There are a lot of people in the United States that hate the IRS. However there are not many people that would kamikaze a Cessna into a building because of it. Joseph Andrew Stack took out his frustration with the internal revenue service on Thursday with a letter (normal) and two rebellious infernos (not that normal). The Austin, TX police department has classified Stack’s suicidal plane crash as a criminal attack, as apposed to a terrorist attack. Austin’s Chief of Police, Art Acevedo, stated, “I consider this a criminal attack by a lone individual.”
Just because he isn’t a part of a terrorist group like al-Qaeda doesn’t mean he isn’t a terrorist. According to the Oxford English Dictionary a terrorist is “a person who uses violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims.” Sorry to disagree with the Austin Police Department but this defiantly appears to be an act of domestic terrorism.
So is Stack a poor mans Ted Kaczynski? Both men made violent political statements to demonstrate their personal beliefs. Kaczynski didn’t like developers chopping down trees near his Montana cabin, so he decided to start sending bombs via US mail. “It was from that point on I decided that, rather than trying to acquire further wilderness skills, I would work on getting back at the system. Revenge,” stated Kaczynski in an interview from prison.
On the surface Stack and Kaczynski are similar: American’s going to extremes to get back at “the man.” They both deemed themselves worthy to inflict punishment on what they considered wrong with industry and government. They also both considered violence to be the only way to prove their point, the only way stimulate reform.
“Violence is not only the answer, it is the only answer,” declared Stack in his manifesto.
On the other hand Stack and Kaczynski couldn’t be more different. First off Stack’s profession, a computer software engineer, would be one of Kaczynski’s stereotypical targets. Kaczynski hated the evolution of the computer industry, as evidenced by his targeting of two computer stores and a Yale computer science professor. Secondly Ted Kaczynski was a genius, enrolling in Harvard at 16 years old and graduating at 20. Joe Stack wasn’t an intellectual prodigy. By all accounts Stack seemed to be a normal happy US citizen, who enjoyed flying his plane and playing bass guitar in a local Austin band.
Nevertheless, Stack-Attack and the Unabomber both had some screws loose. These men cannot have acted with a sound mind. Their violent precedents are troubling, with Kaczynski standing up against the “techno-industrial system” and Stack fighting taxes in a recession. They were both fighting personal wars they couldn’t win.
Stack was a 53-year-old self-employed software engineer who had fallen on tough times. He had recently moved to Austin from the Los Angeles area and continued to struggle to make ends meet. His feud with the IRS began when Stack didn’t file a tax return, which resulted in a $10,000 audit. Stack blamed the IRS for ruining his retirement savings and causing him financial trouble. Stack’s “manifesto” dully acted as his suicide note ending with the following eerie statement.
“Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take a pound of my flesh and sleep well.”
-Joe Stack (1956-2010)
What is frightening is that somehow both Stack and Kaczynski truly believed they were accomplishing something. When in reality developers are still knocking down trees, and our federal tax system isn’t going to change anything.
It is terrifying what someone is capable of when they reach their breaking point. What I don’t understand is why would a man want to leave behind a newly married spouse over a $10,000 debt to the government? Just sell your plane, move into a cheaper house, and pay the IRS.
February 19, 2010 at 7:43 pm, retardlicanssuck said:
Stack Attack, Fries and a Coke.
February 19, 2010 at 8:35 pm, Wilkey said:
Call Joe Stack a Liberal, a Conservative, a Subversive, a Terrorist, label him what you will. If it makes it easy to label what clearly you don’t understand then by all means label him.
But don’t presume that by labeling him you’ll either understand his act or be able to prevent others from acting in kind.
February 19, 2010 at 8:52 pm, Matt Kiebus said:
I completely agree. No one can begin to understand Stack, but I can speculate and try.
February 19, 2010 at 9:45 pm, Wilkey said:
I think Joe Stack articulated very well his grievances. I think it does a disservice to ignore his message, labeling it a “manifesto”, a “rant”, or as you stated above a “violent political statement”.
To go further and lump his action into some dictionary definition of “terrorism” only enforces misunderstanding. In fact, the target of his anger was narrow: The IRS people he felt were responsible for his financial difficulties, and he apparently took aim well because he killed the IRS manager in charge of collections.
February 19, 2010 at 10:01 pm, Matt Kiebus said:
Do you think the IRS manager deserved to die for doing his job? And how was it not a “violent political statement?” He flew a plane into the IRS building, that isn’t a sane decision. Just because he didn’t feel he should pay the money he owed the government doesn’t mean he has the right to endanger innocent lives.
It’s one thing to state your grievances, but you lose all my respect when you fly a plane into a building.
February 19, 2010 at 10:48 pm, Wilkey said:
“”Do you think the IRS manager deserved to die for doing his job? And how was it not a “violent political statement?” He flew a plane into the IRS building, that isn’t a sane decision. Just because he didn’t feel he should pay the money he owed the government doesn’t mean he has the right to endanger innocent lives.”
You’re far too emotional to be blogging about this subject. You do a disservice to people by letting emotions cloud an understanding of the motives and actions of people like Joe Stack.
The important issue is to understand why a Joe Stack does the things he does so you can prevent it in the future. If that means the Government must accept responsibility for it’s heavy handed destruction of people’s lives then so be it. The alternative is to label, marginalize and ultimately become victim to the next Joe Stack – and there will be more.
“It’s one thing to state your grievances, but you lose all my respect when you fly a plane into a building.”
I don’t think Joe Stack cared one iota for your respect. I don’t think that your conditional respect is going to prevent the next Joe Stack from perform a final act of desperation.
February 20, 2010 at 12:06 am, Matt Kiebus said:
I clearly don’t understand Joe Stack, and I never said I did. Maybe you can shed some light on the issue? Did Stack’s actions actually matter? Was there a purpose?