Bomber sparks political outrage
Partisan attacks forget the victims
The story, from the Downtown Crossing T stop, is both despicable and perfect.
The Boston Herald reported the story of a 52-yearold man who collapsed and died early Monday morning. According to the transit cops’ preliminary investigation, as the man lay on the ground, unconscious and dying, 30-year-old Anthony Stimson “rummaged through his belongings and person and stole items from him,” including the victim’s prescription drugs. After robbing the man, Stimson took “no further action to summon help for the unconscious victim,” and instead fled the scene with his pockets full of loot.
Who looks at a dead man and asks, “What’s in it for me?”
The easy and obvious answer is, “Democrats — they love the death tax!” Which is along the lines of what I’m talking about.
Yesterday, the psycho sending bombs around Austin died exactly the sort of death one would want: He pulled his car into a ditch and blew himself up as the police approached. One officer was injured but reports are that he’s going to be OK. So the big picture: a happy ending.
And then — the deluge. Within minutes of the release of the bomber’s name, the media were filled with uninformed and random speculation about this murderer’s motives. And not just social media: I saw an “expert” on cable TV before the body was even cold claiming, “We’ll probably see some connection to Christian Nationalism, to a Timothy McVeigh world view.”
What? Where did that come from?
From home-schooling to his family’s Christianity, to his “whiteness,” to a handful of blog posts he wrote on social issues when he was 17 — political ghouls picked over everything in this killer’s digital pockets looking for a weapon.
TMZ headline: “Bomber Railed On Homosexuality, Abortion!”
From the alt-right world: “Why was Mark Anthony Conditt’s Social Media scrubbed? Because, more-than-likely he was a mentally-ill, #Antifa-loving, #BernieSanders supporter.”
And: “He’s not a Muslim. He’s white and he targeted black U.S. citizens. Please call it what it is... HE IS A TERRORIST!”
And despite the fact this guy was a bomber, even the gun debate somehow got worked in.
Anti-NRA: “Fed Ex gave Conditt a huge discount when he mailed his bombs because he’s a member of the NRA. That’s a terrorist group helping out a fellow gun-lovin’ terrorist!”
And pro: “Conditt targeted Fed Ex because of their relationship with the NRA. This fools was ANTIFA!”
All this, even as the people of Austin were still on alert for undetected explosives the suspect may have sent before he died. Who looks at this killing and carnage and thinks, “Hey — what’s in it for me? How can I turn this into a partisan bat and lay a beatdown on my political enemies?”
To be clear, I have absolutely no objection to connecting political policies to outcomes. Of course we should debate gun laws after a mass shooting. Of course we should debate school discipline policies that keep disturbed and dangerous students in school rather than the courts — a policy of the Obama era in place at Parkland High, by the way.
When a bridge collapses, was there an inspection issue? If so — fire away! If an illegal immigrant is released by “sanctuary state” policies and kills an innocent citizen — heads should roll!
But while the bodies are still warm, while we out on the interwebs know virtually nothing (which happens more often than we care to admit), for us to be denouncing (insert cause you hate here) as guilty of murder and terror — this isn’t debate. It’s picking through the blood and gore of some sicko’s violence, stepping over his victims’ bodies, just hoping you’ll find something on his digital body to use as a weapon.
What kind of people do this? People who’ve forgotten there are things far more important than politics.