The Crucible in Madison Blogosphere

Steve S. over at Letters In Bottles called us idiots. Well, by "us" I mean me. A bottle is thrown through a window physically hurting no one and was apparently taken in stride by those inside, according to Sergeant First Class Bruce Bovenkerk:

"Our window has been broken many times," Bovenkerk said. "It’s part of the job. We’ve got insurance and they cover it. So nobody got hurt and nobody got injured. We board it up and put a new one in. It’s business as usual."

Yet this prompts cries of terrorism, conflating the act to 9/11. In a post entitled "The Level of Debate", Mr. S. decries the paucity of response to this incident by campus bloggers as demonstrating that the level of debate in Madison generally. He also calls me an idiot.

Perhaps Mr. S. has an extraordinary post-modern sense of irony. Or maybe the definition of the word "debate" eludes him. Then again, it could be just a case of sheer hypocrisy. I'm inclined towards the latter. We can only hope that it is only in Mr. S.'s world that ad hominem attacks count as debate. And the same goes for hasty generalizations. Extrapolating the "level of debate" in the city of Madison as a whole from the reactions of campus bloggers is ridiculous.

Most of the admittedly few conservative blogs that I have read which discuss this incident are written by authors that go out of their way to avoid anything akin to debate. Instead they are full of reactionary cries of terrorism which conflate a broken window to the deaths of thousands.

Here's the U.S. Code's definition of domestic terrorism:

(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that—

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Could a brick being thrown through a window be dangerous to human life? Sure. (I still maintain that the brick thrown earlier this week and flying airliners into planes have enormous qualitative differences.) The incident occurred in the United States. Notice the elements of part B. First of all, there's no mass destruction, assassinations, nor kidnapping. Is it reasonable to say that a lone brick thrown through a lone window is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population? Am I completely out of touch with the population of Madison or are the city's residents not feeling particularly threatened by this incident? The Madisonians I've encountered the past few days are not on edge over this. Is there any evidence that there is a general feeling of being intimidated amongst my fellow citizens? Finally, I don't think it reasonable to say that the lone brick was intended to get the knees of the federal government shaking.

It seems more likely that this was an act of vandalism that was an expression of someone's anger regarding our venture in Iraq. I do not condone this act - I denounce it unequivocally. But the hysteria over this incident is ridiculous. The victims brushed it off yet some bloggers splenetically accused some folks while one unequivocally stated that Stop the War! was responsible. And all of this was done despite the identity of the perpetrator being unknown. These people don't seem to give a tailor's cuss for getting all the facts nor having a sense of perspective.

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: ...because they're made of... wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!... It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: ...Exactly. So, logically...
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck... she's made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore...
Peasant 2: ...A witch!