Brutally Honest Rant on the Austin IRS attack
(The following is the transcript from the February 20th show “Brutally Honest” on ShockNet Radio pertaining to the February 18th attack on the IRS building in Austin, TX. The transcript appears with permission of David 2.)
This past Thursday, a disgruntled American boarded his single-engine airplane and flew it into a federal building in Austin, Texas. Specifically, the offices of the Internal Revenue Service. The resulting explosion engulfed the whole building, but thankfully the loss of life was limited.
Prior to his Kamikaze flight, he posted a very lengthy diatribe online explaining WHY he did what he did. He focused his anger largely at the IRS because of the ongoing problems he had with them over taxes, but from the tone of his manifesto, he was largely angry at government in general. He was angry at how big corporations would get billions without strings, but ordinary people would get the shaft. He was angry at the ongoing status quo in Washington, despite the numerous elections and promises, and he recounted how he lost most of his money due to the games being played in government. After he posted his manifesto, he set his house on fire, and then hopped on his plane to personally deliver what he called his “pound of flesh”.
As with previous tragedies, I’m not going to give his name on my show. I’m not going to dignify what he did by saying who he was, even though his name is now a household word thanks to the media.
I understand his frustrations. I understand his growing bile for how the system is. You’ve heard me vent the same kind of frustration on this program. But this guy crossed a line that should not BE crossed. He went from being a victim of the situation into a villain, and he expected other people to do the same.
And I got a problem with that. I would have had more respect for him and the burdens he carried if he crashed his plane into his own house. If he crashed his plane into a hillside. If he crashed his plane into a lake. If he just took his own life, I would have had more respect for him and the burdens that he carried. He would actually have gotten far more support and sympathy for what he was going through if his was the only life that he tried to take.
But he didn’t do that. He deliberately targeted a building full of people. He committed a deliberate act of terrorism.
Yes, that’s right, you heard me… TERRORISM.
Terrorism in the same light as the act committed by Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols in Oklahoma City. Terrorism in the same light as Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber. Terrorism in the same light as Eric Robert Rudolph, the bomber of the 1996 Olympic Games. He didn’t have to belong to a group to be a terrorist any more than the Unabomber was. He didn’t have to survive to be called a terrorist. He did what he did because he wanted to take as many lives with him as he could and to incite others to do the same. He WAS a terrorist.
And let’s get brutally honest here… as soon as he did that, he LOST his argument. He was no longer the victim of the evil government and evil corporations. It stopped being about the system being screwed up and the story became what HE did. HE became the bad guy. HE became the villain. HE became the monster of the story.
Worse yet for him, he left a wife and daughter behind, who now have to live with the fact that their husband and father died not a hero, but as a terrorist. They now have to apologize for his actions. They now have to try to justify what he, by his actions, made unjustifiable. THEY are the victims in this story. Not just the people who were attacked, but also his own family members, who now have to shoulder the burdens of HIS actions.
His actions were inexcusable, but the circumstances that led him to this level of despair and hate was not isolated to just him. And I think that was the reason why he believed he could inspire other to follow his course.
I’ve said it before on this program and it is always worth repeating… this recession is being paid for IN BLOOD. I do not wish that this was so. This is not something that I would WANT to have happen. I would rather this situation be resolved BY the people we elected into office to do just that. But if there is anything that can be done to prevent this kind of tragedy from repeating itself, it HAS to come from the people up top. This HAS to come from the politicians, the game-players, the banks, the Wall Street Masters of the Universe. They have to look at this tragedy not as some macabre disjointed form of entertainment but as a serious red flag that things HAVE gone too far.
THEY are the ones that can put a stop to this. It has always been within their power to do it. The real question is how many other forms of tragedy will we collectively have to experience before they do their jobs?
February 20, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Excellent rant, David, and you’re right, he is a terrorist. The one statement that I disagree with, is this: “He would actually have gotten far more support and sympathy for what he was going through if his was the only life that he tried to take.” I believe he would have died an absolute nobody, with barely a passing mention on the local news, if he hadn’t done what he did in the manner in which he did it.
(One other minor point – not everyone knows his name. I call him “the guy who flew his plane into the IRS building.” I don’t know his name.)
February 21, 2010 at 8:10 am
Right on, David. And I agree about not mentioning his name. Let’s not give him the notriety he hoped for.
As for the government responding to the obvious red flags, I’d be pleased to see them heed the wake up call but very surprised. It’s too easy to write off these guys as unbalanced and very hard to argue otherwise.
Reading his manifesto, he certainly seems unbalanced and I, for one, was not convinced that many of his troubles were caused by the government. They seemed rather caused by his own missteps. He didn’t want to work for somebody else and went into business for himself but really didn’t know wtf he was doing.
He also tried to weasel out of paying his taxes. The details aren’t given but he says on the same basis that churches didn’t pay taxes. I’ll certainly agree that churches should pay taxes but you don’t right that wrong by breaking the law and trying to weasel out of paying your own. Apparently, that’s how he ran into trouble with the IRS. That and not listing his wife’s income on a joint return. Kind of can’t have any real sympathy knowing that.
Apparently, he didn’t want the government and thought anarchy would be better so he didn’t want to support the government. Well, cry me a river. Instead of being happy that he had a business that was — initially — successful enough to net a tax bill of $10,000, he tried not paying it and the IRS caught up with him after events out of his control like 9/11 affected his business for the worse. He then made an expensive move to another state and wasn’t as popular there as he had hoped for.
All these moves and bad luck, he blamed on the government. Businesses start and fail all the time. What may be in demand the first few years may not thereafter and this seems to have happened to him combined with flights being cancelled following 9/11. Of course, the government had to react to what happened that day. But he seems to think they just didn’t care about him. Wow, like the government needs to stop and put the needs of some small businessman in front of national security?
As far as paying his taxes and not being able to make a go of it in a new state that had no interest in what he was offering, cry me a river. STFU and go out and get a job like the rest of us. And, hello, if you file a joint return, your wife’s income has to go on it.
This guy was a flat out incompetent loser and he hated the rest of the world for it. The IRS in particular for expecting him to pay his taxes just like everyone else.
I also wonder if he wasn’t having some marital problems. Because the house fire is directed not at the government but his family. If so, why did he have to stick it to his daughter as well as his wife? Even if they were having trouble (and we’ll never know if they were or not; in her shoes, would you admit it), you’re absolutely right that he hurt them more than anyone else.
February 25, 2010 at 7:29 am
David, what are your thoughts on Rep. Steve King’s display of empathy towards the terrorist in this case?
February 27, 2010 at 10:46 am
As I mentioned last night on American Heathen, one definition of “terror” as it is used today would require that the deeds be designed to advance some political cause as part of a larger group. This guy used a method copied from the Islamic terrorists to advance his purely personal agenda – anger at the IRS. His act is comparable to an individual going bonkers and shooting up a post office, or sending bombs through the mail. Terrorism, in my view, is reserved for political groups whose ability to advance their cause through legitimate means is perceived to be quite limited. They resort to terror. Terrorist suicide bombers are carrying out a political agenda. This guy’s agenda died with him and he wasn’t a member of some group that helped him carry out his suicidal mission. The term “lone wolf” is more appropriate, it seems to me.
February 27, 2010 at 2:04 pm
I’ll explain tonight on my show during the first segment.
February 27, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Actually, I think you explained yourself rather well in the essay. If you expand on that, fine – I’m not saying you can’t define things the way you want. It’s just that I see these acts by “lone wolves”, regardless of any wish to incite others to copy these awful deeds, as qualitatively distinct from the actions of those who use terror for political endss. Those who incite others to commit suicide and kill innocents for a cause that survives the act would deserve a special place in Hell that was particularly vile — if Hell actually existed. Unfortunately, it’s just as absurd a notion as the idea that terrorists get 72 virgins to fuck in Paradise!
February 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I should have said:
…regardless of any wish that a lone wolf might have to incite others to copy these awful deeds…
and “endss” is a typo.
and … I should have said:
Those who incite others to commit suicide in their stead…
February 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm
David – Is it 6-7 EST? or CT?
February 27, 2010 at 4:51 pm
6-7pm CT, 7-8pm ET.
February 27, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Will you publish it here after your show?
This is ladies night, and they don’t let me do my political stuff on ladies night.
Chuck, IMO, your definition is too restrictive – using the term “group” as a prerequisite for defining a terrorist act. By doing this, it then becomes possible to narrow things further by suggesting that the “group” must have a minimum number of members, before an act committed by them is an act of terror. It just seems too restrictive.
In any event, there is a larger anti-tax movement (I’m sure you know) and they have historically committed acts of violence as individuals, and not part of a larger group, and their cause is entirely political. So, to them, this man is a hero, and his act most likely only died with the mainstream, and not those on the fringe.
February 27, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Sorry, Albatross, but you’re going to have to wait until it comes out in the archive next Sunday.
http://www.ourmedia.org/channels/brutally-honest-shocknet-radio
February 28, 2010 at 12:05 am
Albatross … clearly, you’re entitled to your opinion. And I, mine. My definition is specifically designed to be restrictive. How restrictive is ‘too restrictive’? Your choice … and mine.
February 28, 2010 at 11:09 am
David, thanks. I’m sorry I missed it.
Chuck, certainly that is true, and without a variety of opinions the world would be a boring place, indeed. Your question to me – “how restrictive is too restrive” is the very question held within my statement. Perhaps, I should have formed it as a question instead.
How restrictive is too restrictive in deciding what constitutes an act of terror committed by a terrorist?
In this particular case, I cannot help but think how the people who witnessed the event, or those trying to fathom it in the aftermath, were free from feeling terror in a post 911 world.
BTW, it was nice to see you on the show.
March 7, 2010 at 10:30 am
The archive that you missed is now up.
Archive of Brutally Honest show – 2/27/10
March 7, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Thank you, David. That was good. I agree that Rep King should be stripped of all of his federal benefits. I doubt there would be much empathy on his part then.
Rather than constructively empathize with the plight of this man – this victim turned terrorist, as you said – and try to constructively use his position to effect change, he failed his constituents, and his country. He should be ashamed.
Thanks again. Great show! (even if it’s a week past)
Will American Heathen also archive the show? Not that I would want to miss the live show, but you never know what …
March 7, 2010 at 3:35 pm
I’m glad you enjoyed the rant from a week ago.
The show is already archived through Ourmedia.org and can be accessed through Apple’s iTunes store. You can subscribe by doing a search in the iTunes store for “Brutally Honest on ShockNet Radio” (or just for “ShockNet Radio”) and then they will be downloaded to your computer when they are made available.
BUT… I still want folks to listen in live at ShockNet whenever possible!
March 7, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Thanks for the info. What about RJ’s Friday night show. I know this was talked about before, I’m just not remembering the full context of that conversation.
Again, thanks for the great job that you guys do.
March 8, 2010 at 11:13 am
Alba,
I don’t provide an archive for AH because the show is designed as a LIVE event. Providing an archive becomes antithetical to the concept of LIVE. I WANT folks to tune-in to the station, not download podcasts at their leisure. That’s why ShockNet is an Internet radio station as opposed to a podcast library. Additionally, the amount of work needed to edit and archive a 3 hour show every week is far too extensive and time consuming.
RJ