Ahmad Rahami

— 09.25.2016 08:08 AM

As a rule, I don’t ever name terrorists, mass murderers and their ilk. They don’t deserve the recognition they seek. 

But this New York Times front-page profile of the Chelsea bomber is worth your attention. What struck me – having written this book, and having written this one, coming out in the next few months –  I was struck by how much Rahami reminded me of the dozens of neo-Nazi skinheads I knew and interviewed over the years. 

He, like them:

  • fought all the time with his family, or came from a broken one
  • was disinterested in school
  • had troubled relationships with the opposite sex, often involving domestic violence 
  • had regular run-ins with the law
  • initially was enthusiastic about the society he would later pledge to destroy 

The change – the transformation from unremarkable loser to front-page-news killer – always, always comes about in the same way: the young man somehow comes under the influence of an older man, who gives him a credo, a uniform, a brotherhood and a mission. 

And then, like all converts, all zealots, he starts to make up for lost time. 


Comments (11)

I have taken it upon myself to defend Butts and Telford

— 09.22.2016 11:52 AM

I have. And here’s a bit from next week’s column, in which I, contrarian-wise, do so:

…like it or not, paying for the moves was within the rules. And the rules, believe it or not, were crafted by the very Conservatives now in a spit-flecked fury about it all. It’s right there on the Internet, if you’ve got a few hours to navigate it: executive employees (EX, they’re called) and Government-in-Council appointees (GIC) get financial help on what is benignly called “relocation.”

They get taxpayer help on the sale – that is, the difference between the appraised value of a house, and the actual sale price. They get money to help them in the “home search.” They get dough to travel home every couple weeks while the home search is underway. They get “incidental expenses” covered. Sometimes, they even get to access the treasury to cover the cost of cleaning, pet care (yes, you read that right), and something called “Accountable Sundry Expenses.”

Now, this may enrage you, and it probably should. But it’s been on the books since 2009, by my count, and that means it was the Conservatives who cooked it up. That is, the Conservatives now screaming and yelling about it.


Comments (14)

Tough day to be a Grit?

— 09.22.2016 08:49 AM

No shit.

I’m on the Adler-Kinsella Show on SiriusXM later today, and I know Charles won’t let me bob and weave about:

  1. The consultant.
  2. The move.
  3. The polls. (And polls.)
  4. The birthplace.

So, let me offer up my preliminary talking points on each problem:

  1. The consultant: Sorry, but I’m not going to defend it.  And I’m told the $3 million isn’t the total figure – it’s a lot more.  This is unacceptable, obviously.
  2. The move: It was within the rules, but the price tag(s) seem pretty high. Why, I do not know.  We can’t compare to Harper-era moving costs – those files are mysteriously “sealed.” More facts needed.
  3. The polls: Christy Clark has shown Kathleen Wynne that smart policy, and smart politics, never hurts.  Helps, even. There’s time to make some changes.
  4. The birthplace: I thought Monsef was pretty candid, and pretty self-critical with Bob Fife.  That said, someone told the President of the United States a falsehood, which he then put in a big speech.  Not good.

Now, pray for me with Charles.  This is one of those days you wish you didn’t have a regularly-scheduled radio show to do!


Comments (11)