Holy Crap

[ceebeegee]

An Austin, Texas, resident with an apparent grudge against the Internal Revenue Service set his house on fire Thursday and then crashed a small plane into a building housing an IRS office with nearly 200 employees, officials said.

Holy. Crap. He also set his house on fire and left a long, rambly, incoherent letter with one theme: "I is angry, hate taxes and the government, rawr!"

What a f-ing loser. You know who this reminds me of? The Bath School bombing Another loser all angry because he had to pay property tax to support the local school. So what did he do? Killed his wife, set fire to his farm killing all of his farm animals (in fact he tied them in so they couldn't escape), and set off a series of bombs at the school, murdering more than 40 schoolchildren as well as some adults. You know what his note said? "Criminals are made, not born." 'Cause, you know, they drove him to murder 6 year olds. Taxes drove him to it. It's all someone else's fault.

I just don't understand people sometimes.

Comments

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

Mike, I really wish you would learn to stop taking what I write personally. I wrote a nuanced analysis of the Tea Party movement, saying that they are letting extremists define them and I stand by that.

To respond to your third paragraph--yes, they are respectable, intellectually sound views. As I said. I also said that the Tea Party is not a unified movement--which it is not, they are all over the place--and I'm not sure how to respond to your accusation of name-calling except to say I agree that a return to political civility is sorely needed, and this is a little odd coming from someone who called the President an ass on Facebook. Is criticism name-calling? And who warrants name-calling? If someone is waving Obama-the-witch-doctor signs on TV and saying that he's a communist and raving about death panels, I'm going to respond negatively. Just as if the situation were reversed, and Al Sharpton were acting the fool he normally does, or--I don't know, Bernardine Dohrn were advocating revolution. I don't think that's name-calling.

I also said I support tax reform. Please go back and see that none of this is directed at you personally. But I have the right to disagree with you politically. You have a history of lashing out at me, on my blog, whenever I write something political. And *only* me. I'm tired of being singled out. That needs to stop, and this is not the first time I've said this. You've said some pretty strongly worded things on your blog and Facebook and I do not take your views personally. Please extend me the same courtesy. If you can post "we elected an ass" and how "liberal governance has failed" on Facebook and criticize the President as much as you do (and you may remember, when *I* did the same thing re: Bush, you used to take that personally as well), I can damn well criticize the extremists in the Teabaggers.

Believe me, Mike, I'm your friend.

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

Ok, you're right: it's your blog, and I should have just let it go. To that extent, I apologize.

But please understand that the epithet "Teabagger" is offensive to those who identify with the Tea Party movement, precisely because it's vulgar, and deliberately so. I know you weren't directing it at me personally, but as Garfield would say, I resemble that remark.

There was a bit of a pun (failed, apparently) intended in the ass comment. It's not like me to use ad hominem attacks or epithets, generally. I do think there's a substantive difference between sharp criticism of one leader over specific words and actions, and applying a pejorative label to a whole group of citizens based on their political beliefs. (The failure of liberal governance phrase was not my words, but the headline of the article).

Most directly to the point that has me agitated tonight, though, is the narrative I'm seeing develop in the media (new and old): that the person who flew his plane into an IRS building today is the logical end of the Tea Party movement. Seeing echoes of that narrative here, from friends I love, whose opinions I respect as strongly as I often disagree with them, I had to say something.

Mea culpa for saying it harshly. I should have taken time to express myself more eloquently and reasonably.

[ceebeegee.livejournal.com]

Okay, I love you too and I did not and do not want to offend you or hurt your feelings.

that the person who flew his plane into an IRS building today is the logical end of the Tea Party movement.

I actually have not been reading anything in the media about that (i.e., I personally haven't read them, not that no one's said anything like that)--I posted the above as soon as I read about the plane crash so I haven't read any follow up opinions or columns. I have more to say on this but I have to get to work but anyway, you are eloquent and intelligent and reasonable and know that I respect and like you very much, and my political criticism of groups or views with which you align yourself is not directed at you, although it can be a fine line, I will agree.

[carasol.livejournal.com]

Coming back to this a few days late, but I've been thinking about your posts for the past few days, Mike, and I have some questions about some comments you made. (And I want to start by saying that these are not rhetorical or accusatory at all; I'm genuinely curious about your opinions.)

I've been finding that rather like contemporary feminism, I can't seem to find two identical definitions of the Tea Party movement. Every news story that I read (from a respected source) seems to have a different definition as to what the party is, what its goals are, etc. So I'd like to know, what does the party mean for you, and what do you feel that it stands for?

As to the Constitution being unrecognizable to the founders of the country--well, yes, but the country itself would be unrecognizable to its founders today. The Constitution was originally written to protect the rights of landowning white men, and it's taken centuries for it to recognize other citizens. It took 13 amendments to free the slaves, two more to get African-Americans the vote, and another four to get women the vote. I don't think anyone (well, anyone sane) would say that we should undo all of these changes. So I'm not all that upset about the country and the Constitution changing--but on the other hand, I also couldn't say that I agree with every change that has been made. What changes to the Constitution worry you, and where do you think it's going wrong?

Obviously, I can't comment on your personal tax situation, especially since I don't own any property that I have to pay taxes on. The only taxes I pay are on income and on the interest from savings accounts, so while I grumble as I fill out the endless forms every April, I can't really begrudge the taxes too much. As I said (indirectly) in my first post, those tax dollars go to a lot of services that I expect and appreciate, and I understand that I have to pay for them one way or another. They're a pain, but they're not crippling. But, again, I don't own land or my own home or even any stocks, so I have no idea what a homeowner's tax situation would be like. How would you reform the tax system so that it's more fair to everyone, but that the government can get the money it needs for the services we expect and require?

Again, I hope these questions don't come across as accusatory or rhetorical; I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on these issues. (If you'd rather discuss them at Heartland one of these days, that would work, too!)

[minstrel70.livejournal.com]

This is a conversation much better had in person, for a number of reasons, not least of which is that this is ceebeegee's page. But in brief (very brief!):

- The "Tea Party" isn't a party, it's a movement, and that's one of the attractions for me.

I didn't say that the Constitution would be unrecognizable to the Founders, I said the government would be. I don't object to constitutional amendments, though as you might guess, I have a greater fondness for some (I, II, X) than others (XVI). My point is that the government has far exceeded the bounds that the Constitution was meant to set for it.

- As for taxes, I find it interesting that you focus on property taxes versus income taxes as a reason you can't comment on my tax situation. You pay property taxes, too, you know -- by way of your landlord, who has to charge higher rent because of them. But you might be surprised to learn that property taxes are my "favorite" taxes, for several reasons, all perfectly selfish: we pay less in property tax than in state income tax, or payroll taxes, or (of course) federal income taxes; they are by far the most broad-based of taxes; they are assessed locally by a level of government that one can actually "petition for redress of grievances" (in person!); and they pay for obvious, tangible things -- the street we live on, the parks we enjoy, the fire department and police in our town, and the schools we'll send our son to.

I doubt that any but a fringe minority of tea party sympathizers objects to all taxes or all government. Libertarians aren't generally anarchists.

Anyway, I've rambled on too long. Would enjoy continuing the conversation in person sometime.