Email This Article
Your Name:
Your Email:
Email To:
6 + 6 = ?: (Required) Please type in the correct answer to the math question.

You are sending a link to...
I feel much better now, doctor journalist
Power Line picks up on the "psychopathology" of the Seattle jihadist and his ilk, mentioning Andy McCarthy's Corner piece among others--including Hugh Hewitt, who makes a number of cogent points in his piece, "A History of Mental Illness": MSM and The Investigation of Domestic Terrorists":

There is a continuum in the media's coverage of terrorist incidents that runs from John Hinkley through Sirhan Sirhan and Oswald to McVeigh and the 19 of 9/11.  Each was a political act, though in Hinkley's case there wasn't a "political" motive.  But the "mental state" of a terrorist doesn't help the public sort through the implications of a terrorist act.  Any crime of violence done to avenge a political grievance is an act of terrorism.  Haq's murder of at least one employee of the Jewish Federation is an act of terrorism.  What the public needs to know is the likelihood of other such acts being committed by similarly situated individuals.  Introducing "mental illness" so early in the story is an invitation to say "lone whacko," and leave it at that. Mistake number one.

Again, we are in "late-therapeutic society," media division, wherein an individual's psychology is examined as if it was an actual autonomous thing, unconnected to anything else at all--unless to things that justify and exhonorate said individual of culpability for his actions.  Such easy analysis is a function of nothing so much as mental sloth.

Says Hewitt, "Can we agree that all terrorists have some degree of mental illness?  Can we also agree that it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the victims of their crimes?"

Just lets drop the term "crimes."   How about, "the victims of our enemies."  There are already too many courts involved for our own good.