Homeless man takes TV channel staff hostage

[2 As and a B]

Why Is the Media Ignoring Discovery Channel Gunman's Radical Views?

James Lee, who walked into the headquarters of the Discovery Channel Wednesday, taking hostages, was an environmental radical who believed people were destroying the planet.

According to a manifesto of sorts he posted on the Internet, Lee believed that “Civilization must be exposed for the filth that it is” and demanded that the Discovery Channel and its affiliated networks stop airing programs “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions.”

Oddly enough, it’s a view shared--perhaps not directly but at least in the same general neighborhood--by any number of prominent thinkers and talkers who take a dim view of the impact mankind has on the planet.

Lee, who not only holed up with hostages but had pipe bombs strapped to his body, was, in the general sense, antimankind--as he said on his Web site in a somewhat distorted echo of the prophecies and prescriptions of Zero Population Growth founder Paul Ehrlich. “Saving the Planet means saving what's left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”

Ehrlich, it is worth noting, predicted in the late 1960s in his book The Population Bomb that the resource needs of mankind could not keep pace with the growth of the world’s population and, as a result, global famine would be commonplace by the mid-1970s or early 1980s.

According to news reports Lee was also influenced, alarmed, and possibly even spurred to action by former Vice President Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, which holds out equally dim prospects for the future of mankind as long as necessities like the internal combustion engine are allowed to continue in operation. Lee himself touched on that issue as well on his Web site, writing that is was important to:

Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth! Find solutions so that people stop breeding as well as stopping using Oil in order to REVERSE Global warming and the destruction of the planet!

If James Lee had been a member of a Tea Party group or an activist opposed to abortion rights the national media would be in the throes of ecstasy, describing his actions as the product of some sort of loosely organized effort that should have all Americans living in fear for their lives and their liberty. The Department of Homeland Security would probably announce the creation of some sort of task force to investigate his activities and root out his followers and allies. And President Barack Obama would no doubt address the issue in his weekly radio address. But Lee was neither of those things. He was a radical on the edge of an already radicalized movement but one that continues to gain uncritical acceptance among the general public. Perhaps it’s time for a reassessment.

So, PSers, keep taking those Prozacs before bed.

[syberberg]

Perhaps it’s time for a reassessment.

Of BAU? Yes, it is. Now start with "Limits to Growth" and then continue. Bloody idiot of a writer...

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

(Emphasis mine) Well, that says it all really. Another anti-scientific, right-wing, anti-abortionist American idiot who can't tell the difference between his arsehole and his mouth. (Clue for you Mr Roff, one is specifically designed for shitting out of, the other isn't).

I seem to be having one of those daze.

[kenneal - lagger]

.......as long as necessities like the internal combustion engine ........

You can see who's paying Mr Roff's expenses.

[RogerCO]

What is interesting here is not the dysfunctional writing of the report but two other things it seems to me.

Firstly we have an early example of more or less genuine eco-revolutionary action being taken by one individual. As the original article put it "He was a radical on the edge of an already radicalized movement", but he could very well be the start of an increasingly common mode of direct action.
How far are you from dropping some blazing hay bales onto a motorway to create a little local peace and hydrocarbon pollution free quiet one Sunday morning?

Secondly the headline of the article "Why Is the Media Ignoring Discovery Channel Gunman's Radical Views?" also raises some interesting questions. Making a media circus of some islamic terrorists or even BNP/NF actions is acceptable to TPTB because the actions and participants are 'other'. The trouble with eco-revolutionary actions from TPTB point of view is that they might be nearly acceptable, or at least understandable and sympathetic to a large proportion of us huddled masses and might give us ideas about taking our own action in the face of the impotence of democracy to respond to what we percieve as the critical situations. That would not be acceptable, so don't expect to see any reporting of eco-revolutionary action unless it can be cast in an unequivocally negative light...

[RenewableCandy]

Labelling people as mentally ill because they don't go-along with what's happening, is a classic tactic.

[the_lyniezian]

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

(Emphasis mine) Well, that says it all really. Another anti-scientific, right-wing, anti-abortionist American idiot...

Well, I realise Fox News is the typical American right-wing-crazies station, but I think that description is goign a bit too far, seeing particlularly as you include the term 'anti-abortionist' in the same sentence, as if that is necessarily only a viewpoint of idiots and crazies. I disagree strongly.

[2 As and a B]

If James Lee had been a member of a Tea Party group or an activist opposed to abortion rights the national media would be in the throes of ecstasy

[UndercoverElephant]

I basically agree with the James Lee. The fundamental problem is overpopulation and a point blank refusal by 99% of the public and MSM to either talk about it or think about it. Every time I see a human baby I think "Oh look, more human scum to add to the mess." When I see pictures of people dying in Africa or Pakistan, even children, I am emotionally completely detached from it. Lots of people are going to have to die. Better get used to looking at pictures of suffering. No point in trying to save them. In many cases they are better off dead anyway.

I guess what I fundamentally have in common with Lee is that I see human as being no different to any other living species. I see humanity as it might be seen as an alien biologist/anthropologist/ecologist studying Planet Earth. I'm enough of an outsider to normal society that I find it easy to think about humans like this, regardless of the fact that it leads me to believe things that many people find appalling (Biff included).

I have a suggestion: compulsory sterilisation for anyone who wishes to recieve international aid during a crisis. If you can't survive without outside help, you are in no position to add to the world's problems by producing yet more stinking human babies.

[eatyourveg]

I basically agree with the James Lee. The fundamental problem is overpopulation and a point blank refusal by 99% of the public and MSM to either talk about it or think about it. Every time I see a human baby I think "Oh look, more human scum to add to the mess." When I see pictures of people dying in Africa or Pakistan, even children, I am emotionally completely detached from it. Lots of people are going to have to die. Better get used to looking at pictures of suffering. No point in trying to save them. In many cases they are better off dead anyway.

I guess what I fundamentally have in common with Lee is that I see human as being no different to any other living species. I see humanity as it might be seen as an alien biologist/anthropologist/ecologist studying Planet Earth. I'm enough of an outsider to normal society that I find it easy to think about humans like this, regardless of the fact that it leads me to believe things that many people find appalling (Biff included).

I have a suggestion: compulsory sterilisation for anyone who wishes to recieve international aid during a crisis. If you can't survive without outside help, you are in no position to add to the world's problems by producing yet more stinking human babies.

More tea vicar?

[goslow]

so UE you don't have kids then!

blimey they can get a bit stinking sometimes, but its not too bad once you get used to it!

[marknorthfield]

I basically agree with the James Lee. The fundamental problem is overpopulation and a point blank refusal by 99% of the public and MSM to either talk about it or think about it. Every time I see a human baby I think "Oh look, more human scum to add to the mess." When I see pictures of people dying in Africa or Pakistan, even children, I am emotionally completely detached from it. Lots of people are going to have to die. Better get used to looking at pictures of suffering. No point in trying to save them. In many cases they are better off dead anyway.

I guess what I fundamentally have in common with Lee is that I see human as being no different to any other living species. I see humanity as it might be seen as an alien biologist/anthropologist/ecologist studying Planet Earth. I'm enough of an outsider to normal society that I find it easy to think about humans like this, regardless of the fact that it leads me to believe things that many people find appalling (Biff included).

I have a suggestion: compulsory sterilisation for anyone who wishes to recieve international aid during a crisis. If you can't survive without outside help, you are in no position to add to the world's problems by producing yet more stinking human babies.

More tea vicar?

+101

Ah yes, let's not empathise in any way with all those dark skinned people, hmmm? Unlike us, they're just a burden on the human race.



I see myself as a bit of an outsider too, but I don't use that as an excuse to condemn people to sterilisation or death in countries I have never visited, particularly considering the size of the average carbon footprint here in the west. 'Stinking human babies' is a particularly unpleasant and demeaning little phrase.

The MSM is unwilling to discuss population rise as an issue because it rarely fits neatly into the confines of any given news 'article', and any possible measures to slow that rise (widespread sex education and contraceptive distribution, female empowerment etc) are somewhat more difficult to achieve globally than an agreement on reducing carbon emissions (and we all know how difficult THAT one is).

Sure, we're animals with an instinctive need to survive and, in many cases, pass on our genes. Stop the press! However, we can also use our modest intelligence to analyse, communicate and educate more effectively than any other animal on the planet: that is where any limited hope for the future lies, and is - not coincidentally - where the best aspects of humanity can be found. They won't be found in some sick fantasy about the less deserving dying off as quickly as possible to preserve our unsustainable way of life for that little bit longer. Yeah, increased conflict is inevitable, but bloody hell, don't be a cheerleader for it!

Lastly, you surely don't imagine that Africa and Asia are entirely detached from the West, beyond us giving aid, do you? No useful resources of any kind that we might (continue to) need? No chance that we might need their help at some point in the future, and that past behaviour would be brought to bear? I'd say that's fairly fundamental.

[PS_RalphW]

I can see both sides of this. I am bring up kids, but not a biological parent.

I can see empathy as a luxury that we will find harder and harder to afford. Morality and right and wrong have nothing to do with a basic fight for survival. We may have to reach point where we stand back and watch mass starvation, a global level triage assessment. Triage is always gut wrenching, even if the emotional defensive mechanism to pretend not to care.

This reminds me of a Star Trek episode where a planetary governor faced with mass starvation ordered the execution of half the population so the other half would survive. Relief food arrived sooner than expected and the governor was charged as a mass murderer.

If we get to that point, we will know that we could well be next to be left to our fate.

[UndercoverElephant]

I basically agree with the James Lee. The fundamental problem is overpopulation and a point blank refusal by 99% of the public and MSM to either talk about it or think about it. Every time I see a human baby I think "Oh look, more human scum to add to the mess." When I see pictures of people dying in Africa or Pakistan, even children, I am emotionally completely detached from it. Lots of people are going to have to die. Better get used to looking at pictures of suffering. No point in trying to save them. In many cases they are better off dead anyway.

I guess what I fundamentally have in common with Lee is that I see human as being no different to any other living species. I see humanity as it might be seen as an alien biologist/anthropologist/ecologist studying Planet Earth. I'm enough of an outsider to normal society that I find it easy to think about humans like this, regardless of the fact that it leads me to believe things that many people find appalling (Biff included).

I have a suggestion: compulsory sterilisation for anyone who wishes to recieve international aid during a crisis. If you can't survive without outside help, you are in no position to add to the world's problems by producing yet more stinking human babies.

More tea vicar?

+101

Ah yes, let's not empathise in any way with all those dark skinned people, hmmm? Unlike us, they're just a burden on the human race.

I don't care what colour their skin is. There's too many people of all races. If I am talking about a division here, then it is between rich and poor rather than white and non-white. And that is largely an accident of history.

I see myself as a bit of an outsider too, but I don't use that as an excuse to condemn people to sterilisation or death in countries I have never visited, particularly considering the size of the average carbon footprint here in the west. 'Stinking human babies' is a particularly unpleasant and demeaning little phrase.

The MSM is unwilling to discuss population rise as an issue because it rarely fits neatly into the confines of any given news 'article', and any possible measures to slow that rise (widespread sex education and contraceptive distribution, female empowerment etc) are somewhat more difficult to achieve globally than an agreement on reducing carbon emissions (and we all know how difficult THAT one is).

Sure, we're animals with an instinctive need to survive and, in many cases, pass on our genes. Stop the press! However, we can also use our modest intelligence to analyse, communicate and educate more effectively than any other animal on the planet: that is where any limited hope for the future lies, and is - not coincidentally - where the best aspects of humanity can be found. They won't be found in some sick fantasy about the less deserving dying off as quickly as possible to preserve our unsustainable way of life for that little bit longer. Yeah, increased conflict is inevitable, but bloody hell, don't be a cheerleader for it!

I think you've misunderstood where I am coming from. I'm really not a white supremacist who expects people in the rich countries can maintain their standard of living whilst the poor starve to death. Our standard of living is also going to take a beating, and nobody (MSM, politicians) is preparing people for it.

Lastly, you surely don't imagine that Africa and Asia are entirely detached from the West, beyond us giving aid, do you? No useful resources of any kind that we might (continue to) need? No chance that we might need their help at some point in the future, and that past behaviour would be brought to bear? I'd say that's fairly fundamental.

Actually, I suspect that global trade on anything like the scale we know it today is also heading for the history books. At the moment it is still economical to ship vast quantities of raw materials and consumer goods all over the planet. In 20 years time I rather suspect that we will be re-opening abandoned British mining operations and actually making clothes in the UK. Imagine that! A British textile industry!

[kenneal - lagger]

Imagine that! A British textile industry!

I don't think there will be any industry, in the now accepted sense, only artisans making "stuff" on a small scale. Mass production will be out; batch production in.

[syberberg]

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. A former senior political writer for United Press International, he is currently a senior fellow at the Institute for Liberty and at Let Freedom Ring, a non-partisan public policy organization. His writing has also appeared on Fox News' Fox Forum.

(Emphasis mine) Well, that says it all really. Another anti-scientific, right-wing, anti-abortionist American idiot...

Well, I realise Fox News is the typical American right-wing-crazies station, but I think that description is goign a bit too far, seeing particlularly as you include the term 'anti-abortionist' in the same sentence, as if that is necessarily only a viewpoint of idiots and crazies. I disagree strongly.

Disagree all you want, but people who deny the right of a woman to choose what she does and loudly proclaim that contraception is just as bad as abortion, in their eyes it's all a from of infanticide, are crazy. Why? Because they are blinded by a doctrine from a time when the human race was capable of increasing it's population size, most importantly the population of their particular religion. In most cases, it was a sanction from the church so they could reap a higher tithe.

By making abortion illegal, which they want to do, it won't stop any abortions. Just look at Ireland as an example, Catholic girls coming over to the UK to have abortions. It will also bring back "back street" abortion clinics which are far more likely to be extremely dangerous to the health of the mother.

Personally, I'm not entirely in favour of abortions because of the effect they tend to have on the psychology of the woman in question. I'd like to see better information and contraception education provided in schools and society in general. Compare the statistics for unwanted pregnancies in the USA and UK with those of Europe, where sex isn't a taboo subject. There's no mystery to entice teenagers to experiment without being fully cognizant of the potential problems.

When talking about the American anti-abortionists, they have in the past behaved just as badly as the average Brownshirt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

I judge people on their behaviour. While I am sure Mr. Roff has never been involved in that kind of nastiness, I'm pretty sure from his comments that he tacitly supports it. Given your obvious support of Mr Roff, I can only come to the conclusion that you do too. Which is absolutely typical of the hypocrisy I have come to expect from Evangelical Christians in particular, and the vast majority of Christianity in general (bar a few souls who really have understood what Jesus was talking about).

It is predominantly the fault of Christian doctrine that the poorest and lest educated parts of the world, like Africa and Central/Southern America has the population problems it does. Preaching that by using contraception you'll suffer eternal damnation (which is interesting as so far I haven't come across a single reference to it in any part of the Bible) to ill educated people is NOT the Word of God, it is the Word of (Hu)Man.

Anyway, I think it best if we agree to disagree, as I have no desire to get into an argument that will be circular and has the potential to get extremely nasty. I also hope that you don't take my views as an attack on you personally. They are not, I just have a very large problem with Christianity and what it has become not what it is (if that distinction makes any sense ).