discrimination cases, and someone always says something like, "Well, the defendant never said anything suggesting he had a racist motive." This is often true, for the very simple reason that most people are not stupid enough to admit to having such repellent motives.  But the absence of an admission does not mean an absence of motive.

                      As in all such cases, one may prove motive by inference.  For example, in Sean Hannity's case, he continued to deliver glowing reports about Bundy well after it was known that an armed posse had shown up and drawn a bead on federal agents. What does that say about Hannity? Couldn't one infer that one who was opposed to violence might be denouncing the thugs who showed up? And if the "journalist" didn't clearly denounce the indisputable threats of violence, could one not also infer that said journalist wasn't opposed to it?

                      See, this one way you could go about proving what his motives are.  And it's only one.

                      I assume your failure to respond to the rest of my comment means you have nothing to say on the remainder.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:19:56 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I like it :-) (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FogCityJohn, LilithGardener, kfunk937
                    I know it's time to end this argument.  Not because it's gone Godwin, but because it's gone Beiber.
                •  You derailed the diary. No one else. nt (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roger Fox

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:08:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Liberals arent shooters or bombers (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener, Black Mare

                  They dont bomb & shoot if the disagree politically, the right does.

                  Your comments and actions are simply indefensible.

                  .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:34:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Guns - did OWS have guns? Bundy's gang (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jan4insight, randallt, Roger Fox

          had snipers pointing guns at Federal agents carrying out a court order. OWS broke storefront windows and threw rocks, I believe, but I don't remember them being armed or calling for armed insurrection.

          Bundy published a press release titled "Range War"

          Bundy told a rally of his supporters they were going to take the country back by "force".

          The head of the OathKeepers is on the public record stating his group was going to provide support to communities fighting tyranny - he said this in 2013 - and he said they were going to be "force multipliers". Isn't that what we saw at Bundy's ranch?

          OathKeepers encourage active law enforcement to join them in not carrying out certain orders.

          Bundy asked local sheriffs to disarm Fed agents at the ranch and elsewhere - to round up their arms and bring them back to him, like he's some local warlord.

          The head of the OathKeepers compared Bundy's ranch to Lexington Green, ie, the beginning of the American Revolution, if I am not mistaken.

          Many at that ranch probably thought they were igniting a new ARMED revolution of some sort.

          There are new cases of Bundy inspired resistance in Utah and New Mexico.

          Can't a case be made that the Bundy ranch fiasco was an attempt at armed insurrection?

          As funny as it seems, and I don't want to sound alarmist and please correct me if I am - it's not a joke. Some of these people are very, very serious. Others are willing followers and yet others are even further untethered from reality.

          "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

          by We Shall Overcome on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:17:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What is Terrorism? (0+ / 0-)

            So far, there have been no episodes of violence around the Bundy protests: no shootings, no physical assaults.

            So I do not think we can yet properly call the Bundy protests "terrorism".

            It is true that some rhetoric used by the Bundy protesters talks of use of force and taking back the country.

            But I point out that many Occupy protesters talk about talking back the country or a revolution to change the government or removing the power of banks from the government.  This is worrisome and threatening to some  bankers and powerful people but not actually terrorism or even a crime.

            But there are some bankers and powerful people who might say the Occupy movement was an effort to change the government.

            Aha!  There's the rub: when is changing the government a good thing, and when is it terrorism?

            Ultimately, I think if Madow supports the Occupy protests and Hannity supports the Bundy protests, they should both be allowed to do so.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:45:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist inspired by (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              randallt, LilithGardener, kfunk937

              the Sovereign Citizens.

              Sherif Mack at the Bundy ranch is a Sovereign Citizen - SC can trace it's roots to the Klan, a terrorist organization.

              I think I understand your point - free speech can't be taken away. But I think there are limits when you have a megaphone like Hannity's that's pointed at some segments of the population that have a history of terrorism. I don't remember seeing anything that tied OWS to a history of terrorism.

              I'm guessing that is what Harry Reid was getting at when he termed those at Bundy's ranch domestic terrorists.

              "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

              by We Shall Overcome on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:11:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Indeed! Political Speech Should Be Allowed (0+ / 0-)

                I am not actually here to support the tactics or goals of Bundy or Timothy McVeigh.

                But absent actual acts of violence, people should be allowed to freely speak their political ideals - whether it is Madow, Hannity, Bundy, or Wavy Gravy (Happy B-day, Mr. Gravy!).

                Now there is also a fine and noble tradition of civil disobedience in this country.  And depending on one's political views, the original tea party was a crime and the Bundy people are fighting for freedom.

                Here is my point: just because you do not agree, you cannot call a political ideal or movement "terrorism".

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:24:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, there are limits on free speech: (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Black Mare, LilithGardener, kfunk937
                  Limits of Freedom of Speech

                  Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
                  The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

                  Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

                  Clear and Present Danger
                  Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

                  Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

                  Fighting Words
                  Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

                  In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

                  Also see What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

                  http://www.freedomforum.org/...

                  And:

                  Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats,and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.

                  "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                  by We Shall Overcome on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:34:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  So if I point a gun at your head ... (5+ / 0-)

              and tell you to do something, in your view, it's not terrorism unless and until I actually pull the trigger.

              Have I got that right?

              And as for this:

              But there are some bankers and powerful people who might say the Occupy movement was an effort to change the government.

              Aha!  There's the rub: when is changing the government a good thing, and when is it terrorism?

              You appear to have lost sight of the distinction between terrorism and democracy.  I might have thought this was obvious and needed no explanation.

              It appears I was wrong.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:16:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  There were assaults (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, kfunk937

              Ask Oathkeepers.  

              Also, when women and children were used as human shields, did they all happily volunteer?

              The sheriff on the podium later said something to the effect that he felt forced to say what he did and was forced not to act so as not to upset any of the nut jobs pointing loaded weapons.

              I think Israel (and/or AIPAC) has a large and problematic influence on our foreign policy and legislation as it relates to Iran and the Middle East. Since I've been hidden for saying this, I expect to be hidden every time I post with this sig.

              by Black Mare on Fri May 16, 2014 at 01:05:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, anyone who actually paid attention as the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kfunk937

                situation unfolded could recognize that crimes did occur and de-escalation was necessary and wise. It was like a powder keg with angry assholes with short fuses swarming the place.

                That's why we train police, and federal law enforcement officers to keep the peace and to apprehend those who are breaking the law.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Fri May 16, 2014 at 03:03:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Hell no - non-violent civil disobedience (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DaNang65, Joe Bob, BYw, kfunk937

          is redundant.

          Whenever group protest behavior threatens violence it's called a mob.

          Whenever group protest behavior becomes violent it's called a riot.

          The presence of guns is an implied threat of violence. In a civil society we reserve that power exclusively to the police and to the executive (who controls the military).

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:41:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What About Wearing A Gun In Public? (0+ / 0-)

            You and I recently had a discussion in which I said that anyone wearing a gun in public was expecting to act violently.  You said I was painting with a too-broad brush.

            So is carrying a gun in public an implied threat or not?

            Don't you think that if someone is protesting gun rights, that carrying a gun would be part of the protest?  How should gun enthusiasts protest for what they think is right?

            I remind you that the "non-violent" Occupy protests involved a street riot in which private property was smashed and trashed.  Yet we all support the goals of the Occupy movement.

            Ultimately, what makes something violent is the presence of violence.  While the Bundy protests involve guns, so far there has been no violence.    

            (And when the shooting does breaks out, as I suspect it will if the Bundy protests continue, I will have to eat these words.)

            So in my mind, the Bundy protest and the Occupy protests are both protests and not terrorism, despite the episode of violence during the Occupy protests and the presence of guns in the Bundy protests.

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:57:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Implied threat? That depends. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Patango
              So is carrying a gun in public an implied threat or not?
              Depends on the purpose and the location and the local cultural norms.

              There are lawful uses of guns.

              Eg. Carrying your gun to and from your car when going to the range, to and from your truck when you go hunting, etc. When the purpose a gun is present and carried is clearly part of normal behavior there is no implied threat because they are not disturbing the peace.

              In states where open carry is legal such as some parts of Texas, a gun on the hip does not cause alarm. It's common and no more alarming than someone bringing their dog with them everywhere they go. In that setting a gun on the hip is not an implied threat. It can actually be a conversation opener because that's part of the culture.

              In other places where open carry is legal but public culture is more circumspect, such as Connecticut, a gun on the hip would very likely cause alarm. In that case call 911 and let the police figure out if the person is a threat to themselves or others.

              Open carry at Starbucks gun appreciation days? Those rallies were disturbing the peace on purpose. Attendees were misguided and IMO, those open carry folks were making an implied threat.

              Don't you think that if someone is protesting gun rights, that carrying a gun would be part of the protest?  How should gun enthusiasts protest for what they think is right?
              I have looked and I don't see any protection in the 2A or state law for armed political protest. The simple reason is that arms suppress the speech of others.

              My answer may seem inconsistent, and you might be right about that.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:34:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  About "Stochastic Terrorism" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                It is possible someone may read your diary and get it in their head that they should shoot Shawn Hannity.

                If that were to happen, would you be guilty of "stochastic terrorism"?

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:41:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  1) Yes and 2) No nt (0+ / 0-)

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:49:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How so? (0+ / 0-)

                    In the scenario I posited, your diary used mass communication to stir up a lone wolf to carry out a statistically predictable act of violence.

                    By your definition, you are guilty of "stochastic terrorism".

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:15:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Incitement to violence? (0+ / 0-)

                      I'll indulge your absurd question. It makes me wonder if you even read the diary, it's that absurd.

                      Stochastic terrorism has always been with us. It used to be called "incitement to riot." From the diary, just below the fold.

                      The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts.
                      Question 1:
                      It is possible someone may read your diary and get it in their head that they should shoot Shawn Hannity.
                      I answered Yes.

                      Of course there are unstable people who can become obsessed and commit violent acts. Was Jody Foster guilty of stochastic terrorism when some guy shot Ronald Reagan? No, of course not. We have people with untreated delusions and psychoses among us. You know that.

                      Question 2:

                      If that were to happen, would you be guilty of "stochastic terrorism"?
                      I answered No.

                      What meme have I promoted to create or exploit instability in others? Have I urged people to hate Hannity? Have I appealed to their baser instincts and urged them to feel persecuted by Hannity? That Hannity is to blame for all their troubles and unhappiness? Have I covertly or overtly implied that violence is an appropriate way to express displeasure?

                      None of those. So don't persue this Socratic inquiry any further. Find a different one. Go back and read the diary carefully. I'm disappointed you didn't read it carefully.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:11:09 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  And LilithGardener's Point (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener
                Depends on the purpose and the location and the local cultural norms.
                Is one of the core points to this discussion about where to allow guns , and it is a point that is easily missed by "by standers" , in this debate

                My Father grew up in the 1930'/40's , imagine medium town America down town Saturday afternoon , a few boys hanging out with a few girls , then a few boys show up carrying their shotguns

                We all know the multiple possibilities of how humans act , people being armed changes the "norms of the location"  and how everyone acts , there is no way around it

                Guns do not even bother me , but I can only speak for myself

                The reason I brought my dad up was because he explained it this way to me , he was always outraged about people wanting to be able to bring guns every where , because he witnessed these things happening

                I would imagine this is why "the public" banned guns from the public domain in the 1st place

                And the flip side to that , if a person is being terrorized by a few thugs in town , he should be able to " bring" his gun to defend himself , the difference there is between " aggressor or defensive"

                Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

                by Patango on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:28:23 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Cultural norms change over time, even in the (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Patango

                  same place.

                  I've been reading up on State Constitutions and how their state level RKBA changed over time. In the later half of the 19th century open carry was preferred and a dozen states explicitly excluded concealed carry from their constitutional guarantee.

                  Concealed carry was considered unmanly, devious, and cowardly, prone to induce men to shameful sneak assassinations.

                  Guns were probably a measure of wealth in some ways, just like cars are now. So that was a wave in cultural norms where it was considered ethical and virtuous that everyone should display their guns, presumably so that people could assess someone's status and character.

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:56:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Aiming a gun at someone is a violent act (5+ / 0-)

          even if you don't pull the trigger.

          •  And even if it's not loaded nt (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Patango, BYw

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:36:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

            I agree that pointing a gun at someone is a violent act, even if you don't pull the trigger.  I go one farther: buying a gun is a violent act.

            Political speech should be freely allowed, even if we do not agree with the politics expressed.  So I think calling right-wing commenters "terrorists" is creating a worse problem: political oppression and silence.  

            Many right-wing types think Madow is a supporter of terrorism.  

            "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:39:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Seriously? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BYw, Black Mare

              Up thread you described the same as peaceful.

              Peaceful or violent, pick one, just one, please.

              •  Here is my choice (0+ / 0-)

                Here is my choice, my original comment before being derailed by the topic of Bundy

                In my opinion, some more thought needs to be given to this idea of "stochastic terrorism"

                1) Is stochastic terrorism possible if the country was not awash with guns?  Would stochastic terrorism work if there were rules against selling guns and ammo to crazy people?  And IIRC, there are rules against selling guns to crazy people, so is the problem then not the "terrorists", but the sellers of guns and the lack of enforcement of laws regarding guns?

                2) The Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks will deny that they intend anyone to get shot.  What evidence exists that these public voices want people shot or killed?  Isn't it true that what the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks really want is more eyes and ears - more ratings - and saying outrageous things is a good way to get attention and ratings?  In what ways are the Madows and Mahers different from Hannitys and Limbaughs or are they also stochastic terrorists?  Many performers - from liberal stalwarts like George Carlin to gadflies like Justin Beiber - use shock and outrage to gain recognition and (occasionally) make political points  When is that permissible, even laudable, and when is it terrorism?

                3) Are you guilty of stochastic terrorism when you blame Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck?  Why or why not?

                Please understand I myself do not have answers to these questions.  I pose them for the purpose of thinking and discussion.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:39:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a bit confused (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Black Mare

              Not sure now if you think the Bundy mob was a peaceful protest or a violent mob (they had all bought guns after all).

              But on that point I do agree with you: having a gun in public certainly implies violence.

              "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

              by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:07:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would argue that carrying a gun by itself is not (0+ / 0-)

                implying violence, but how one carry it.
                Carrying it properly holstered with safety on is not violent.
                Point it at someone is definitely violent.

                •  Implying violence (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joe Bob

                  In other words, I have a gun, I can unholster it any time and use it to kill someone. That is an implication that to me inevitably accompanies any public display of a weapon (and I do mean any public display, including by the police, who at the very least we are supposed to be able to trust to be working in our interests, although it often doesn't work out that way). Then, as you say, to actually draw the weapon and point it, that is an actual act of violence.

                  "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

                  by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:58:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Help for Your Confusion (0+ / 0-)

                Here is some help for your confusion.

                Here is my original comment - which was badly derailed when others brought in the Bundy protests.

                In my opinion, some more thought needs to be given to this idea of "stochastic terrorism"

                1) Is stochastic terrorism possible if the country was not awash with guns?  Would stochastic terrorism work if there were rules against selling guns and ammo to crazy people?  And IIRC, there are rules against selling guns to crazy people, so is the problem then not the "terrorists", but the sellers of guns and the lack of enforcement of laws regarding guns?

                2) The Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks will deny that they intend anyone to get shot.  What evidence exists that these public voices want people shot or killed?  Isn't it true that what the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks really want is more eyes and ears - more ratings - and saying outrageous things is a good way to get attention and ratings?  In what ways are the Madows and Mahers different from Hannitys and Limbaughs or are they also stochastic terrorists?  Many performers - from liberal stalwarts like George Carlin to gadflies like Justin Beiber - use shock and outrage to gain recognition and (occasionally) make political points  When is that permissible, even laudable, and when is it terrorism?

                3) Are you guilty of stochastic terrorism when you blame Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck?  Why or why not?

                Please understand I myself do not have answers to these questions.  I pose them for the purpose of thinking and discussion.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:38:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  I really don't care all that much (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FogCityJohn, Black Mare

              what 'many right-wing types think' as far as any barometer of how we should or shouldn't judge speech.

              In fact, that's getting pretty close to false-equivalency argument.

              The question really is, do the words of some right wing commentators tend to incite violence in a manner which can reasonably be forseen?

              I realize that there is a line between protected political speech and direct incitement to violence, but I don't even pretend to believe that this is a sharp line, nor that this line has been drawn in the absolutely optimal place.

              The closer a commentator is to that line, the more likely that they are truly engaged in stochastic terrorism, that their words have a direct influence on the level of violence in this country.

              •  And if Hannity were to be shot? (0+ / 0-)

                Suppose someone were to read the above diary and get it into their head that they should shoot Shawn Hannity.

                If that were to happen, is the author guilty of "stochastic terrorism"?

                When Miley Cyrus dances on stage with a blow-up sex doll, is she guilty for subsequent teen pregnancies?

                In my mind, gun violence is the result of too many guns, not talking heads on TV.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:46:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I haven't seen anything in this diary (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FogCityJohn, Black Mare

                  which one could reasonably foresee as leading to someone shooting Hannity.

                  Do you?

                  If so, point it out or report it.

                  I'm afraid I disagree in the most strongest terms at your suggestion that people fed a steady of diet of right-wing fear-mongering are not incited to act.

                  Sure, there is plenty of gun violence that would not fall under what are typically identified as 'hate crimes', but that hate comes from somewhere, and it is certainly stoked by a raft of right wing talking heads.

                  We already do have laws against direct incitement to violence. I just disagree that anything that doesn't 100% meet that criteria is free from blame or accountability.

                  •  The author criticizes Hannity (0+ / 0-)

                    In the diary, the author criticizes Hannity.

                    It is possible that a confused person may see such criticisms and decide that Hannity should be shot.

                    I HAVE NOT SAID OR SUGGESTED in any of my comments that people fed a steady of diet of right-wing fear-mongering are not incited to act.  

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:07:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, so all criticism is stochastic terrorism. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener, Roger Fox, Black Mare

                      Well, now at least that much is clear.

                      "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                      by FogCityJohn on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:07:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I already provided a criterion for you (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      so why don't you use it?

                      Is the 'criticism' of Hannity displayed in this diary something that one could reasonably foresee as inciting someone to go out and shoot him?

                      I certainly don't think so, therefore if you're bringing it up in the context of a discussion on stochastic terrorism, you have to make your case a lot better than you have.

                      On the other hand, if you already admit that people fed a steady diet of right-wing fear-mongering may be incited to act, then it sounds like you've already bought into the main premise of the discussion.

                      So, what are you objecting to? The labeling of such inciting speech as inciting?!

        •  Occupy Wall Street protesters did not have weapons (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          or threaten or advocate violence. Armed militias do not meet the definition of civil disobedience. The purpose of civil disobedience is usually to get attention for a cause, in many cases to protest a bad law by getting arrested in large numbers. People engaging in civil disobedience do not arm themselves, threaten violence or resist arrest.

      •  Hey! Maddow cheered for those dangerous (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, FogCityJohn

        mic checks in Zuccotti Park.

        Therefor both sides do it...

        The Third Way ain't My Way!

        by JVolvo on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:42:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mic check (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JVolvo

          I'm afraid someone will read your "both sides do it" and not recognize it as snark.

          Well played, sir.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:55:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not making a "both sides do it" argument (0+ / 0-)

          I'm not making a "both sides do it" argument.

          I AM saying that if you silence Hannity, you risk silencing Madow.  

          The effort to paint this as a "both sides do it argument" prevents you from understanding the argument I am making.

          Go back and read my original comment (before the discussion got side-tracked) and tell me wherein I make a "both sides do it" argument.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 03:53:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not fighting with you, Jim. I recced your long (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            12:07pm comment.  Click Parent, my snark was in reply to this:

            Hannity egged on those at Bundy's ranch. I don't (11+ / 0-)

            remember Maddow or others egging on anyone to point guns at Federal agents or similar acts.

            Hannity should have known Bundy explicitly called this a "Range War" and he was coordinating with OathKeepers and Sovereign Citizens.

            "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

            by We Shall Overcome on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:28:15 PM CDT

            That's all.

            The Third Way ain't My Way!

            by JVolvo on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:07:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Another Question: More Guns = More Shootings (3+ / 0-)

      Here is another question to ponder:

      We know empirically that where there are more guns, there are more shootings and more people getting shot.  We also know that gun industry promotes greater availability of guns to boost sales and therefore profits.  Or perhaps to increase the likelihood of lone-wolf terrorism.

      What role does the gun industry play in the incidence of lone-wolf terrorism?

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:38:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Timothy McVey (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Roger Fox, LilithGardener

        Used a bomb and caused greater carnage.  I think the answer to "if there were no guns" is pretty obvious.

        "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

        by blackhand on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:24:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The question isn't about "no guns" vs. many guns (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i saw an old tree today
          I think the answer to "if there were no guns" is pretty obvious.
          Not obvious, would you please elaborate?

          Our goal here is discussion.

          I've got your back if you would break it down for newbies, what you see. Go ahead and tell them where you stand on guns, and what you think.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:50:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Elaboration below (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            I apologize if it wasn't obvious.  My meaning is that even if the tool of violence (the gun) were removed we would still have an individual that is hell bent on causing death and violence and who would find a way to do so.  Denied a gun, they would simply use another instrument, possibly a mass area effect weapon, though, not necessarily.  For example, the knife attack in China two months ago which left 33 dead.

            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

            by blackhand on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:21:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Follow up (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              My reference to the "if there were no guns" was in response to the various comments by HJB who appears to be trying to use the idea of Lone Wolf Terrorists to build a case for gun control.  I suspect that he believes the presence of a gun is a corrupting influence.

              "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

              by blackhand on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:23:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It certainly does in many hands (0+ / 0-)
                I suspect that he believes the presence of a gun is a corrupting influence.
                To say otherwise, you're asking people to believe that if Michael Dunn didn't have a gun that day he would have attempted to murder a car full of teens some other way.

                To say otherwise, you're asking people to believe that if that man in WV didn't have a gun that day he would have lefted his house and found some other way to murder to adult men in the neighboring field.

                To say otherwise, you're asking people to believe that if that Curtis Reeves, a reitred cop, didn't have a gun that day he would have murdered the popcorn guy with his bare hands? In a matinee movie theater?

                The gun does lower the activation barrier to murder. No doubt about it.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:54:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I didn't see him going for that argument (0+ / 0-)

                but it did take a very long time to see where he was trying to go. He tried to take a rhetorical argument in a certain direction and was stubborn and slow to admit he was mistaken.  

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:56:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  However it would make it much harder (3+ / 0-)

              to carry out an attack that kills a bunch of people.  Bombs are not the easiest things to make and having to go hand to hand with melee weapons (knives, swords, axes, etc) also increases the difficulty considerably compared to getting half a dozen guns and opening fire.

              So yes, I think it would reduce the threat considerably but not eliminate it entirely.  But you still wear your seatbelt even though it won't protect you from all crashes, right?

              You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

              by Throw The Bums Out on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:50:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Bombs, knives, baseball bats, Noose. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            Cars, acid, poison.

            All of them are potential murder weapons.

            .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:43:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Possible answers: (3+ / 0-)

      1) Fertilizer, planes, and other non-gun weapons are available.

      2) I can't think of a terrorist or murderous action by someone carrying a copy "Drift" or "Religulous".  Correct me if I'm forgetting some atrocious act that sprung from something on the left.

      3) Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and others like Mark Levin, and Breitbart (from the dead no less), are guilty of sedition in my book.  But, I'm not recommending violence or even using violent rhetoric in my assertion.  

      We are all in this together.

      by htowngenie on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:52:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In response (0+ / 0-)

        1) You and I will have to admit that the percentage of attacks in the USA using fertilizer bombs, airplanes, and lethal weapons that are not firearms is a very small compared to the number of attacks made with guns.  What makes the suggested acts of stochastic terrorism news-worthy is the number of attacks carried out by guns.  In the absence of guns, the rantings of Hannity and Limbaugh would rarely be followed up by killings.

        2) I do not understand.  What evidence is there that the  Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Becks want people shot or killed?

        3)  Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck will tell us they are patriots.  The Occupy people will tell us they are patriots.  Both groups want to change the government.  So is wanting to change the government a good thing or a bad thing?

        "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:14:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  However other non-gun weapons are much (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Black Mare

        harder to use.  Bombs are not that easy to make especially now that regular fertilizer can no longer be used to make bombs and good luck using an airplane as a weapon as the passengers will rip your throat out.  Melee weapons such as knives, swords, and axes require quite a bit of skill to use efficiently which hardly anyone outside of SCA members even has anymore.  Even a Chinese repeating crossbow is quite a bit more difficult to use and has a much slower rate of fire than a gun.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:54:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Recall Gordon Liddy Teaching How to Off US (10+ / 0-)

    government officials in the field, back I think in the 90's on his radio show.

    The last time we had a traitor for President.

    Also recall every week of religious right broadcasting and publishing about abortion since 1972.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:11:04 AM PDT

  •  Latest stochastic terrorist: Cliven Bundy. (11+ / 0-)

    We've all seen the shots of his thugs pointing rifles at federal officials.

    How long until the next Timothy McVeigh decides to play copycat.

    Maybe at a federal agent, maybe at a daycare center. Who knows?

    We're already getting the "missile" crazies coming out of the woodwork - case in point: Frazier Glenn Cross/Miller.

  •  There is no such thing as stochastic terrorism. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bill W, Loge, campionrules, blackhand, MGross

    It is a ruse, a concept invented to suppress speech that someone disagrees with.    

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Thu May 15, 2014 at 10:27:48 AM PDT

    •  Is Hate Speech permitted by the First Amendment? (5+ / 0-)

      Just curious.

      •  Yes, it is to a large and well-demarcated extent. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blackhand, MGross, Black Mare

        For those with genuine curiosity to know what is and isn't permitted, it's really not hard to determine where the line is as defined by the Supreme Court.  None of what's referenced in this article comes close to that line.

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:06:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't totally agree with that commenter's point (7+ / 0-)

        above. But yes, hate speech is permitted by the First Amendment. There are no hate speech laws in the United States.

        Some would argue that hate speech shouldn't be permitted. However, personally, I'm afraid that any such laws against hate speech would open up dangerous loopholes in the First Amendment (if they could ever stand court scrutiny as it is).

        "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

        by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:08:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  There's a reason Germany banned the swastika. (7+ / 0-)

        They have their own constitution, and they guarantee freedom of speech, but if particular pieces of rhetoric or symbology are shown to incite violence, or put people at risk, they'll take action.

        In Germany, waving a swastika,or doing a Heil Hitler salute, or promoting Nazism, will get you thrown in jail. They've been down the stochastic terrorism road (some key events: start with Krystallnacht...) and today they won't put up with it.

    •  Whose speech is being suppressed here? (5+ / 0-)

      Last I checked, everyone name-checked in this article is doing just fine. Well, except for Bin Laden. But he was guilty of a lot more than what this article discusses.

      "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

      by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:10:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You raise a good point. (2+ / 0-)

        I read the diary as making a legal case that would lead to the criminalization of that kind of speech.  But on closer reading it really doesn't-- it simply says that the speech should be characterized for what's claimed to be its objective impact. (I don't agree with that claimed impact, but that's a separate point.)  I have no problem with that.  I think the diary could be clearer about this distinction (for instance, I don't like the "three times is enemy action," which itself sounds like stochastic terrorism as much as anything highlighted in the diary), but I don't have the problem with it that I thought I did.  

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:16:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

          And I have to be honest with you, too, that this kind of talk makes me a bit uneasy at times. Certainly notions like this have been used to suppress speech in other places -- how many protest leaders have been jailed for "inciting violence," for example, around the world. At the same time, though, I do think we can lay some blame on people like those mentioned in this diary for the consequences of their violent rhetoric -- many of them do truly seem intent on setting people off. Can we legally hold them accountable? Probably not, and maybe we shouldn't be able to in most cases. But what they say is part of the story, to be sure, and what they do should be called out for what it is, like in this diary.

          Anyway, I think you and I are actually pretty much on the same page here.

          "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

          by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:52:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for saying what you think (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blackhand, Lost Left Coaster

          and for going back and reading the diary more carefully.

          In the Firearms Law and Policy group we aim for dialogue and want people to be free to say honestly what they think and why.

          Big thank you for coming back and explaining your first answer in more detail.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:56:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  it's a way to elide (0+ / 0-)

      concepts of proximate cause by the adjective "stochastic."  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:11:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, as I said in response to LLC above... (0+ / 0-)

        ...so long as the diarist is making a generic rather than legal case, I don't mind the eliding although it's not something I would endorse.  

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:18:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's a conceptual muddle (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rich in PA, nickrud, Joe Bob

          the notion of liability for speech that encourages violence etc. prevailed for most of the last century under the "bad tendency" test.  The Court rightly changed its position to require immediacy, express advocacy, and intent to cause specific acts of violence.  If it's not determined legally, why not generally as well?  Instead of saying someone's a "stochastic terrorist," what's wrong with "jerk?"  Calling someone a terrorist already implies some kind of legal conclusion, and I agree with the way Courts approached the question after Holmes' about face that just looking at the potential downstream consequences doesn't just confuse the issue of causation, but it also misses what's objectionable about the speech in itself.  Nobody could shoot anybody, and Sean Hannity is still poison because his speech on its face appeals to fear and our worst impulses.  Challenge that head on.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:46:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Bullshit. Name one media figure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ApostleOfCarlin, nota bene

      that's been convicted or indicted or arrested or lost their job or gotten a sternly worded letter for stochastic terrorism.

      Come on.
      One. Name just one.

      Just one. Uno. Ein. Ich.

      No?
      None?

      So much for "suppression"

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:51:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the point of the diary... (0+ / 0-)

        ...is to advocate for those last two outcomes at least.

        It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

        by Rich in PA on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:15:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Certainly not my point (0+ / 0-)

          I republished the diary to spurt discussion. Before we adopt and start mainstreaming a term such as "stochastic terrorism" we ought to define exactly what we mean.

          If we can't then we shouldn't start applying it to all sorts of situations.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Fri May 16, 2014 at 04:55:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  it's not a ruse (3+ / 0-)
      stochastic
      Adjective

      Random, randomly determined, relating to stochastics.  

      In other words, Henry II doesn't say "you there, I command you to take this sword and go kill Thomas Becket with it." He merely throws up his hands and says "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" Later, when Thomas Becket is murdered, then Henry II can be sad and wash his hands of any responsibility.

      The extremist right wing has raised plausible deniability to an art form. The hoped-for outcome becomes more likely, bit by bit, day by day, slur by slur, rant by rant, even if the hope itself is only implied or hidden.

      Stochastic comes from the Greek word στόχος, which means "aim". It also denotes a target stick; the pattern of arrows around a target stick stuck in a hillside is representative of what is stochastic.

      You WANT me on that server! You NEED me on that server!

      by nota bene on Thu May 15, 2014 at 04:54:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I see that G2geek has almost 67,000 (13+ / 0-)

    comments since joining in early 2005, and he still has 5 mojo bars, but he hasn't posted since November 19, 2012.  Hope he's okay.

  •  Wasn't there a push to regulate the radio rhetoric (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    And wasn't it in response to one of these types of events?

    I recall from several years ago, a discussion to get these talk heads to tone it down because of the effect that their stream of hate and violence was causing.  I don't think anything came of it though.

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:27:48 AM PDT

  •  I remember that diary. (0+ / 0-)

    It was just about a nadir in reasoning at DailyKos.

    Any other terrible diaries you want to necro?  Preferably something else with 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon-like blame placement.

    If you want to actually, seriously investigate the subject of the triggering of school shooters and such let me point you in the right direction.

    (Side note:  that article's insistence on their being a legislative solution is ridiculous, but the rest is spot-on.)

  •  The red flag to me, is when there is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blackhand, LilithGardener, nota bene

    Dehumanizing or otherizing, that removes the target from the protections normally given to other humans.
    Very scary road to go down.

    •  Interesting point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      I also notice that there is the classic "us versus them" at play and the dialog is phrased in such a way as to make the listener think that they are a minority outcast if they don't agree with the speaker's rhetoric.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Thu May 15, 2014 at 12:28:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  More stochastic terrorism at work (6+ / 0-)

    Mother Jones: Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threats: How Gun Extremists Target Women

    The tactic that really got me is how groups like Open Carry have been using open-records requests to identify people who called the police on those who are open-carrying, then broadcasting home addresses and phone numbers on the Internet.

    The victims of this tactic immediately start getting nasty phone calls and death threats.

    If that's not stochastic terrorism, what is?

    •  Interesting point and it's the opposite (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe Bob, spacecadet1

      side of the reason why a dozen states passed laws last year to protect the privacy of gun permit holders. Gun permits used to be public information, until some regional newspaper  published maps of every permit issued in 2 counties north of NYC.

      Huge backlash.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:00:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The problem with 'stochastic terrorism' is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kasoru, LilithGardener, Roger Fox

    the same as plain 'terrorism'....the accepted definitions are still too vague, people abuse the words to fit something they or someone else were scared of or want gone, and while many of is could agree that something ISNT terrorism, because of the above we sometimes can't agree on what IS definitively 'terrorism'.

    It's a worthy conversation for sure, but I love our first amendment and would always want us to err on the side of not criminalizing speech.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Thu May 15, 2014 at 02:21:44 PM PDT

    •  in my reading.... (3+ / 0-)

      it's not about criminalizing anything. It's about shaming the extremist pundits who walk right up to the edge of violent rhetoric and then feign surprise when their fans act out. It's about moving the Overton window of what's fringe and what isn't.

      We can't make Alex Jones calm down, but we can try to define his rhetorical style as (way) outside the acceptable range of discourse. He's free to say what he wants, just like the Klan is free to hold marches.

      You WANT me on that server! You NEED me on that server!

      by nota bene on Thu May 15, 2014 at 05:12:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So go ahead - propose how it should be less (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight

      vague.

      How do you think it should be defined?

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:24:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Criminalizing speech, of course, agreed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GoGoGoEverton, LilithGardener

      IF the RW owns the media, and the vast majority of shooters & Bombers (of the terrorist ilk) are right wing....

      ....whats going on here?

      What do we call it?

      Why is the body count incredibly one sided by political divide?

      .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:59:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great Diary, one of my top 10 favs evah (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener, jan4insight

    Thanks for bringing it back for those who may have missed it.

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Thu May 15, 2014 at 06:06:58 PM PDT

  •  Wow! (0+ / 0-)

    Nice breakdown of the term.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site