Census worker/suicide?

[sugarb]

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/briefs/x165320638/AP-sources-Suicide-eyed-in-Ky-census-worker-case

I found this to be kind of strange, but at least there's finally some kind of update on this case.

[GreNME]

From the link:Law enforcement officials say they doubt a Kentucky census worker found hanging from a tree with the word “fed” scrawled on his chest was killed because of his government job.

Instead, the officials say, investigators are increasingly exploring the possibility that 51-year-old Bill Sparkman committed suicide.

What in the hell? Suicide? Are they (the police) serious?

[sugarb]

From the link:

What in the hell? Suicide? Are they (the police) serious?

Hello, GreNME. Yeah, I thought that, too. Fed scrawled on his chest, sort of hanging, and I don't recall in the original reports that this man's vehicle was anywhere nearby this sort of remote area, but I'll have to find some of the original reports and check.

Suicide seems far-fetched to me. Possible, I guess, but it just seems unlikely with this one.

[fuelair]

From the link:

What in the hell? Suicide? Are they (the police) serious?

OR Frightened/involved/protecting.......................:confused:

[Dancing David]

Well there must be a reason, the only questions I would have will come out in a while.

[WildCat]

OR Frightened/involved/protecting.......................:confused:
I doubt it. Isn't it the FBI investigating this? Murdering a Census worker is a Federal crime, yes?

[sugarb]

Okay, this link is more informative. I had forgotten about his hands being duct taped, but yes, his truck was found nearby.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=27&sid=1769623

[GreNME]

I doubt it. Isn't it the FBI investigating this? Murdering a Census worker is a Federal crime, yes?

Looks like only the KY state police are investigating. And they've released the body for cremation.

A "message" scrawled on the dude's body, hands duct taped, and these people are still suggesting suicide. The cognitive dissonance is bewildering.

[Puppycow]

Looks like only the KY state police are investigating. And they've released the body for cremation.

A "message" scrawled on the dude's body, hands duct taped, and these people are still suggesting suicide. The cognitive dissonance is bewildering.

Maybe his life insurance doesn't pay if it's ruled a suicide so he wanted to make it look like a homocide. It's conceivable.

[Dancing David]

Looks like only the KY state police are investigating. And they've released the body for cremation.

A "message" scrawled on the dude's body, hands duct taped, and these people are still suggesting suicide. The cognitive dissonance is bewildering.

Well, you might think that, and it could be true. But there are ways to do this, you can bind yourself more easily than you think.

Forensics is what it is, this is not going to be a case that is not reviewed, repeatedly.

This one is very famous.

Now they could be mis-directing as well, if it is a murder. Often you will let the perps have some breathing space. Cops are always very neutral in discussing omgoing investigation. What we get in the media is not likely to be an accurate picture.

One of my co-workers father in law commited suicde, but not according to the police. They were neutral and three years later his mother in law confessed rather than go to trial.

Key phrases to consider from AP story n Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_census_worker_hanged_2)

increasingly doubt
possibility
final conclusions
grown more skeptical
possible cause


Now this is the snippet that somebody released

The officials said investigators continue to look closely at suicide as a possible cause of Sparkman's death for a number of reasons. There were no defensive wounds on Sparkman's body, and while his hands were bound with duct-tape, they were still somewhat mobile, suggesting he could have manipulated the rope, the officials said.



"The Kentucky State Police are continuing to investigate the death of William Sparkman and have yet to determine whether it is homicide, suicide or accidental," Rudzinski said. "The investigation is continuing."


Now ther rest contains the testimony of a witness

Weaver told The Associated Press this week that he recalled Sparkman's hands being close together.

Weaver also said the rope, which he described as thin like a clothes line, was wrapped around the high branches of two different trees as if for leverage. Sparkman's truck was found nearby, and Weaver said he saw Sparkman's clothes in the bed of the truck and a census worker placard sitting on the dashboard.

Weaver had previously told the AP that the body was naked, bound at the feet and hands, and gagged. He didn't see the word "fed" on the chest but did notice there was an identification tag taped to the side of his neck.

"He was put on display," Weaver said.


So we have careful statements one side and testimony on another.

the evidence will tell.

[Skeptic]

It's not at all difficult to write "Fed" on one's chest and tie yourself together with duct tape. Motive? Maybe so his family will get his life insurance. Or just to piss people off (many suicides are, understandably, bitter and want to use their death as a final parting shot at the world). Why write "Fed"? Probably because he knew that if you want to make a hanging look like a murder, the only sort of motive for such a murder is a political lynching.

I'm not saying my speculation here is necessarily true, of course. It might well be murder after all. It might, as some suggested, even be a misdirection by the authorities to make the criminals think the police believes it's suicide, so they'll relax and make a mistake leading to their arrest.

All I'm saying is is that it's not impossible.

[Brainster]

Yep, looks like suicide (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/11/census_worker_killing_probe_ne.html):

Witnesses said Sparkman had discussed ending his own life, recent federal investigations of public officials in Kentucky and negative perceptions of federal agencies expressed by Clay County, Ky. residents, investigators said.

Sparkman also secured two life insurance policies that would not pay out for suicide shortly before his death, investigators said. Authorities decided to share some, but not all of the details of their investigation on Tuesday due to the high level of national interest.

So much for blaming it on Bachmann (who I still admit is a dolt).

[Praktik]

Hmmm - ok well i was wracking my brain trying to grok that.

And I may have hit on a motive for the way he was found if it was a suicide.

Potentially, he set up his suicide so it would "do some good" by bringing a crackdown on militants and highlighting the violent potential of some corners of the anti-federalist demographic.

So he set it up to LOOK like a murder, and may have ironically furthered the "nothing to see here" angle on the crazies by not doing it well enough...

Still - im waiting for more facts but this seems to me to be the only perspective from which a suicide looking like this could arise.

[Ziggurat]

A "message" scrawled on the dude's body, hands duct taped, and these people are still suggesting suicide. The cognitive dissonance is bewildering.

Yeah, um... no.

http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/1032979.html

"Tests indicated that the letters were applied from the bottom to the top — not the way an assailant facing Sparkman would write them. Police concluded that Sparkman wrote on himself, Rudzinski said.
...
Tests ruled out any theory that he was drugged and unconscious when he was tied to the tree, making the lack of signs of a struggle more significant.

Also, Sparkman's glasses were taped to his head. The question that raises is why a killer would care whether Sparkman, who had poor vision, could see what was going on.

On the other hand, if Sparkman was writing on his chest or preparing to kill himself, it would matter that he could see.

And although it is true that Sparkman died of asphyxiation from the rope around his neck, he was not dangling from the tree the way people commonly perceive hanging, Rudzinski said.

His legs were bent at the knee and his knees were less than six inches off the ground, Rudzinski said.

Sparkman could have stood up, taken the pressure off his neck and not died.

Sparkman's hands were bound, but loosely, allowing him to move them shoulder-width apart, Rudzinski said."

[Ziggurat]

Potentially, he set up his suicide so it would "do some good" by bringing a crackdown on militants and highlighting the violent potential of some corners of the anti-federalist demographic.

Or it could have been as simple as money. I believe most life insurance policies won't pay out for suicides.

[Praktik]

to hide the fact it was a suicide so they'd pay out

ok, that one too...

I have prepared to accept the explanation of suicide now but still holding back from "final answer".

I suppose all acts stem from more than one motive too. I was riffing on the fact above that he was talking about the anti-feds and stuff for a while before.

Buttering up the people he knew to claim murder when he did it?

Or honestly carping on them as a legitimate fear and for political reasons?

Maybe both!

[sugarb]

Interesting. Thanks for the updates.

The part about the letters being done from bottom to top is odd, though. Were I writing on my own chest, I'd still make my letters from top to bottom. I do find that somewhat strange.

Not at all the conclusion I expected, though, I have to admit. It will be interesting to see if the friend revealing his plan is named, and how the family might react to that person. It seems like at the beginning no one was suggesting he'd ever talked of such a thing.

[Skeptic]

The original thread, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154732&highlight=census+worker), shows the virtue of skepticism. Most of the JREF people, including the one who originated the thread, took a "wait and see" attitude due to lack of information.

"Most", not all. Honorable members of the blame-Republicans-for-everything were, naturally, screaming that it's all Bush's / Republicans' / "the demonization of ACORN"'s fault. Complete with sarcastic, "oh sure, they'll deny it, but we know the truth".

[Dr Adequate]

His legs were bent at the knee and his knees were less than six inches off the ground, Rudzinski said.

Sparkman could have stood up, taken the pressure off his neck and not died. Or he could have passed out and his feet would have reached the ground.

Maybe there's something I don't know about the procedure and physiology of hanging oneself, but the report says that he died of asphyxiation, yes?

Actually, I probably don't want to know the detailed answer to this. I'm squeamish. Nonetheless, this strikes me as bizarre.

[Redtail]

Or he could have passed out and his feet would have reached the ground.

Maybe there's something I don't know about the procedure and physiology of hanging oneself, but the report says that he died of asphyxiation, yes?

Actually, I probably don't want to know the detailed answer to this. I'm squeamish. Nonetheless, this strikes me as bizarre.

I've never had a rope around my neck but I have had a rear naked choke cinched in and moved to tap as soon as I felt it. I was out of it before my hand reached his arm.

[Dr Adequate]

I have had a rear naked choke cinched in and moved to tap as soon as I felt it. I am so far removed from knowing what that collection of words might possibly mean that I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

[Redtail]

I am so far removed from knowing what that collection of words might possibly mean that I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Whoops sorry. (Forgot I wasn't on the fight forum for a second.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_naked_choke

[Praktik]

The original thread, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=154732&highlight=census+worker), shows the virtue of skepticism. Most of the JREF people, including the one who originated the thread, took a "wait and see" attitude due to lack of information.

"Most", not all. Honorable members of the blame-Republicans-for-everything were, naturally, screaming that it's all Bush's / Republicans' / "the demonization of ACORN"'s fault. Complete with sarcastic, "oh sure, they'll deny it, but we know the truth".

OH those liberals!

They really make my blood boil!!!

[Ziggurat]

Maybe there's something I don't know about the procedure and physiology of hanging oneself, but the report says that he died of asphyxiation, yes?

Meaning his body was deprived of oxygen until he died, yes. That's generally what happens when you hang yourself (most hanging suicides don't go for the whole snapped neck thing).

Actually, I probably don't want to know the detailed answer to this. I'm squeamish. Nonetheless, this strikes me as bizarre.

Yes, it is bizarre. But the conclusions of the law enforcement agencies (plural) are less bizarre than a murder with no signs of a struggle, no injuries to the victim other than the hanging, no drugs, and way too much freedom of movement.

[Dancing David]

Or he could have passed out and his feet would have reached the ground.

Maybe there's something I don't know about the procedure and physiology of hanging oneself, but the report says that he died of asphyxiation, yes?

Actually, I probably don't want to know the detailed answer to this. I'm squeamish. Nonetheless, this strikes me as bizarre.

My guess, and it is soley a guess is that he would have had a length that he may have rested on the ground but would have needed to stand up instead of leaning. If it was a slip knot it would not have mattered, because the ligature would still be choking him. He would need to stand and loosen the knot.

All speculation.

[calebprime]

Who were the beneficiaries named on the policies?

Just curious.

[Skeptic]

OH those liberals!

They really make my blood boil!!!

Well, considering the fact that you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5138423#post5138423) were one of those who were blaming the eeeeeeeeeeevil right-wingers for the "murder" that never was in that thread -- while most liberals in that thread were not doing it, but waiting for more info -- I can see why you are reduced to lame sarcasm here.

[Praktik]

Ya so!

When confronted with new evidence I was willing to accept the new explanation.

If you're telling me the circumstances of his suicide weren't conducive to my original understanding, well - I dunno what to say to that really!
Its not as if it being found to be a murder would have been something new - these workers have been attacked before and the Patriot movement is prone to violence.

My sarcasm was more directed at the xth iteration of the "Skeptic slags liberals" post, ever wanna mix it up a bit? Its getting a little tired.

[Skeptic]

Ya so!

When confronted with new evidence I was willing to accept the new explanation.

Yes, but it didn't stop you from making the accusations before you had all the facts.

[Praktik]

Well, I guess in your world I'm just an abstraction and can therefore be shuffled into the "liberals do this, liberals do that" compendium you've amassed - so if I told you that my original conceptions of this were never considered to be solid, and that part of me was ready to accept an alternative interpretation once more facts became known - would you accept that?

Or would that be seen merely as a ploy to save face after later information contradicted my original interpretation?

Skepticism to me is allowing an amount of doubt underneath your assumptions. And even though I was pretty sure it was a murder, I never once was ready to say that it was so 100%.

[Skeptic]

Well, I guess in your world I'm just an abstraction and can therefore be shuffled into the "liberals do this, liberals do that" compendium you've amassed - so if I told you that my original conceptions of this were never considered to be solid,

Didn't stop you from posting them.

"My original conceptions of this were never considered solid" is just another way of saying "I made unfounded accusations".

[Praktik]

lolz!

Ok then. I see you're hellbent at mischaracterizing my approach. Not much I can do about that.

Would be a pretty bizarre existence to adhere to an ultra-skepticism that prevents me from interpreting events according to an existing understanding built on knowledge I've gained over time.

This being a murder fit into a certain understanding.

I was never ready to say that my hunch was 100% correct.

I'm not sure what more one could do.

Though, if you're really trying to take the skeptical high ground here you'd do well to apply a higher degree of skepticism to your favourite political targets.

Maybe the next time you draw out a tired "liberals this" with unnamed targets you could think twice about what kind of skeptical foundation such trash rests on.

[KoihimeNakamura]

... And another way of expressing an opinion.

[Darth Rotor]

OH those liberals!

They really make my blood boil!!!

They ought to, they make you look stupid via the old "guilt by association" stain.

:duck:

[Skeptic]

Would be a pretty bizarre existence to adhere to an ultra-skepticism that prevents me from interpreting events according to an existing understanding built on knowledge I've gained over time.

True, true.

Yet, for some strange reason, the other people in that thread -- both liberals and conservatives -- somehow managed not to jump to conclusions, due to knowledge gained over time. For example, knowledge that sensational or bizarre cases are not necessarily good evidence, that the investigation was just beginning, etc.

You, however, ignored all of that and just went right ahead blaming the right for the "murder" that never was. Your "knowledge and understanding gained over time" seems to be summed up with "it's always the evil Republicans fault".

[Whiplash]

Some epic backpeddling there, Praktik. :)

[Praktik]

True, true.

Yet, for some strange reason, the other people in that thread -- both liberals and conservatives -- somehow managed not to jump to conclusions, due to knowledge gained over time. For example, knowledge that sensational or bizarre cases are not necessarily good evidence, that the investigation was just beginning, etc.

You, however, ignored all of that and just went right ahead blaming the right for the "murder" that never was. Your "knowledge and understanding gained over time" seems to be summed up with "it's always the evil Republicans fault".

wrong. Part of my odyssey into CT theory has included quite a deep and serious inspection of the far right militia/"black helicopter"/tax protester crowd.

I've spent a lot of time reading their stuff directly and analysis of it. I had taken the time this summer to go through a lot of the recent history of violence perpetrated by these people.

Thats the knowledge I was drawing on.

You have to admit, the circumstances of how he was found fit with that crowd.

As it turns out, he may have set it up to look that way - so how is it any wonder that in the early days, people would draw a preliminary conclusion along the lines he wanted?

You want to ascribe all this to some BS partisan knee jerk reaction, and that's just plain false, at least in my case. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that might be an "unfounded accusation"... ;)

Really, the black helicopter crowd exist outside the traditional political spectrum - blaming them is really hard to do in a partisan way since they're so far away from traditional republicans and traditional debate. I dunno, I do find it strange to see the crowing now, and the defensiveness earlier. Is it because these kinds of extremists are on the right-end of the spectrum that tyou see them as kind of "our crazies", Skeptic and Whippy? Or is it just cause lefties drew these kinds of conclusions (though not exclusively) and since lefties did that, you wanted to be on the other side?

Or is this thinking "unfounded" too?

Gimme your best shot.

[Praktik]

Maybe someone in America can tell me, but are the Colonel Bo Gitzes of America considered Republicans?

Cause seems to me that someone like Bo Gitz is so far out there that mainstream labels dont apply...

[Skeptic]

wrong. Part of my odyssey into CT theory has included quite a deep and serious inspection of the far right militia/"black helicopter"/tax protester crowd.

Ah, so your accusations were "false but accurate"...

[Praktik]

If Richard Gage came up with a new BS theory tomorrow, would that be surprising to you?

Or would that fit with what you already know about gage?

Do you examine each new claim because maybe, this time, he could be right?

This is basic, basic stuff. I have amassed a body of knowledge and an interest in the militia/black helicopter/tax protest crowd. I spent a lot of time examining their acts of violence and trolling the stormfront boards. It has formed a core part of my study of CT theory.

So hearing the circumstances of this census worker, why wouldnt I fit that into there?

As a skeptic, I still kept a sliver of doubt, which turned out to prove my initial conclusions were wrong.

So where's the problem here?

It has nothing to do with something being "false but accurate", I dont even know what that means...

My initial conclusions were WRONG - im just trying to tell you why I thought that way. But you're not meeting me in the middle here buddy

[Skeptic]

Maybe someone in America can tell me, but are the Colonel Bo Gitzes of America considered Republicans?

You tell me. You were the one who performed "quite a deep and serious inspection of the far right crowd", remember?

[Praktik]

Im just wondering why you're acting as if blaming people like Bo gitz = blaming republicans

[Skeptic]

I have amassed a body of knowledge and an interest in the militia/black helicopter/tax protest crowd. I spent a lot of time examining their acts of violence and trolling the stormfront boards. It has formed a core part of my study of CT theory.

And, after all that hard work, you're damned if you're going to let a few lousy facts ruin your great theory.

[Skeptic]

Im just wondering why you're acting as if blaming people like Bo gitz = blaming republicans

Well, for two reasons:

1). You are the one who keep connecting the two groups;
2). It doesn't matter in this case, since Bo Gritz (correct spelling, although why anybody would care about this childish fool is beyond me) is no more responsible for the man's suicide than mainstream republicans.

[Praktik]

And, after all that hard work, you're damned if you're going to let a few lousy facts ruin your great theory.

How can you say this?

In fact, I very much did do that. When I tell you that I left an element of doubt to my conclusions, as is my approach to most anything, can you accept that? Or would you rather fictionalize me and pretend that I didn't?

Cause the above quote seems to disregard a lot of what I said in this thread.

Look: the suicide was staged to look like a murder - so why is it any surprise that given the initial stories, people thought it was a murder?

Especially when it fit the profile of a paranoid sliver of the American polity prone to violence?

[sugarb]

I think that if we feel a need to be angry about how this was painted to look like right wing anti-government extremists did it, we should be angry with the guy who made it look that way. That would be the dead guy, right? If he in fact committed suicide (and it looks that way), then...well, his methods were kind of a slap in the face to the people he worked around and the folks of that small area. I suppose it's wrong to say that, since he's dead after all...but...it's kind of clear he believed that someone would automatically blame a certain element.

[Skeptic]

I suppose it's wrong to say that, since he's dead after all...but...it's kind of clear he believed that someone would automatically blame a certain element.

And he was right, wasn't he?

[sugarb]

And he was right, wasn't he?

Hello, Skeptic. Yes. He was.

What does that say about him, though, that he'd be willing to let someone be blamed for his death that was completely innocent?

But yes, he was.

[Skeptic]

It's hard to tell what someone about to commit suicide would think like, or what it says about him. Perhaps he thought that this way his family would get the insurance money.

[sugarb]

It's hard to tell what someone about to commit suicide would think like, or what it says about him. Perhaps he thought that this way his family would get the insurance money.

Hello Skeptic (Happy Thanksgiving). Yes, it would be impossible to tell what he was thinking...but my point is that it seems to me to be very likely that he thought little enough of some "right wing" elements in the area he worked that he figured the blame for his death would automatically go in that direction. I mean, if it was indeed suicide, then it wasn't the spur of the moment upset, it was carefully thought out. Even to the extent of where the blame would fall.

I confess that I automatically figured anti-government groups (though certainly not all are right wing...in this particular area, though, that would be a safe bet).

At any rate, it is both sad and fascinating that our political divisions extend even to the moment of our deaths. That anyone would utilize any political anything in that particular situation (assuming suicide is correct).

I'm agreeing with you and confessing my own immediate thoughts having been extremists must have done it. It is kind of scary to think that...well, to think that we're so quick to make these assumptions that someone figures they can cheat a life insurance company by doing what this guy did. It seems to me he didn't just want to die, he wanted his death to be considered part of a "cause"...wanted to be a martyr of some kind.

I'm just stunned by the lengths he went to. I mean, he could have just driven his car off a road and killed himself that way...but no, he chose to make a statement? That's just a little bit shocking to me.

[Skeptic]

The problem is not that you immediately THINK that a right wing group COULD have done it. The problem is when you openly accuse right-wing groups of it without the investigation being concluded. Could have =/= did.

As for the lengths he went to -- who knows why? Perhaps he figured that running the car off a cliff would be easier to judge as suicide. Or perhaps he was bitter and wanted to blame someone for his death as a parting shot at the world he hated.

[thaiboxerken]

Yep, looks like suicide (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/11/census_worker_killing_probe_ne.html):



So much for blaming it on Bachmann (who I still admit is a dolt).

Even if it is a suicide, Bachman's insane rantings likely played a role in the way it was done.

[thaiboxerken]

Skepticism to me is allowing an amount of doubt underneath your assumptions. And even though I was pretty sure it was a murder, I never once was ready to say that it was so 100%.

Skeptic is correct. Just because the guy staged his suicide to look exactly like a right-winger, mob lynching doesn't mean you should've suspected it was a right-winger, mob lynching..........:rolleyes:

In short. Ignore Skeptic, he just hates liberals.

[gtc]

Even if it is a suicide, Bachman's insane rantings likely played a role in the way it was done.

If I kill myself for the insurance but try to make it look I was killed by a Muslim, would that make it somehow the fault of the Muslims?

[Dancing David]

Hello, Skeptic. Yes. He was.

What does that say about him, though, that he'd be willing to let someone be blamed for his death that was completely innocent?

But yes, he was.

People considering suicide are not 'rational', they are often just concerned with making pain go away.

The view of the consequences is often rather limited.
The three risk factors for commision (outside of the history of past attempts)
-impulse control
-judgement
-insight

In the precense of low impulse control, impaired judgement and lack of insight the risk is very high of commision when a person has suicidal ideation, other factors include (but are not limited to)

-male
-over 50
-chronic pain
-substance abuse
-feelings of hopelessness and helplessness
-past suicide attempts

[Dancing David]

Hello Skeptic (Happy Thanksgiving). Yes, it would be impossible to tell what he was thinking...but my point is that it seems to me to be very likely that he thought little enough of some "right wing" elements in the area he worked that he figured the blame for his death would automatically go in that direction. I mean, if it was indeed suicide, then it wasn't the spur of the moment upset, it was carefully thought out. Even to the extent of where the blame would fall.




That was likely an impaired judgement that forensic analysis would just say that he was murdered rather than that it was suicide. I think his main motive for the staging was to cover the suicde.


I am hiding this so that I can make a statement, I do not advocate suicide (I worked to prevent it for 15 years), I do not approve of insurance fraud.
He should have just crashed the car into a tree at a very high rate of speed.

[Skeptic]

If I kill myself for the insurance but try to make it look I was killed by a Muslim, would that make it somehow the fault of the Muslims?

Of course. Remember what's-her-name, who killed her children and claimed they were abducted and killed by a black man? Totally the Blacks' fault.

[Skeptic]

What we see here is the same bigotry against (ill-defined) "right wingers" that is seen against Musims, Blacks, Jews, "satanists", "zionists", or any other hated group.

First of all, it is enough for someone to accuse them or to make it look like they committed a crime, and they are automatically guilty. Accusation or suspicion = guilt.

Second, even if it is proven beyond a doubt that they did not commit the crime, they are still guilty -- after all, if they didn't do all those horrible other things, the man who committed the actual crime wouldn't have tried to blame them for it, now would he?

Third, no need to apologize. If you accused them falsely, it is their fault for making you think they are guilty, of course. If they weren't such disgusting, evil people, it wouldn't have been such a reasonable conclusion to think they did it.

Fourth, claim you are an "expert" about the hated group. "You just don't know the Jews / Negroes / Muslims / Right-wingers / whomever like I do. If you did, you, too, would have jumped to the wrong conclusion."

Naked bigotry, nothing more, which seems to be motivated by the usual psychological motives for bigotry -- the need to find some "evil" group to blame for everything and to feel superior to. Which is the only two ways some liberals here (certainly not all!) can relate to conservatives.

[Sporanox]

That was likely an impaired judgement that forensic analysis would just say that he was murdered rather than that it was suicide. I think his main motive for the staging was to cover the suicde.


I am hiding this so that I can make a statement, I do not advocate suicide (I worked to prevent it for 15 years), I do not approve of insurance fraud.
He should have just crashed the car into a tree at a very high rate of speed.

His insurance companies (he had two life insurance policies, IIRC) wouldn't pay for a death by suicide. Thanks for taking the time to shed some more light on this, by the way.

What we see here is the same bigotry against (ill-defined) "right wingers" that is seen against Musims, Blacks, Jews, "satanists", "zionists", or any other hated group.


QFT.

[Praktik]

What we see here is the same bigotry against (ill-defined) "right wingers" that is seen against Musims, Blacks, Jews, "satanists", "zionists", or any other hated group.

First of all, it is enough for someone to accuse them or to make it look like they committed a crime, and they are automatically guilty. Accusation or suspicion = guilt.

Second, even if it is proven beyond a doubt that they did not commit the crime, they are still guilty -- after all, if they didn't do all those horrible other things, the man who committed the actual crime wouldn't have tried to blame them for it, now would he?

Third, no need to apologize. If you accused them falsely, it is their fault for making you think they are guilty, of course. If they weren't such disgusting, evil people, it wouldn't have been such a reasonable conclusion to think they did it.

Fourth, claim you are an "expert" about the hated group. "You just don't know the Jews / Negroes / Muslims / Right-wingers / whomever like I do. If you did, you, too, would have jumped to the wrong conclusion."

Naked bigotry, nothing more, which seems to be motivated by the usual psychological motives for bigotry -- the need to find some "evil" group to blame for everything and to feel superior to. Which is the only two ways some liberals here (certainly not all!) can relate to conservatives.

So in your opinion, I'm a bigot?

Here's where your analysis fails.

You're ascribing a template to posters on the board, one of whom I consider to be myself here and there really is no evidence for it. You're mind-reading and pretending to know my motivations even though I've stated them quite clearly here.

It should be obvious what I was thinking from my posts here. The things I was thinking were the following:

- Given the bound hands, the word "FED" scrawled into him, the hanging method of killing - I laid the blame for direct responsibility on a sliver of the right-wing. So far right-wing they are disavowed by 95% of the right-wing for their violent ideology, unflinching fanatacism and violent incidents of the past decades.

- I ascribed some indirect responsibility to the irresponsible ravings of some figures in the right-wing who have adopted some of this CT theory. People like bachmann musing about FEMA camps and whipping up a frenzy about the dangerous liberal agenda behind the census. This is similar to the Goldberg connection to the guy who shot up that "church of liberals". Goldberg is in no way directly responsible for that act of terror. But he is specifically named in the manifesto of the murderer as inspiring him with his lists of "Liberals that Are Destroying America".

Now obviously that 2nd point is controversial. But I do think its an important contextual factor. I don't think we need to abrogate free speech, but I think we have a responsibility in a free speech environment to exercise our own free speech and call that kind of rhetoric out for the foolishness - the dangerous foolishness that it is. You should understand that on a board dedicated to decrying dangerous forms of woo.

Now - at no point did I slag "all right wingers". Or did I ever think the large majority of Republicans and conservatives generally who aren't wingnuts have any reason to answer for the alleged murder. Or to even answer for Michelle Bachmann and the "unhinged" nexus of fanatics like her. There's plenty of "right-wingers" for whom these elements are almost as distasteful as they are to me!

A bigot would not make such distinctions. Though I wonder if this is even the term you're looking for.

I don't know why you would even use that term when "partisan" or "ideologically opposed" would work better and be more accurate to describe someone "slagging all right wingers" based on the first news of this story.

Since you feel able to pontificate on my underlying psychology with what appears to be an unrelenting certainty, do allow me the opportunity to recriprocate.

I think you have internalized an ideology of victimhood. And that this is the reason you appropriate the language of victimhood from oppressed races and religions to describe people who are politically different from you.

It casts you in the saintly role of victim and underdog, putting you on a righteous and noble pedestal from which you can cast aspersions on the character of all who would oppose you. For after all, if the oppressed "right wingers" you speak of are the constant targets of "bigotry" then what does that make people like me but the agents of oppression? Wielding ideological clubs and frothing at the mouth with a visceral hatred of all things "conservative", the jack-booted liberals are always looking for any way to keep the woe-begotten conservatives down.

I thing the best reaction to being talked about in this way, as though I'm one of these fictional characters from the tragic movie looping in your mind, is to realize that this kind of talk is much more about the self-serving desire to play the role of victim than it is about me or other posters here on the board.

And it's ironic that one who approaches the doctrinaire when it comes to conservative ideology is appropriating for himself the language and approach of some left-wing and progressive movements rooted in victimhood. What are complaints about "political correctedness" but a reaction to people "playing the victim"?

Is Skeptic advocating for a PC approach to conservatism and Republicans?

Why frame political differences as "bigotry" when we already have an adequate lexicon to describe political differences and knee-jerk generalizations based on those differences. One that isn't rooted in such an inflammatory place.

[Skeptic]

So in your opinion, I'm a bigot?.

Yes.

ascribed some indirect responsibility to the irresponsible ravings of some figures in the right-wing who have adopted some of this CT theory.

And when whatshername claimed her children, which she in fact drowned in a lake, were killed by a black man, I assigned some indirect responsibility to the awful Black criminals who are ruining America.

[Praktik]

duly noted.

Though if I was going to start adopting the language of bigotry to describe people who slag "liberals" in general and as a group continually, you'd be the top of that list.

But I wont call you a bigot, just ideologically entrenched.

[Dancing David]

Yes.



And when whatshername claimed her children, which she in fact drowned in a lake, were killed by a black man, I assigned some indirect responsibility to the awful Black criminals who are ruining America.

Well if it was the whatshername (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-11690260.html) at Clinton lake, DeWitt County, IL it was a domestic violence situation

[Praktik]

And when whatshername claimed her children, which she in fact drowned in a lake, were killed by a black man, I assigned some indirect responsibility to the awful Black criminals who are ruining America.

Hmmm... sounds suspiciously like something a bigot would say...

also?

Hitler. Hitler would say that.

[Skeptic]

Hmmm... sounds suspiciously like something a bigot would say...

Indeed so -- whether said about Blacks or about Right-wingers.

The difference between us is, your bigoted statements about how the hated group shares "some indirect responsibility" for something someone else had done were made seriously.

[Praktik]

Indeed so -- whether said about Blacks or about Right-wingers.

The difference between us is, you were serious. I was merely being sarcastic, highlighting the bigotry of your statement.

Which is why I think you're a bigot.

And using your definitional parameters against you, like a reflector power in streetfighter bouncing the fireball attack back to the fireball thrower, I consider you a bigot.

And Hitlerish.

How many more bigoted screeds against "liberals" in general are we going to be subjected to?

How comes the manifesto?

[Praktik]

I also don't know how I could be an anti-conservative bigot, when some of my best friends are conservatives!

[Talby]

Maybe the murderer set it up to look like a suicide set up to look like a murder... just to throw us off!

[Praktik]

Maybe the murderer set it up to look like a suicide set up to look like a murder... just to throw us off!

Or to flush out the bigots! He did it in order to expose the liberal hatred of conservatives!

[thaiboxerken]

If I kill myself for the insurance but try to make it look I was killed by a Muslim, would that make it somehow the fault of the Muslims?

If the Muslims made insane rantings about census workers, then yes.

[Praktik]

If the Muslims made insane rantings about census workers, then yes.

And then only until we discovered that it was staged. At which point the blame is solely on the person who committed the act of suicide.

[Praktik]

I guess then, if skeptic and gtc are right - that maybe we should forget about talking about Islamic figures preaching jihad - after all, we might be bigots if we thought there was some chain of indirect responsibility there when someone took them at their word.

Skeptic and gtc, guardians of political correctness!

[gtc]

Not at all.

I thought people were far too willing to jump to conclusions but you can't be faulted for changing your mind when the evidence emerged.

I have no idea whether thaiboxerken is still trying to blame this on anyone but the census worker himself.

[Praktik]

hehe ya i was just riffing off that one quote there that thaiboxerkitten remarked on gtc..;)

no hard feelins

[gtc]

Fair enough. Like I said, I give you your fair dues for chaging your mind when the evidence came in.

[theprestige]

Or to flush out the bigots! He did it in order to expose the liberal hatred of conservatives!
Doesn't seem like something that needs a lot of effort to expose, though, does it?

[Skeptic]

If the Muslims made insane rantings about census workers, then yes.

But Muslims (well, some Muslims) DO make insane rants about killing all "infidels". Recently, a Jewish woman in France claimed she was attacked by a gang of Muslims. It turns out she made it up (a cursory search didn't find anything, but I remember the case). Glad to know that in your view, thaiboxerken, the Muslims do indeed "share responsibility" for her made-up lie.

And, again, what about the woman who drowned her children in a lake and then blamed Blacks for it? There are, after all, Black people who rant insanely against the "white devils" and how they should be killed. So it's good to know Blacks "share responsibility" for that, too.

And let us not forget the Jews! There are quotes in the Talmud -- and the bible -- that are quite unpleasant and hateful towards gentiles. Therefore, the Jews "share responsibility" for the blood libel.

This is fun! Make up any lie you want, about any group you dislike -- and, as long as some people in that group are genuinely not nice, they automatically "share responsibility" for you making up lies about them!

How convenient!

Oh wait -- this is known as racism, or Islamophobia, or antisemitism, when it's all those other groups (and quite rightly so, of course). Because those are groups other people hate, not you.

When it comes to a group you hate, however -- right-wingers -- then, nonononono, it is not bigotry, it's "looking at the root causes", or "deeper analysis", or "a more sophisticated look at the problem", or whatever...

[Skeptic]

Fair enough. Like I said, I give you your fair dues for chaging your mind when the evidence came in.

The problem is that the apology was worse than the crime.

If Praktik had said, "I jumped to conclusions", then, yes, he would deserve much credit for changing his mind. We all are wrong sometimes.

But he "explained" it by trying to prove that he did nothing wrong, and it is all the fault of those awful right-winger that he made false accusations against them.

That is far worse than the original mistake -- it shows it was not just a mistake, but a result of persistent bigotry.

[The Painter]

Hmmm... sounds suspiciously like something a bigot would say...

also?

Hitler. Hitler would say that.

You lose.

The custom has evolved that the first party to utter "Hitler" or "Nazi" has lost the discussion

In all your blathering, you have not once said you were wrong. Tons of bad logic and excuses and twisted reasoning, but not one "I was wrong".

[Praktik]

The problem is that the apology was worse than the crime.

If Praktik had said, "I jumped to conclusions", then, yes, he would deserve much credit for changing his mind. We all are wrong sometimes.

But he "explained" it by trying to prove that he did nothing wrong, and it is all the fault of those awful right-winger that he made false accusations against them.

That is far worse than the original mistake -- it shows it was not just a mistake, but a result of persistent bigotry.

That would imply that I actually had a "conclusion". I didn't say, for certain, that I was right. I always thought it was possible I was wrong. The scene fit the profile of a certain demographic I have spent a lot of time studying - by design, as it turned out.

It's like a cop going to a murder scene and looking at the evidence and thinking its a domestic violence situation, only to find out later it was a grudge hit designed to look like that.

You just don't want to cut me any slack cause the conversation got adversarial and now that we're in our corners you have to invent things about my inner mind to persist in your caricature of my position: namely that out of sheer bigotry and hatred, I immediately "jumped" and claimed that "all right wingers" were responsible.

When in point of fact, I did no such thing and was always ready to reconsider pending new evidence especially given the fact my initial opinions were formed on the first day of a news story - things have a way of changing, and this one did. Further, I never extended any responsibility for this beyond a fringe sliver of the right wing. I have no problem with right wingers and conservative ideas in general. I like me some Burke and Kirk yo! I am capable of seeing good things in conservatism but there are some fringe elements I vehemently oppose.

If you want to meet me in a middle ground, here is my olive branch: "yes my original speculation was wrong".

I have no problems characterizing my initial impressions as speculation. How could it be anything else? I was just reading abstract little 600 word stories from the wire services...

[Praktik]

You lose.



In all your blathering, you have not once said you were wrong. Tons of bad logic and excuses and twisted reasoning, but not one "I was wrong".

Way to miss the point.

I invoked hitler only to illustrate the same mechanism Skeptic was using by mimcry.

Jumping to "bigotry" to explain things is a nuclear bomb of argumentation not so different in form and function from invoking hitler: its the age old ploy of impugning the character of your opponent rather than arguing the evidence, times a thousand.

And you see the result. We end up having a page of discussion about our inner minds and alleged covert bigotry instead of having a worthwhile and useful discussion about I dunno - anything else.

[The Painter]

I invoked hitler only to illustrate the same mechanism Skeptic was using by mimcry.


Look at that! You lose again.

[Praktik]

ha! got me!

[Whiplash]

So many words.. so much rationalizing... even the classic "you are not a mindreader" line.

When it could all be shut down by simply saying "you know what? I jumped to a conclusion and I was wrong". Not "You know what? I jumped to a conclusion, but it was entirely logical and reasonable for me to do so, given who we are dealing with" or other such blather.

Please feel free to engage in a 50,000 word response that talks circles around the subject for hours. Don't consider being at all humbled, or willing to even consider that you were in any way wrong, at all.. even for a second.

[Skeptic]

This is Praktik's new way of drawing conclusions. Only smart men can see how logical it is.

You and I are just not intelligent enough to fathom the depth of his intellectual sophistication, Whiplash.

Let us hang our head in shame together.

[rwguinn]

This is Praktik's new way of drawing conclusions. Only smart men can see how logical it is.

You and I are just not intelligent enough to fathom the depth of his intellectual sophistication, Whiplash.

Let us hang our head in shame together.

I'll even throw in a "toe scuff" iff'n I kin join you there in the depths...

[Praktik]

So many words.. so much rationalizing... even the classic "you are not a mindreader" line.

When it could all be shut down by simply saying "you know what? I jumped to a conclusion and I was wrong". Not "You know what? I jumped to a conclusion, but it was entirely logical and reasonable for me to do so, given who we are dealing with" or other such blather.

Please feel free to engage in a 50,000 word response that talks circles around the subject for hours. Don't consider being at all humbled, or willing to even consider that you were in any way wrong, at all.. even for a second.

I dont think you've been reading the thread.

I've said I was wrong, and even gtc (someone I've tangled with on a few things here and there!) recognized it. I can only take the continued inability to accept that as a wilful stubborness.

I just don't think the phrase "jumping to conclusions" fits. I was speculating based on a newstory on day 0 of the event. Given the incompleteness of the news, the fact there was an ongoing investigation and a mention of it possibly being suicide - I had no way to say for certain exactly what happened. Can you accept that? Or do you wish to dismiss it as ass-covering? I can only tell you that I am honestly telling you the truth: I was never ready to say my original reaction was 100% correct. How could I? It was a "hunch" and entirely speculative.

But you and Skeptic wanna keep playing the victim, and pretend that I'm a posterboy for the type of "liberals" that direct their thinking according to an underlying bigotry - part of an overall systemic oppression of conservatives.

This in fact, is what sparked most of my writings over the previous pages. We aren't arguing about the case anymore, we're arguing about my inner mind and Skeptic's victimhood.

Isn't it fun?

[Sporanox]

Yes, you've said you were wrong, but have you said you were wrong to speculate in such a manner? I'm not sure. Yea or nay?

[Praktik]

This is Praktik's new way of drawing conclusions. Only smart men can see how logical it is.

You and I are just not intelligent enough to fathom the depth of his intellectual sophistication, Whiplash.

Let us hang our head in shame together.

Wow!

I don't think Skeptic is even talking to me anymore.

With the above quote, for example, I am unable to figure just how it could possibly be related to the content of the conversation to-date.

What's up Skeptic? Praktik here: don't take my wordiness as a challenge to your intelligence. It's entirely involuntary. It's just the way I talk.

And I don't think your stupid either. In fact, I have long since dispensed with ascribing differences of opinion to intelligence. In this case all we have is a difference of opinion rooted in politics and ideology.

Nothing more than that.

[Praktik]

Yes, you've said you were wrong, but have you said you were wrong to speculate in such a manner? I'm not sure. Yea or nay?

No, I wasn't wrong to speculate in such a manner. The suicide was staged in such a way to invite people to think that the historically violent anti-federalist sliver of the extreme right was responsible.

Isn't it to be expected that people would think that when he was found with the word "FED" scrawled on his chest?

The thing that got me really was the duct tape. I thought, now how could he have hanged himself if his hands were duct-taped behind his back?

It was only with the story of last week that we got more information as to exactly how his hands were duct-taped, and detail on the way the word "FED" was written and how low to the ground he was.

These are facts I was not in possession of before because the story was so fresh and the data so limited.

The limited data of the first stories was not really sufficient to say either way. In fact, I think the many people who came in to claim it was likely a suicide while I was claiming it was likely a murder were proceeding on an evidentiary basis identical to mine. The data was so mixed either speculation was justified.

And thats why it proved to be such potent fodder for political diviseness.

[Sporanox]

No, I wasn't wrong to speculate in such a manner. The suicide was staged in such a way to invite people to think that the historically violent anti-federalist sliver of the extreme right was responsible.

Then for some reason it's okay to blame Bachmann and Beck?

[Skeptic]

No, I wasn't wrong to speculate in such a manner. The suicide was staged in such a way to invite people to think that the historically violent anti-federalist sliver of the extreme right was responsible.

Isn't it to be expected that people would think that when he was found with the word "FED" scrawled on his chest?

And the woman who killed her own children and blamed a black intruder expected people to believe it is a black man. Isn't it reasonable to accept this was the case, given the historically violent sliver of Black criminals?

The answer is, of course, no, this wasn't reasonable. What was reasonable, rather, is to notice that there is something very fishy about both stories. Sure, sometimes Black people commit crimes, and even murder or abduct children. But to abduct children out of the blue without any motive, ransom note, or contact with the parents? Sure, sometimes extreme right-wingers murder people. Shooting an FBI man on his way to your armed shack, or blowing up a federal building... but to hang someone from a tree and write "FED" on his body -- and a census worker, at that? That sounds like a remake of a scene from some cheap movie.

And guess what? That is precisely what most people did. Most people, Black or White, very quickly came to doubt that woman's story, despite the fact that she "expected" people to believe it. Most people on this forum, liberals or conservatives, took a "wait and see" attitude towards the "census worker murdered" story because it seemed so strange. Indeed, the liberal poster who started the thread quite correctly gave it the title "census worker murdered?" - with a question mark -- despite the fact that he (the suicide) "expected" people to fall for it.

Who jumped to the wrong conclusions? In the case of the woman who killed her children, the Ku Klux Klan and other racist bigots; in the case of the census worker who committed suicide, you and other anti-conservative bigots. Your bigotry made you look dumb, falling for what (in retrospect) seems like a rather crude attempt to get the insurance money.

Perhaps you should rethink your bigotry.

[Praktik]

Perhaps you should rethink your bigotry.

lol!

Ok I give up. "Skeptic" wins the thread.

[Praktik]

Then for some reason it's okay to blame Bachmann and Beck?

Let's imagine that it was a murder committed by an militant anti-federalist. And that, much like the guy who walked into a church and murdered "liberals" and then a screed mentioning Bernie Goldberg as inspiration was found, we found that he took Bachmann's paranoid screaming about the census literally - then talking about that connection would be fair game.

There are some very important caveats however: we all know Goldberg didnt want anyone to shoot up a church, or that Bachmann wanted census workers murdered. Their connection is only tangential.

But I think its important in a free speech environment to speak out against dangerous and irresponsible speech. If we do so, then such opinions will not be given any weight because more people will see them as coming from a source of disrepute. We can relegate them to the fringe where they belong.

These kinds of connections are no different than people talking about violent jihadi rhetoric inspiring a young terrorist, or KKK propaganda leading to an assault on a minority.

I see no reason why the likes of Bachmann are defended here. Is it because of a "no enemies to the right" mentality? I mean seriously, Bachmann basically portrayed the census as a sinister operation on the part of a government fundamentally opposed to the people. How is that defensible? Isn't obvious how the unbalanced may respond to that kind of a perspective?

Ok. It turned out that this case was not an example of anyone responding to that rhetoric. But I don't think having extremist views legitimized bodes well for the future- some people take that stuff literally. And if there are an identifiable group of people "destroying America" from within, or if the government is about to impose a system of internal concentration camps for political dissidents, dont you think some people who are already immersed in a Manichaean struggle with an evil government will be more likely to lash out?

Buckley mariginalized the John Birch Society and he was right to do so. I really hope a similar figure can accomplish the same nowadays.

[Sporanox]

I see no reason why the likes of Bachmann are defended here. Is it because of a "no enemies to the right" mentality? I mean seriously, Bachmann basically portrayed the census as a sinister operation on the part of a government fundamentally opposed to the people. How is that defensible? Isn't obvious how the unbalanced may respond to that kind of a perspective?


In my mind, from my limited knowledge of the census, it isn't a defensible assertion given what appears to be a poor factual support. However, is it defensible even in an apparent murder of a census worker? I would say yes.

Why? Because crazies will generally seize upon any pretext to kill someone - that is, Bachmann is not responsible for their actions because a murderer did not lose his inhibition to kill someone because she made an inflammatory accusation.

This is the same argument made by the Jack Thompson crowd - look at that kid who shot up the police station while copying a level in GTA! We must restrict/ban violent video games! That kid would have killed someone whether he played the game or not.

EDIT: By the way, most people considered the murder to be a protection of some marijuana-growing enterprise or the like. That makes it even harder to try to blame Bachmann.

[Praktik]

Why? Because crazies will generally seize upon any pretext to kill someone - that is, Bachmann is not responsible for their actions because a murderer did not lose his inhibition to kill someone because she made an inflammatory accusation.

Point taken and thank you for engaging honestly and productively with me here.

I guess I understand this and one some level there is little you can do. Maybe a sale on oranges would be the trigger for some crazy who knows!

But at the same time, there's a danger I think in going too far in this direction. Do we chalk up all crazy acts to "craziness" and leave it at that?

Its a recipe for blindness in my opinion.

And in this case, obviously, there is nothing to connect Bachmann here at all. But she is really not so far away from a truther in her CT conception of the government and as I am implacably opposed to all forms of woo I ended up using the opportunity of this case to single her out.

I guess one thing I was thinking about as this was on the backburner yesterday was how little violence we've seen inspired by 9/11 truth. In their world the government murdered 3 000 citizens to start bloody wars. Why haven't more of them taken up arms to "take a stand" against this evil?

And I guess thats the thing I think is dangerous: the idea that the individual is manning the barricades of civilization, that the country is poised on the edge of destruction, and that the agents of that destruction are a collection of evil people implacably opposed to freedom and the public.

And to be honest, when I hear Bachmann speak sometimes thats the kind of portrait of the American government that I hear. I can only think that for 90% of people like Bachmann and her audience that they're grandstanding and having fun picturing things this way. But there is a hard core out there that takes it all literally, and I find that kind of scary.

[thaiboxerken]

Then for some reason it's okay to blame Bachmann and Beck?

Yes.

[Sporanox]

Point taken and thank you for engaging honestly and productively with me here.

I guess I understand this and one some level there is little you can do. Maybe a sale on oranges would be the trigger for some crazy who knows!

But at the same time, there's a danger I think in going too far in this direction. Do we chalk up all crazy acts to "craziness" and leave it at that?

Its a recipe for blindness in my opinion.

And in this case, obviously, there is nothing to connect Bachmann here at all. But she is really not so far away from a truther in her CT conception of the government and as I am implacably opposed to all forms of woo I ended up using the opportunity of this case to single her out.

I guess one thing I was thinking about as this was on the backburner yesterday was how little violence we've seen inspired by 9/11 truth. In their world the government murdered 3 000 citizens to start bloody wars. Why haven't more of them taken up arms to "take a stand" against this evil?

And I guess thats the thing I think is dangerous: the idea that the individual is manning the barricades of civilization, that the country is poised on the edge of destruction, and that the agents of that destruction are a collection of evil people implacably opposed to freedom and the public.

And to be honest, when I hear Bachmann speak sometimes thats the kind of portrait of the American government that I hear. I can only think that for 90% of people like Bachmann and her audience that they're grandstanding and having fun picturing things this way. But there is a hard core out there that takes it all literally, and I find that kind of scary.

Well, yeah, I can understand your thinking, especially the line about the individual. Where you and I diverge is my belief that the "craziness" model is sufficient to explain political killings in America.

ETA

I.e., we should never blame vitriolic pundits or pols unless they deliberately call for violent action. That holds a lot of consequences for the freedom to say things on either side, especially for whistleblowers who are making abuses public.

How many people tried to assassinate Bush? It certainly seems as if the number should have been much greater considering the rhetoric deployed against him and the offenses he was supposed to be guilty of. (Some of the highlights are documented on the blog zombietime)