Malkin puts the Psy.D. to work
…Dr. Xavier Amador told the jury Monday that Little Orphan Moussaoui “suffered from schizophrenia of the paranoid variety.”Let me throw away the medical dictionary and give my diagnosis of the defense team’s diagnosis: Bull.
Wingnuts love to practice lay medicine, don’t they? First Terri Schiavo, now Zacarias Moussaoui. I’m surprised Malkin didn’t say something like “Schizophrenia? Now they’re claiming multiple personalities made him do it!”
The fact is, mental status doesn’t excuse terrorism. Only Moussaoui’s defense lawyers claim it does - and that’s what they’re required by oath to do, and thank god they do it, because otherwise our legal system would devolve into a Malkin utopia kangaroo court. But mental status and everything that goes into it - nature, nurture, aspartame - might help explain terrorism.
“But Auguste,” you might be saying, “doesn’t explaining terrorism equal excusing terrorism?” If you are saying this, you are stupid.
I’m sorry, that was a little too strong. You are ignorant, intellectually lazy, and quite possibly suicidal. You probably also want to nuke Iran.
Malkin is your prophet:
On Monday, while Moussaoui’s defense team played their violins in court, apologists across Europe and the Muslim world played the same song for the suicide bomber who murdered 9 innocent civilians and wounded scores more at a Tel Aviv restaurant. The bomber packed his explosives with nails and shrapnel soaked in rat poison to increase the suffering of the victims.
Police had to pick bits of flesh off the blood-drenched streets and parked car windshields.
But it’s not the fault of terrorist Sami Salim Mohammed Hammed and his sponsors at Islamic Jihad. Blame “Israeli aggression” and “anti-Arab racism!”
The dry-eyed know there is one Root Cause for this carnage. It’s not America, Israel, racism, or psychological imbalances. It’s evil. Just evil.
Mary Wollstonecraft wrote, “No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.”
And no, wingers, liberals aren’t asking you to avoid harshing the mistaken man’s buzz. The pursuit of happiness is subjugated to life and liberty - no one disputes that except the strawliberals you keep creating. To a liberal, when someone’s happiness lies behind other peoples’ life and liberty, it becomes the evil Wollstonecraft references.
In fact, it’s Malkin and her cronies who have no absolute definition of evil - who “know it when they see it.” Oh, most of them claim it’s biblically based, but it’s been well documented that to the wingers, evil is that which is done by other people. (In Malkin’s case, it seems to be that which is done by liberals.) It’s based on that - the fact that the Other is responsible - that Malkin states “It’s not America, Israel, racism, or psychological imbalances. It’s evil. Just evil.”
I recently saw a winger argue that because Timothy McVeigh was not aiming to kill innocents, that he thought he would only be killing FBI agents, that his act was not terrorism. Bad, but not terrorism. Is this a mainstream view among the right? I doubt it. But there are echoes of that sort of American exceptionalism all over Malkin’s work. She has her own version of la raza - “By Americans, no excuse is irrelevant; by non - Americans, no excuse is relevant.”
So yes, 9/11 was evil. Obviously, because it involved death and destruction, and those practiced against civilians. But evil is not spontaneously generated. And that, my friends, is a value-neutral statement.
The 9/11 hijackers were pursuing their happiness, and so they did evil. So the question is, what made them think that the destruction that took place on 9/11 was their happiness? Malkin is right, the madrassas and imams were involved. But those seeds needed soil. And as for the kind of thing which prepared that soil - put Moussaoui and the 19 hijackers in the frame of mind to embrace jihad - we don’t need racism, or anti-Islamism, or any other long-disproven ism. We just need to look at history.
As for our current strategy and its potential for decreasing the number of “Just evil” people in the world, let’s look to an author whom the wingnuts claim as their own:
“Conquest is an evil productive of almost every other evil both to those who commit and to those who suffer it.” — C.S. Lewis

strong finish, great quote.
Comment by mdhatter — April 21, 2006 @ 12:57 am
It’s evil, therefore nuking them is in the service if anti-evil, sorry about the collateral damage.
Assholes. Nice posto.
Comment by Pinko Punko — April 21, 2006 @ 1:25 am
nice post, as Jean Paul Satre said, “everyone has their own good reasons” you may not agree with them, but they think they are right.
Comment by Sonic — April 21, 2006 @ 1:38 am
An aside, but I just learned that Rumsfeld is responsible for getting aspartame on the market…
Comment by fulsome — April 21, 2006 @ 4:00 am
Oh yeah, fulsome, now that you say that I remember hearing about that - he was the chairman of Searle at the time.
It never ends. Poisonousness aside, aspartame is the residue which remains after boiling Satan’s sweat.
Comment by Auguste — April 21, 2006 @ 7:24 am
Bravo!!
What Michelle doesn’t understand is by and finding and explaining the causes of terrorism, you can prevent such attacks from happening in the first place. But I think terrorist attacks serve her agenda of fearmongering. But I think she’s just as crazy as Moussaoui. Her beliefs that consequences are for other people (re: the SAW incident) but not for her is just one example. But I’m not a shrink like she claims to be.
Comment by phinky — April 21, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Auguste,
I wanted to leave this comment on the thread you closed. I apologize for cross-posting this.
I don’t agree with you politically, but I think Malkin publishing the contact information was totally out of control. I blogged about it here.
And now that I’m here, I’d like to publicize a story we can all get behind.
Best wishes and friendship from a fellow American,
K T Cat
Comment by K T Cat — April 21, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
I have a question: where do the Malkins side on Nepal? Aren’t all those protestors horrible Maoists–oh wait they may be freedom fighters–oh wait they may be people seeking a representational government–oh wait they may be horrible anti-God rebels who seek to overturn the natural order of the universe (see Thomas Aquinas to understand arguments for monarchy). Now if there was a sizeable Muslim community in Nepal, Malkin(s) would know exactly who to blame.
Comment by skippy — April 22, 2006 @ 12:40 am
Malkin only sees evil when Muslims, and Hispanics are somehow involved.
Comment by Tim — April 25, 2006 @ 3:51 am