« British Bureauweenies: Bottled Water Is Morally Wrong | Main | Global Warming Propaganda to Be Mandated by State of California »

Even as a graduate of a "second rate" university, I find his sociological analysis is existential BS.

The truth is, both coasts were devastated by duel tsunamis, the "vast, flat middle of Middle America" would get along just fine. But without flyover country, the blue coasts would rapidly starve to death.

This loser should analyze why the socialist utopias of the large cities run by hard core liberals are crime and drug infested hellholes. Things lile the school shootings are aberations while every day on the streets of major cities, people are routinely raped, robbed and killed.

From an AP release (via Tim Worstall's blog)

Steven Kazmierczak, 27, had been involved in student government, a proponent of social justice and had been widely regarded as a stand-out student during his time at NIU.

So here's another arbitrary theory. Like millions of young Americans, he had been convinced by "liberal" ideology that he lives in a hell hole fascist society without hope and, like apparently most of the left wingers commenting on well known "liberal" sites has been so driven to despair by this mindset that he became depressed and paranoid and eventually that bubbled out as anger against "the system".

Why are so many young people depressed and angry? Could the degraded illiberal form of modern liberalism be a factor? Who knows?

Theories are easy.

I think someone should keep weapons and ammo out of Mark Ames' hands. He sounds like he's about to go postal. Other than all the buzzes and clicks that's all I could glean from his drivel.

I think Ian hit the nail on the head!

Steve

Ian, I like your theory better. I would only add that, if you believe the lie that your life will be better with the government taking care of you, depression quickly follows when you realise the truth.

This guy really hates flat land.

Get back on your meds, Ames.

Just think how many Son-of-Sam woulda killed if he hadn't been from Brooklyn, huh?

Clearly, the soluton is for crazy people to move to hillier areas before they lose it.

Ames does make much of the flat geography. What are people supposed to do - build mountains? Much of the late unlamented USSR, which he probably admired, was flat too. Besides which, what about the Columbine murders, or does Ames consider Colorado flat too? Sheesh.

Ames' writing reflects what happens when you start with your conclusion and work backwards.

"Ames' writing reflects what happens when you start with your conclusion and work backwards."

Couldn't agree with you more, Jay G. Ames started with the premise "The boring, monotonous, shallow, non-urban, Republican life of Middle America is driving people crazy. This guy went crazy. He lived in Middle America. Ergo..."

It is a very good case of a journalist who has a message he wants to get out there, and mind-numbingly bends the facts to get them to conform to his message.

Just such a shame not to show some respect and empathy for the victims, instead.

Ames, of course, does not actually live anywhere near the despairingly flat Middle America he so disparages.

Just as how Hollywood socialites would never spend a week living in one of the Third World hellholes they say Western civilization should aspire towards, or how global warmists would never give up the polluting lifestyles they deride the common folk for, or how liberal actors and directors would never give up their capitalist-earned luxuries to live in the Communist Cuba they so admire.

We could also ask why this "flatland" is a hell, why it's so unbearable. After all the flatlanders have warm homes, food to eat, leisure time and opportunities, a wealth that our ancestors could only dream of. Maybe the landscape's a little dull, but we can't all live in a pictureque Alpine valley. Heck, a lovely forest can get dull to look at if you see if every day.

I'm not a conservative, I count myself as some kind of "pragmatist libertarian", and (ducks to avoid brickbats) I'm not religious either. But it's interesting to note the different values associated with belief systems. Western christianity has tended to emphasise "coping strategies", on the one hand asking people to aspire to better themselves, but equally to be thankful for what they have. A person may not be a rip-roaring success in life, but in such a belief system they may well say, "well there's food on the table and a roof over my head, and that's more than many people have, so I'm pretty lucky really".

(Il)liberalism teaches much the opposite of that; it discourages personal aspiration, teaching that those who succeed have more than a fair share, that they've succeeded my harming others, that a successful person is a class enemy. So the liberal is left without personal goals of a practical kind. Simultaneously, they are taught that they are being deprived of something better by that same class enemy. It's paradoxical relating to my previous observation, but the person living under liberal values comes to believe that they deserve better, but are beind denied it. Their absolutely normal environment isn't good enough. It's too dull, too flat, too mundane; if only the liberal utopia would arrive then "I will get what I deserve". So a grinding discontent is created; the person cannot better themself (what, become a capitalist exploiter? Never!) and waits for the government to somehow turn flatland into wonderland. And it never comes.

And then, in the usual inversion, the lefties claim that "capitalism hasn't made people happy".

The hatred of the mundane, of the achievable reality for most folks, drips from that article, and it's just one article in the constant torrent of propaganda telling people to be dissatisfied. How much blood is on the hands of Ames and his ilk?

Ames = Idiot.

"Ian from the EUSSR at February 18, 2008 7:24 PM"

MARRY ME IAN! Oh wait, I'm a guy. Uh, never mind.