I guess since I was sick most of last week, and then had a full weekend of sports and other things going on, I did not spend enough time reading the blogosphere, and in particular, I did not spend enough time reading the reactions to Mark Byron’s political murder scenario. I have to admit- the responses appear to me to range from the hopelessly overwrought to the seriously deranged. Some quick notes:
1.) This is for the trolls- I am not in favor of the assassination of any Democrats.
2.) Although the author himself calls this a ‘fantasy,’ I think that term has jaded many of the responses. This is, as the author notes, clearly not a fantasy of his, in that it is clearly not something he wants to happen (Me in bed with Hedi Klum, Halle Berry, and Liz Hurley- that is a fantasy). This is a hypothetical scenario, and not really a fantasy.
3.) I do not understand the outrage- he clearly did not advocate this- he simply stated a scenario, and then listed, from his perspective, how this would be a thoroughly objectionable occurrence.
4.) The most absurd response to this whole affair came from (not surprisingly), Tom Spencer, who first condemned the post and then posted an hour by hour update calling the Instapundit a hypocrite for not immediately condemning the post. Most amusing is that Spencer’s blog is titled “Thinking It Through.” Note to jerk-offs, if you want my reaction on something, let me know about it- don’t play the absurd game Tom did and state that just because someone on your blogroll writes something, you must immediately have a response. BTW- This is the same Tom Spencer who can’t even get basic facts straight.
For the record, Mark Byron is not on my blogroll, also for the record, aren’t the attempts by the lunatic fringe to attack the Instapundit about anything rather transparent and amusing. I mean, horror of horrors- Hesiod is delinking Glenn. I am sure he is traumatized.
5.) If there was one shred of evidence that Byron was actually advocating, planning, or in favor of this scenario coming to fruition, I would call him all sorts of names myself. However, there is no such thing, so I am not sure why everyone has their knickers in a twist.
6.) Several people have stated that the real problem is that he listed the names of the Senators from Republican governed states. This is an idiotic condemnation- in order for the scenario to work, of course the senators would have to be from states with Republican governors.
I have read the Byron piece ten times now, and other than the idea that something this horrifying could happen- really, I think everyone would agree that this sort of mass assassination would be horrible, I simply see no reason to condemn Byron for writing this- again, there is nothing in ANYTHING he has written about this to assume he would advocate such a horrible scenario.
People need to grow up.
Kimmitt
The part which chilled me was the one where he took the time to figure out which Senators would be the ones which ought to be killed.
Creepy as hell.
Moe Lane
Hesiod HAD been linking Instapundit? What did he do, put it up just for the pleasure of taking it down?
James W
Kimmit’s right, the whole thing is creepy. Who would go through the trouble of detailing this sociopathic “hypothetical” just to later denounce it? What, exactly, is the point? To demonstrate that mass murder, for whatever ‘reason’, is wrong? Well, point taken, thanks for the tip.
One has to wonder about the mind that would conflate such a hypothetical scenario with “Civil Disobedience”.
The only thing I Just Don’t Get is why you, John, haven’t distanced yourself from this guy.
John Cole
Distance myself from what? Byron has stated in the piece that the scenario is wrong, evil, inappropriate, and has not advocated undertaking the murder of all these innocent Democrats.
IN order to ‘distance’ myself from that statement, I would have to state that I am in favor of the scenario and would like it to happen.
Reading comprehension is at an all time low, methinks.
James W
sigh…well, ok.
Byron lays out an elaborate sociopathic scenario – entitled “The Usefulness of Civil Disobedience-Part II-The Bonhoffer Option” – in which some individuals decide to fight ‘evil’ by murdering many Democrats, thus changing the balance of power in Wahsington and solving the filibuster and Supreme Court problems facing radical Christians in this country. Yes, yes, he also adds the necessary disclaimers, but one sentence in an update is particularly telling, and leads one to belive, said disclaimers notwithstanding, that SOMETHING about the scenario is appealing to this clearly deranged man: (after all, what’s the point of the exercise, if not a bit of mental masturbation and wish-fulfillment?)
“…Note-I am NOT advocating the following fantasy episode, BUT IT HAS A FOLLOWING IN THE DARKER PARTS OF MY MIND.” (emphasis added, naturally.)
Nothing to distance yourself from at all, I guess. Carry on, John.
John Cole
Apparently you missed point #1, James:
1.) This is for the trolls- I am not in favor of the assassination of any Democrats.
IS that not distancing myself enough from his thoughts? What do you want me to say- I think everyone is blowing this out of proportion. I think the scenario is sick, but I dont think Byron is in favor of this happening, as he has stated repeatedly.
Ricky
Pretty weird piece, if you ask me.
As for Hesiod delinking Glenn, that’s about as notable as someone with the last name of “Smith” taking their name out of the NYC phone book. Except, of course, “Smith” could write a readable blog.
James W
fair enough.
cheers.
Ajay
A lot of lefties aren’t really outraged by this, but are pretending to be in order to paint all rightwingers as psychos.
David Perron
I thought we actually were psychos.
Just don’t call me Francis. Or I’ll kill you.
DANEgerus
Buying into the Blogger-bull by even discussing it has elevated it…
But Ted Rall gets paid to publish the same drivel, but he’s a lefty so it’s OK to wish death on Americans, and so does NPR’s witch on Fox&Friends, so ask me why I care about Byron?
Talk about much-ado-about-nothing…
Timothy Klein
What I thought was funny was his reason for not doing it. He thought it might lead to a lefty reaction (other than the part that he thought it was wrong, I mean).
Yeah! I’ll tell you, in his little fantasy, if even one of those slain Democrats was replaced with a Republican, people would take up arms. I would probably be one of them.
His scenario amounts to the opening salvo in a civil war. It is not civil disobediance. It would be the final acknowledgment that Right and Left are not going to work it out, and in fact are going to see who can just kill the other side off.
David Perron
“It is not civil disobediance.”
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. No, it has almost nothing in common with civil disobedience. The reason I (and many others) haven’t commented on it are:
1) It’s extraordinarily farfetched.
2) It’s not even a sufficiently detailed scenario to evaluate.
3) Despite the disclaimer, it smacks of wishful thinking.
4) Senators (and Congressmen) are replaced by reelection; only temporarily by appointment. See the Seventeenth Amendment (as well as Article I, Section 2).
5) Therefore, the whole scenario would progress more or less as in Clancy’s Exectutive Orders.
6) On top of which, no President (or governor) would risk the wrath of the populace by summarily replacing a Democrat with a Republican).