Ted and the CIA, Part 1 by David Kaczynski

[The Hacktivist]

Thank you Hacktavist, I appreciate your response and respect your privacy, as you do Ted's, so I won't pry.

But I think your including David in with those who made him 'uncomfortable' and mentally ill is not accurate.

David always has greatly admired his older brother and does love him. As I said before, it is sad that Ted can't get past his anger to see David's rationale.

During your visit with Ted, did you happen to ask him if felt any remorse for any of his actions? or for the distress he's caused his mother?

You say David didn't do him any favors, which I disagree with, but I wonder... what would you have done if you had been in David's position? I believe I would have done the same to protect innocent lives.

Lastly, considering Ted acted alone, and knowing the 'Technology' issue is a world wide phenomena, don't you think it a bit of madness on his part for him to have believed that he could re-order the world alone? I mean, for a mathematician of his brilliance, one would think that he first would have had calculated the odds for his success before launching his grand scheme, and would have determined his goal was unachievable.

Thats true, Ted has never mentioned any names, only the general comment that people, including (a generally used) "family", throughout [his] life have always made him uncomfortable by associating his shyness and social awkwardness with mental illness. And that this was one reason he chose a life of isolation in the woods over the kind of life the rest of us live.

I certainly respect your relationship with David and you obviously know him much better than I do and on a more personal level so I am eager to learn more from you in the regard. As I said before, this is indeed a case and person close to my heart.


It is difficult to say what I would have done had I been David but I would like to think I would not turn on my brother under any circumstances, however, when innocent lives are at stake, that would probably change everything, but sitting here right now on my high horse I would like to think I would be above such a betrayal for lack of a better word, but I am really not sure that would be true in real life with real lives on the line. Its a tough position to be in I am sure and I realize I need to do a better job when I sit in judgement of David and word things a little differently when discussing him, thanks for making me rethink that.


Your last question, re the odds of him doing what he set out to do and him calculating them etc is a good one and one I have no answer for at this time but certainly wish to think about it more and revisit that at a later time in this thread.

[compared2what?]

I have spoken to Ted and his family in my professional capacity working for a news publication and was told by Ted himself that he doesnt feel he is mentally ill and that mental illness played no part in what he did, he did whathe did, according to him, because he felt a statement needed to be made and that the ship needed to be righted, because, in his mind, and probably rightfully so, we were/are, on a collision course towards destruction.

Teddy is the cabin boy in his story Ship of Fools. Posted above.

I have spoken to Ted since his arrest, at length, about the very issues I addressed above, I wont quote him here as he has asked me not to do so in any public discussion about him.

Again with the ethical issues.

So what were the ground rules? That you could loosely paraphrase him in your own words in public discussion but not quote him?
Because that would have been a very, very unusual request, not to mention one that's not exactly very indicative of mental soundness. In light of it making no sense whatsoever, I mean.

Also: You spoke to him at length after his arrest, you say? What constitutes "at length" by your standards? I wonder.

Because I've got to tell you that in my experience, it's nigh on fucking impossible for a journalist to speak at length to such a high-profile prisoner under any circumstances. And I'd imagine even nigher that that when the subject in question was the highest-of-all-high-profile prisoners then in federal custody -- ie, before and during the trial. Especially if he was even slightly at-risk for suicide. Or, you know, if he had ever indicated that he'd rather die than be in prison or something like that.

Plus I'm stunned that his attorney let you guys just chat on about highly relevant evidentiary issues such as his sanity like that. I mean, talk about malpractice.

And you got enough access to his family that you feel comfortable saying that you know all of them personally, too?

That's amazing. Was this beginner's luck or what?

Because I could swear that you said somewhere else that you'd been working with computers since the early '90s. But maybe you just meant as a hobby. I can't say that I recall, specifically.

I guess I'll go check and get back to you on edit.

_____________



Just remembered that he was pro se. So possibly my bad wrt the attorney thing.

Although he would have had counsel anyway, of course.

And prison is prison, besides that, I forgot to say. Which I should have. Because I'm even more stunned that the warden let you guys chat on about etcetera than I am that the attorney who might or might not have been in a position to have any say on the matter did. If he or she both could and did. In fact.

[Crow]

This thread has reignited my own on-again, off-again interest in the Unabomber. The 2002 article is impressive. Thanks for posting it, Wombaticus.

Kaczynski's writing has improved since the Manifesto. I find it hard to believe that a schizophrenic person would be capable of producing an essay of this caliber. Schizophrenia is an extremely disabling disease, even when properly treated. If Kaczynski is in fact taking medication in prison and this article is the result, then his ideology is obviously not merely a symptom of his mental illness. This makes the question of whether he is ill or not almost irrelevant, if it ever was relevant.

iamwhoiam, I imagine that Ted Kaczynski understands his brother's rationale for turning him in. It's not difficult to grasp, and he's had plenty of time to think it over. And surely Ted knows David as well as David knows Ted, right? Perhaps they understand each other better than anyone.

[Crow]

Lastly, considering Ted acted alone, and knowing the 'Technology' issue is a world wide phenomena, don't you think it a bit of madness on his part for him to have believed that he could re-order the world alone? I mean, for a mathematician of his brilliance, one would think that he first would have had calculated the odds for his success before launching his grand scheme, and would have determined his goal was unachievable.

By that standard, any revolutionary act could be classified as "madness."

If Kaczynski's goal was igniting widespread curiosity about his philosophy via the publication of his manifesto, then he was successful.

[The Hacktivist]

You know, I have never actually asked Ted, straight out, what exactly his aim/goal/ultimate objective was and I will do that next time I write him. I dont know for sure that he had in mind a world wide revolution as much as he just wanted to put a scare in to certain individuals who had major influence in techno advancement. Further, I think one of the main objectives, perhaps his only objective, was simply to get someone to publish Industrial Society And Its Future, or, what later came to be known as, "The Unabomber Manifesto", since, up to that point, his writing had been rejected by most every news publication and publishing house. But this is only a guess, I am now interested in finding out for sure just exactly what his aim/objective was.

[The Hacktivist]

Lastly, considering Ted acted alone, and knowing the 'Technology' issue is a world wide phenomena, don't you think it a bit of madness on his part for him to have believed that he could re-order the world alone? I mean, for a mathematician of his brilliance, one would think that he first would have had calculated the odds for his success before launching his grand scheme, and would have determined his goal was unachievable.

By that standard, any revolutionary act could be classified as "madness."

If Kaczynski's goal was igniting widespread curiosity about his philosophy via the publication of his manifesto, then he was successful.

And, personally, I think that was exactly his intent, and really nothing more. I think he figured once people started to read that essay, they would then begin the revolt on their own.

[The Hacktivist]

Lastly, considering Ted acted alone, and knowing the 'Technology' issue is a world wide phenomena, don't you think it a bit of madness on his part for him to have believed that he could re-order the world alone? I mean, for a mathematician of his brilliance, one would think that he first would have had calculated the odds for his success before launching his grand scheme, and would have determined his goal was unachievable.

By that standard, any revolutionary act could be classified as "madness."

If Kaczynski's goal was igniting widespread curiosity about his philosophy via the publication of his manifesto, then he was successful.

And, personally, I think that was exactly his intent, and really nothing more. I think he figured once people started to read that essay, they would then begin the revolt on their own

[The Hacktivist]

I have spoken to Ted and his family in my professional capacity working for a news publication and was told by Ted himself that he doesnt feel he is mentally ill and that mental illness played no part in what he did, he did whathe did, according to him, because he felt a statement needed to be made and that the ship needed to be righted, because, in his mind, and probably rightfully so, we were/are, on a collision course towards destruction.

Teddy is the cabin boy in his story Ship of Fools. Posted above.

I have spoken to Ted since his arrest, at length, about the very issues I addressed above, I wont quote him here as he has asked me not to do so in any public discussion about him.

Again with the ethical issues.

So what were the ground rules? That you could loosely paraphrase him in your own words in public discussion but not quote him?
Because that would have been a very, very unusual request, not to mention one that's not exactly very indicative of mental soundness. In light of it making no sense whatsoever, I mean.

Also: You spoke to him at length after his arrest, you say? What constitutes "at length" by your standards? I wonder.

Because I've got to tell you that in my experience, it's nigh on fucking impossible for a journalist to speak at length to such a high-profile prisoner under any circumstances. And I'd imagine even nigher that that when the subject in question was the highest-of-all-high-profile prisoners then in federal custody -- ie, before and during the trial. Especially if he was even slightly at-risk for suicide. Or, you know, if he had ever indicated that he'd rather die than be in prison or something like that.

Plus I'm stunned that his attorney let you guys just chat on about highly relevant evidentiary issues such as his sanity like that. I mean, talk about malpractice.

And you got enough access to his family that you feel comfortable saying that you know all of them personally, too?

That's amazing. Was this beginner's luck or what?

Because I could swear that you said somewhere else that you'd been working with computers since the early '90s. But maybe you just meant as a hobby. I can't say that I recall, specifically.

I guess I'll go check and get back to you on edit.

_____________



Just remembered that he was pro se. So possibly my bad wrt the attorney thing.

Although he would have had counsel anyway, of course.

And prison is prison, besides that, I forgot to say. Which I should have. Because I'm even more stunned that the warden let you guys chat on about etcetera than I am that the attorney who might or might not have been in a position to have any say on the matter did. If he or she both could and did. In fact.

He knew I worked for a news publication and has simply asked that any discussions we have remain "off the record," and I told him that would be no problem and our letters back and forth would simply be friendly discussion. This took place lomg after his trial so there was no issue with his attorney, anyone can write to Ted, he accepts letters and writes back if what is written to him is of any interest. Its really not a big deal, like youre trying to make it be. I do not write to him in my capacity as a journalist, I wrote to him as someone who is interested in the study and research of "green anarchy," and since that is a topic dear to his heart, he is willing to write back and talk with me about it, once in a while I will ask him something about the case, such as the time I asked him about suggestions that he was mentally ill, and he will answer, but generally we do not discuss such things, we discuss the internet, what he thinks of it, where he thinks its leading us, what he thinks of the current economic conditions, politics, whatever comes to mind...all told I have written about 15 letters and gotten 12 back, that to me, is "at length."


When I said I spoke to him "after his arrest" I did not mean, perhaps as you are thinking, a few days after, I meant after he was arrested, tried and settled in prison, so therefore, there was no real issue wrt his attorney or any discussion of the case etc, which, as I said, we do not much discuss anyway.

Writing to prisoners is really not a big deal, I am not sure why you think it is, many people make a hobby of it in fact, especially those of the high profile variety. They quite enjoy getting letters and if you pique their interest they will normally write you back.

[Iamwhomiam]

Florence ADMAX

4. ADX PROCEDURES:

A. Each inmate will be permitted to receive five (5) visits per month. Maximum duration of a visit is seven (7) hours. Any portion of a visit will be charged as one visit. Visits are not cumulative from one month to another. Requests for special visits will be submitted in writing to the Unit Manager for review. Any special religious visits must be reviewed by an Institution Chaplain. Final approval of any special visit, including legal visits and religious visits, must be given by the Associate Warden or the Warden.

B. A maximum of three (3) visitors including children per inmate will be allowed in the Visiting Room at any given time.

C. If the visiting areas become overcrowded, factors such as the distance a visitor has traveled, frequency of visits, relationship of visitors to inmate and frequency of visits received by the inmate will be considered when determining who will be allowed to visit. The #1 Visiting Room Officer, in coordination with the Operations Lieutenant, will consult with the Institution Duty Officer who will make a final determination in matters concerning who may visit if overcrowding occurs.

(D&E omitted; download .pdf for more - Iam)

And:

5. VISITING SCHEDULE AND ATTIRE:

A. Visiting hours at the ADX shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. No inmate visitors will be processed into the Visiting Room after 2:00 p.m. All federal holidays will be observed as visiting days. Holiday visiting will be counted as part of the five (5) monthly visits.
H-Unit inmates will only be allowed visits (social, legal, etc.) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. H-Unit visits will take priority on these days. If a federal holiday falls on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, H-Unit inmates will not be allowed to visit. When an H-Unit inmate is in the visiting room, no other inmate will be permitted to enter the visiting room.

B. All visitors entering the institution for a visit will be appropriately attired.
Visitors may not wear shorts, mini skirts, sheer or tight fitting clothing, excessively short or low cut clothing, backless clothing, halter tops, or sleeveless clothing. Dresses, blouses or other apparel of a suggestive or revealing nature may not be worn. Female visitors must also wear a wireless
brassiere and undergarments. If the Front Lobby or Visiting Room Officer determines a visitor is improperly attired he/she will contact the Operations Lieutenant and Institution Duty Officer to determine whether to deny or terminate the visit.

C. Inmates receiving visits are permitted to wear or bring only the following items to the visiting area.

1. Social Visits - Jumpsuit, undergarments, institutional issue shoes, handkerchief, prescription eyeglasses, and a wedding band (if married) will be worn or carried into the visiting area. All jumpsuits will be color coded to indicate the specific unit the inmate is assigned, as follows:

a. Special Housing Unit - Orange Jumpsuit
b. Control Unit - Yellow Jumpsuit
c. General Population - White Jumpsuit
d. Step Down Units - Inmates will wear Khaki pants and shirt
e. H-Unit - Appropriate Jumpsuit

(For items C2 - C5, see .pdf)

[compared2what?]

Well. First of all, Hacktivist, I withdraw the question in re: What I thought you said you did before, because I don't remember it all that well, don't have time to find it, and don't honestly think it would be all that much of a contradiction in and of itself if you had worked with computers at one point and in journalism at another.

That's a meaning-laden "in and of itself" though. Because you really, really don't seem to think about, write or otherwise approach a subject in any way, shape or form that produces any and/or every kind of journalism in any and/or every medium that's done any for the last forty or fifty years. Or so. Nor do you show the slightest sign of ever having had the least acquaintanceship with any of the one million and one routine considerations regularly encountered by even the saddest media hack on earth.

Which is not an insult, btw. It's just an observation. There are as many potentially valuable modes for thinking about, writing and approaching subjects as there are people. None is inherently superior to another, afaic. And all of them can be done both well and poorly. As a matter of fact, anyone who could survive a bout with journalism without so much as a trace or scar of the experience to show for it would either be a very, very lucky person or somehow mistaken in his or her belief that it was in fact journalism he or she'd been tangling with.

I'd really like to hear more about that access and timing stuff, though. Because both are just fucking remarkable.

As -- in another sort of a way -- is interviewing a source or subject at length whose remarks you've agreed not to share publicly. In a journalistic capacity. Unless you've also agreed not publicly to reveal that you ever talked to that person at all. (Which some people are cool with, I hear, though, you know. Slippery slope, if you ask me.) Especially when you then go on to advertise that agreement then violate it out of the blue when dealing with strangers, all within the same 24-hour period. I mean, that's just not very journalistical. Even from the most superficial perspective of professional vanity.

In addition to which, neither Ted Kaczynski nor his family have exactly been promiscuous wrt talking to journalists at length, to the best of my knowledge. I mean, has his mother or any other relative apart from his brother ever talked to any media at all? Because if they have, I sure don't recall it.

Plus:



I was right the first time. He wasn't pro se, ultimately.

So anyway. How'd you pull off that coup? I'm all ears.

Back in a moment with a treat.

[The Hacktivist]

Florence ADMAX

4. ADX PROCEDURES:

A. Each inmate will be permitted to receive five (5) visits per month. Maximum duration of a visit is seven (7) hours. Any portion of a visit will be charged as one visit. Visits are not cumulative from one month to another. Requests for special visits will be submitted in writing to the Unit Manager for review. Any special religious visits must be reviewed by an Institution Chaplain. Final approval of any special visit, including legal visits and religious visits, must be given by the Associate Warden or the Warden.

B. A maximum of three (3) visitors including children per inmate will be allowed in the Visiting Room at any given time.

C. If the visiting areas become overcrowded, factors such as the distance a visitor has traveled, frequency of visits, relationship of visitors to inmate and frequency of visits received by the inmate will be considered when determining who will be allowed to visit. The #1 Visiting Room Officer, in coordination with the Operations Lieutenant, will consult with the Institution Duty Officer who will make a final determination in matters concerning who may visit if overcrowding occurs.

(D&E omitted; download .pdf for more - Iam)

And:

5. VISITING SCHEDULE AND ATTIRE:

A. Visiting hours at the ADX shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. No inmate visitors will be processed into the Visiting Room after 2:00 p.m. All federal holidays will be observed as visiting days. Holiday visiting will be counted as part of the five (5) monthly visits.
H-Unit inmates will only be allowed visits (social, legal, etc.) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. H-Unit visits will take priority on these days. If a federal holiday falls on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, H-Unit inmates will not be allowed to visit. When an H-Unit inmate is in the visiting room, no other inmate will be permitted to enter the visiting room.

B. All visitors entering the institution for a visit will be appropriately attired.
Visitors may not wear shorts, mini skirts, sheer or tight fitting clothing, excessively short or low cut clothing, backless clothing, halter tops, or sleeveless clothing. Dresses, blouses or other apparel of a suggestive or revealing nature may not be worn. Female visitors must also wear a wireless
brassiere and undergarments. If the Front Lobby or Visiting Room Officer determines a visitor is improperly attired he/she will contact the Operations Lieutenant and Institution Duty Officer to determine whether to deny or terminate the visit.

C. Inmates receiving visits are permitted to wear or bring only the following items to the visiting area.

1. Social Visits - Jumpsuit, undergarments, institutional issue shoes, handkerchief, prescription eyeglasses, and a wedding band (if married) will be worn or carried into the visiting area. All jumpsuits will be color coded to indicate the specific unit the inmate is assigned, as follows:

a. Special Housing Unit - Orange Jumpsuit
b. Control Unit - Yellow Jumpsuit
c. General Population - White Jumpsuit
d. Step Down Units - Inmates will wear Khaki pants and shirt
e. H-Unit - Appropriate Jumpsuit

(For items C2 - C5, see .pdf)

Also wrt this, here is the address should any of you desire to write to Ted:


INMATE NAME & REGISTER NUMBER
USP FLORENCE ADMAX
U.S. PENITENTIARY
PO BOX 8500
FLORENCE, CO 81226

[compared2what?]

Sorry. I was in a hurry to go get the treat. And about your reply: Move to strike as non-responsive. Also, I like you fine. I gave you some pages from Good Night, Moon. Remember?

About this:

Writing to prisoners is really not a big deal, I am not sure why you think it is, many people make a hobby of it in fact, especially those of the high profile variety. They quite enjoy getting letters and if you pique their interest they will normally write you back.

What's that you say? Writing to prisoners is no big deal? Why, bless my boots and buttons, I hadn't the slightest idea. Please excuse me for one moment. I think I might faint from shock and I want to tuck up the scissors in my embroidery basket before I do.

IOW: No shit. Of course it's not. And thank you, Captain Obvious.

But I never said that I thought otherwise. What I said was more or less that it was extremely unusual for a prisoner in federal custody who'd made a suicide attempt while awaiting a trial for which his attorneys wanted to use an insanity defense to speak with a journalist at length about anything. And pretty much inconceivable for him to speak at length about his mental health.

And I'll get to the Supermax jouralistic access issues in the next post. In the meantime, please allow me to remind you of what you said. Ready? Okay. Here we go:

I have spoken to Ted since his arrest, at length, about the very issues I addressed above,

Sorry. But there's a very real and meaningful difference between "written to," "corresponded with," or "been in touch with" (and all the other numberless phrases one might use to fudge the issue of in what medium the communication had occurred if, for some reason, one wished it fudged) and "spoken to."

That's one of those routine considerations regularly encountered by journalists to which I was referring earlier, as a matter of fact. You know. What attributional verb to use to lend the appropriate oomph to referenced statements and/or conversations in context. It does get to be second nature after a while, true. But it's not a minor or trivial concern simply because it's a minute one. In the event that there are any questions about the truth or falsehood of your representation at all, that stuff actually counts. Quite a bit. It might make a small difference in court in the event of a defamation suit, for example. Very small, admittedly. But a difference nevertheless.

You also said you knew all of his family personally. Not that you'd met them. Or that you'd corresponded with them. Or that you'd spoken with them at length even. You said you knew them. Personally. Not that you had dealings with them professionally.

Seriously, you'd be better off not responding at all than you are trying to replace your earlier statements with that prison pen-pal retcon as if it didn't leave any huge gaping holes in the plot.

So as someone who likes you fine, I advise you to pursue a strict no-comment-and-no-comment-only policy henceforth, effective immediately. Because you're never gonna post your way out of it. Just led it fade, dude.

Now. Back in a moment with a treat.

[compared2what?]

Copyrighted material, so just fair-use-length teaser and a link. But among other things, I'd say it's almost a knock-out punch for Wombat and the Hacktivist on the schizophrenia issue.

It does kind of point up the problems on the prison-visit interview front. However, as I've already said, I encourage all interested parties simply to disregard those as if they weren't there.

Anyway. Nice essay. Rationally anti-psychiatry, too. I highly recommend it. Two excerpts below and the rest here.

Best Regards, Ted Kaczynski

by Gary Greenberg


Kaczynski v. U.S. [Editor's note: The following is an excerpt from "In the Kingdom of the Unabomber," which appeared in the most recent issue of McSweeney's, a literary quarterly. The article tells the story of what happened when Gary Greenberg, a Connecticut psychotherapist and professor, approached Theodore Kaczynski and proposed to write the Unabomber's biography. The selections below comprise approximately one-third of the full version, in which Greenberg, who had no previous experience in journalism, recounts his discoveries not only about Kaczynski but about the publishing business, journalistic ethics, celebrity culture and his own ambition.]


The first time I got a letter from the Unabomber, I had my wife open it. I was at work, the letter had come to my house, and neither of us wanted to wait to see what Ted Kaczynski, whose outgoing mail was by then inspected by the United States Bureau of Prisons, had to say. Sealed in a #10 envelope, the letter was addressed in the careful block capitals that the post office says will guarantee maximum efficiency. He even put his return address, in the same frank print, in just the right spot. No fool, Kaczynski knows that the mails will only work for you if you work with them.

The first letter, which arrived in mid-June of last year, had not come unbidden. Six months earlier, just after he'd pleaded guilty to the Unabom crimes, I'd written Kaczynski a letter. Although I had paid close attention to his case for nearly three years, from his emergence as a composite sketch demanding space for his manuscript in a national publication to his arrest, incarceration and abortive trial, my letter wasn't fan mail. Instead, it was a pitch.

It started like this:


January 24, 1998

Dear Mr. Kaczynski:

Please forgive my intrusion into your life. I am not sure if this letter will gain a sympathetic reading, or any reading for that matter. But after thinking long and hard about writing it, I'm taking the chance.

I would like you to consider allowing me to write a biography of you. I am sure you have had many requests from other people to do this, and for all I know you are already working with someone. Or, for that matter, you may be opposed in principle to the very idea. In the event, however, that neither of these are the case, I hope you'll read on and think about my request.

I know nothing of you, of course, except what the news media have decided to tell me, so what I am about to say is no doubt presumptuous -- it's just my reading between the lines. It seems to me that you are one of the notable antimodernists of our age. At least since saboteurs hurled their sandals into machines and Luddites rioted in factories, people have deeply (and sometimes violently) objected to the fundamental tenets of the modern world. This protest is not against one or the other work of technology -- against, say, nuclear weapons or automobiles -- but rather against the world view that underlies and makes possible the creation of any particular machine or device. And, as many antimodernists have discovered, this world view does not tolerate radical protest. It must either co-opt it or eradicate its opposition, the latter through outright killing or mere discrediting. I believe this is one of the reasons that there has been so much interest in finding a psychiatric diagnosis for you: not, as the various lawyers have claimed, to ensure that you are competent or sane to stand trial, but rather to dismiss your protest as the ravings of a lunatic.



When he read on, Kaczynski found out that I thought I was suited for the job for many reasons. I explained that I was a psychologist with a research interest in the misuses of psychiatry, of which I believed his recent diagnosis as a paranoid schizophrenic (and his ensuing mass-media portrayal as a lunatic) was a perfect case. And I ended by saying that all of this coupled with the fact that I had lived off the grid in a cabin in the woods for a number if years meant that I could give him as sympathetic a treatment as he was likely to get. I invited him to write me back if he was interested, and then I waited.

My prospective subject was interested enough in the project to ask, through his lawyer, for more information about me. So during the spring I wrote Kaczynski a short autobiography. I told him about my therapy practice in New London and my teaching at Connecticut college, even a little about my personal life, and I sent him some of my academic writings -- two articles and a book. I heard nothing directly, and in mid-May, 1998, after he'd been sent to the Supermax prison in Florence, Colorado, I sent him a gentle reminder of my existence. His first letter came in response.

[snip]


Kaczynski vs the psychiatric industry

The second letter I got from Kaczynski came in early July; it was 20 pages long. It was addressed, "Dear Gary," and signed, "Best regards, Ted Kaczynski." From then on, we were on a first-name basis.

Some of the letter was personal: Kaczynski agreed with me that living in the woods was alienating, but that hadn't bothered him as it had me. Some of it was revealing: He told me that he had long had a recurring nightmare in which he and his cabin were transplanted to an island in the midst of a huge shopping mall. He paid me a compliment, telling me that he thought I was someone with whom it was possible to have a rational conversation. He insulted me, using one of my papers as an example of the way that philosophical writing buried its insights in "bullshit." Most of the letter was as dry as a math textbook. It had five footnotes, which ranged from simple amplifications of what he was saying to quibbles with me about my interpretation of early Christian martyrdom. The Unabomber had written me a treatise.

I should explain the occasion for this outpouring. The paper he criticized had nonetheless hit close to home for Kaczynski; it had an indirect but significant bearing on his case. The article was about a curious development in my profession. On a day in 1973, the psychiatric industry had eradicated a disease that had theretofore resisted all attempts at treatment and ruined many lives.

After two years of contentious meetings, disrupted conventions and what one psychiatrist called "fevered polemical discussion," the American Psychiatric Association officially deleted homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The love that dared not speak its name was now safe to discuss with the doctor. Not only was homosexuality no longer an illness, it had never been. It was all just a misunderstanding, and the doctors were very, very sorry.

This change was both good and bad news for the industry. The good news was that it explained why those millions of couch hours had failed to make desire flow in its proper channels. The psychiatrists hadn't lacked skill; they had just tried to use it to fix something that wasn't really broken.

This good news led to better: a new disease called "ego-dystonic homosexuality." To the relief of therapists everywhere, gay people still needed professional help -- no longer to try to reorient their sexual compass, but now to combat the effects of living in an intolerant society. Homosexuals were suffering not from homosexuality but from internalized oppression. The very doctors who had legitimized the stigma now stood at the ready to help its victims reclaim their dignity and accept what they once sought to eliminate. Of course, no one was going to get their money back, or even credit toward treatment of the new disease. This wasn't penance or community service, but capitalism at its most exuberantly irrational.

The bad news, though, was grim. As one psychiatrist said, "If groups of people march and raise enough hell, they can change anything in time. ... Will schizophrenia be next?" You can see the problem: All the hellraising in the world won't stop cancer from eating up your insides, but enough marching might relieve psychiatrists of the power to make pathology out of deviant behavior. This would be a disaster for the industry. And even if it didn't materialize, its very possibility was troublesome. The unmistakable hustle of therapists to keep up with the times, to avoid eating the dust of the sexual revolution, revealed psychiatry's darkest secret: that most diagnoses are moral judgments wrapped in medicine's cloak, and that therapists are really clerics disguised as scientists.

My paper was about the industry's response to this bad news, how it had been caught with its pants down but still managed to maintain its professional dignity and protect its franchise on the scientific understanding and treatment of human behavior. It's one of the great public relations coups of the 20th-century, and it was of vital interest to Kaczynski because, in his view, if psychiatry had lost its franchise, he might not be in his current position: left to rot in Supermax, where his bed and table are made out of molded concrete and exercise takes place in a kennel.

Instead, he'd be dead, or at least under a death sentence.

* * * * * * *

To understand why my paper got a 20-page rise out of Kaczynski, you have to know a little Unabomber history.

Kaczynski's lawyers knew a hopeless case when they saw one. There was a warehouse of evidence against him: bomb-related hardware, journal entries lamenting his failures and applauding his triumphs, various eyewitnesses to his whereabouts. Even Hamilton Burger couldn't have booted this one. Worse, the federal government had a new death penalty, and the Unabomber seemed a fitting early target: He'd committed heinous crimes, embarrassed the FBI by eluding them for almost two decades, and seemed entirely unrepentant. To his lawyers, this meant that there was only one possible plan: to find a defense that would minimize their client's chances of getting executed. But to Kaczynski, this was an end that served the lawyers more than their client. And this wasn't fair, as he wrote to attorneys whose support he sought after he had been convicted: "The principle that risk of the death penalty is to be minimized by any means possible... is very convenient for attorneys because it relieves them of the obligation to make difficult decisions about values or to think seriously about the situation and the character of the particular client."

The problem, in Kaczynski's view, was that the single course that would save his life was to turn to the psychiatrists and make him out to be a mental patient.

That link, once again, is here.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Hey c2w ... its kind of within the bounds of correspondence with people to feel you know personally even if you don't, and in this particular website its an informal enough environment to equate corresponded with spoken to. At least thanks to you and Hacktivist's response I have a clearer picture of where Hacktivist is coming from. And your standards for journalism are frankly higher than journalism's, not that there's anything wrong with that. I prefer yours. Still someone who has worked in a journalistic capacity probably has as much right to call what they did journalism as someone who was trained as a journalist, especially given the quality of some. etc etc (I still love you tho.)

Hacktivist, if you keep that confidence for as long as TK wants while he's alive good one.

Its probably gonna be worth some cash at some point tho.

Breaking a confidence like that while he's alive would make you a dirty dog and the earth would hound and plague you for the rest of your life.


At least without consent, or at least notice, a damn good reason and an honest private discussion with him about it first. Just sayin.

Be careful what you say here too. Even if it seems you're just defending him.




TKs case is something that should trouble anyone who is pissed off at the state of the world, cos of his response. He's paying a high price for what he did. I dunno if I agree, but I'm not him.

Its really a fine line.

Have a listen to this and think about it:

[compared2what?]

Florence ADMAX

4. ADX PROCEDURES:

A. Each inmate will be permitted to receive five (5) visits per month. Maximum duration of a visit is seven (7) hours. Any portion of a visit will be charged as one visit. Visits are not cumulative from one month to another. Requests for special visits will be submitted in writing to the Unit Manager for review. Any special religious visits must be reviewed by an Institution Chaplain. Final approval of any special visit, including legal visits and religious visits, must be given by the Associate Warden or the Warden.

B. A maximum of three (3) visitors including children per inmate will be allowed in the Visiting Room at any given time.

C. If the visiting areas become overcrowded, factors such as the distance a visitor has traveled, frequency of visits, relationship of visitors to inmate and frequency of visits received by the inmate will be considered when determining who will be allowed to visit. The #1 Visiting Room Officer, in coordination with the Operations Lieutenant, will consult with the Institution Duty Officer who will make a final determination in matters concerning who may visit if overcrowding occurs.

(D&E omitted; download .pdf for more - Iam)

And:

5. VISITING SCHEDULE AND ATTIRE:

A. Visiting hours at the ADX shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. No inmate visitors will be processed into the Visiting Room after 2:00 p.m. All federal holidays will be observed as visiting days. Holiday visiting will be counted as part of the five (5) monthly visits.
H-Unit inmates will only be allowed visits (social, legal, etc.) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. H-Unit visits will take priority on these days. If a federal holiday falls on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, H-Unit inmates will not be allowed to visit. When an H-Unit inmate is in the visiting room, no other inmate will be permitted to enter the visiting room.

B. All visitors entering the institution for a visit will be appropriately attired.
Visitors may not wear shorts, mini skirts, sheer or tight fitting clothing, excessively short or low cut clothing, backless clothing, halter tops, or sleeveless clothing. Dresses, blouses or other apparel of a suggestive or revealing nature may not be worn. Female visitors must also wear a wireless
brassiere and undergarments. If the Front Lobby or Visiting Room Officer determines a visitor is improperly attired he/she will contact the Operations Lieutenant and Institution Duty Officer to determine whether to deny or terminate the visit.

C. Inmates receiving visits are permitted to wear or bring only the following items to the visiting area.

1. Social Visits - Jumpsuit, undergarments, institutional issue shoes, handkerchief, prescription eyeglasses, and a wedding band (if married) will be worn or carried into the visiting area. All jumpsuits will be color coded to indicate the specific unit the inmate is assigned, as follows:

a. Special Housing Unit - Orange Jumpsuit
b. Control Unit - Yellow Jumpsuit
c. General Population - White Jumpsuit
d. Step Down Units - Inmates will wear Khaki pants and shirt
e. H-Unit - Appropriate Jumpsuit

(For items C2 - C5, see .pdf)

Uh-huh. I'm getting out of here while the getting's good.

But wanna know something really, really shocking before I do? Okay. But brace yourself.

Pssst. Prisons don't always adhere to the written rules for visitors that they make available to the public. In fact, in one way or another, wrt serious prisons that's not just "don't always." It's more like "never do." And if there's one thing on earth they positively have an absolute aversion to, it's letting journalists hang around lengthily noticing shit.

I mean, for crying out loud, look at those guidelines for attire. Ever stop to think about how handy those might be for a guard who'd been told to be in the mood to make a judgment call about the unacceptability of some visitor's clothing in order to punish the inmate? Or the visitor? Or to ensure that some injury wasn't seen? Or just on a fucking whim?

It's a prison. Nobody has any rights there except the people who run it. That's what prison is.
_________________________

Note to self: I guess that Florence has no-contact visits with glass or some kind of high-tech mesh barrier separating you from the inmate if they not only permit but actually require women to wear underwire bras.

That's what I'd expect anyway, though. The no-contact thing, I mean.

FULL DISCLOSURE: It's not like I'm a longtime habitue of maximum security prison visiting areas. But a little exposure to the world of negotiating access to prisons goes an awful long way. As I'm sure you can all appreciate. They're totalitarian hellholes, they kind of make a strong impression.

FWIW, I have gone out to Rikers to visit people I knew some number of times greater than I'd have preferred purely for social reasons, over the years. And when that's been a hassle, it's been the worst hassle evah evah in my personal experience, for some reason. Although Rikers is not as bad as it gets, by a long chalk.

It's just that same totalitarian hellhole quirk you occasionally run into in totalitarian hellholes everywhere, I guess. When they can do whatever they want, they do. And that cuts both ways. I mean, once in a way, they're actually astonishingly superlax.

Although I doubt that applies at someplace like Florence.

Like you care, I know.

Peace out.