The Washington Post‘s editors concede that there were “red flags” all around Major Nadal Hasan:
There was his troubling presentation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Islam and the U.S. military, and questions among colleagues about the psychiatrist’s competence and even his sanity. And there was the e-mail correspondence with a known radical Muslim cleric that caught the attention of the FBI. In isolation, they may have appeared less than actionable.
And so begins the search for an answer to the question that now absorbs the entire country: how could the Army have missed these flags? One clue, the editors note, is a report that “Walter Reed psychiatrists may have been deterred from trying to dismiss the psychiatrist because of onerous procedures; an official on a review committee reportedly asked whether the termination of a doctor who happened to be a Muslim would create an appearance problem.” Uh oh. The diversity police strike once again. Those who might have acted may have had an “appearance problem” — the fear that citing a Muslim for extremist views, aberrant behavior, and “research” with the local imam would bring on a torrent of questions and accusations. Who wants to be accused of being insufficiently “sensitive” to diversity goals?
We will see how the investigation pans out, but if the reaction to the massacre is any indication of the mindset at work here, we may find that we have once again lost our way in the diversity maze, confusing discrimination with common sense. Here the governing elites may find that the public has precious little patience for the cottage industry dedicated to lambasting those who appear “intolerant.” After all, 13 people are dead.
Before “Poems from Guantanamo”, there was “In the Belly of the Beast” by Jack Henry Abbott. Norman Mailer was so impressed by Abbott’s prison writing that he helped win his release, whereupon Abbott promptly murdered a waiter.
Before that, there was George Jackson’s “Soledad Brother”, letters from prison and recommended reading by Amazon for Black History Month.
Before that, there was “Birdman of Alcatraz”, the book and film about Robert Franklin Stroud, convicted of manslaughter and later of killing a prison guard. Stroud was sentenced to death but had the sentence commuted to life imprisonment by President Woodrow Wilson. When the film came out, theaters circulated petitions for Stroud’s release in the lobbies.
Perhaps a Contentions reader with a background in psychiatry can explain why our society is so sympathetic to the monsters we keep behind bars.
“Planet Academica” — perfect! Only a separate realm isolated from reality could harbor these types. The monoculture that exists in universities and is perfected in English departments could benefit from a large dose of sunshine and disinfectant.
On the psychological aspect of romanticizing the bad guy, look at what we’ve done with wild West outlaws and gangsters, more so the cowboy outlaws.
I’d be curious to see if there is a correlation between a person’s ideological slant, and their tendency to root for the bad guys. From casual observation it seems plain that a conservatively minded person is more reflexively on the side of law and order, while the liberal mindset typically questions authority to a fault.
Perhaps it is just the way some people are wired that they want Billy the Kid, John Dillinger, and terrorists in Gitmo to be, not bad men, but merely oppressed by the system.
check this out…
this is mine…