Thom Hartmann Compares Beck and O'Reilly to Bin Laden - Says their intentions are to activate lone wolf terrorists

I've heard of this guy, but never listened to his show. Now I see why. I'm trying to find the origin of this term or, at least, who was the first to apply it to conservative talk radio hosts. Hartmann probably got it from the DailyKos where G2Geek used it in a January 10, 2001: "Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:Triggering-the-shooters. I could spend my time addressing the Left's lunacy, but I found this post FROM HARTMANN'S OWN BLOG, that does the topic justice:

(from rickrack)
"I've searched the internet for Thom's claim that the FBI has used the term "stochastic terrorism." Please find a reference for that claim. I couldn't. The FBI has used stochastic processes for DNA analysis and risk assessment. Both may be related to terrorism but do not mean what Thom means: broadcasting a message that incites bin Laden's minions or the crazies to violent acts.

It's a wonderful meme but I think you should leave the FBI out of it. I watched the ex-FBI chief of the behavioral sciences unit on the Charlie Rose show. He is much more inclined to the mental illness theory Thom advocated yesterday without linking it to the catalyst of hate speech. Although liberal negative speech (Thom doesn't want to call it hate speech but it often appears to be such) hasn't been linked to violence lately, it would take just one crazy person who has a book by Thom Hartmann or Noam Chomsky in his library and then goes out to shoot up a bank or a former job office or school to make it a moot point. You can't depend on schizophrenics to restrict their violence to the right-wing point of view. That's crazy!

Stochastic terrorism is an excellent talk show talking point but meaningless or even dangerous in the long run. If 1 out of a million people acts on the message being broadcast, that's pretty low odds for advertising. It wouldn't sell many products. If we held those who write books accountable for the thoughts of those who then act violently, we might find that even the most innocuous children's books should be banned.

Even what I'm writing now might embolden some pure leftist to write a political tract advocating violence against some authority figure or institution. Should I then be held responsible for what I've written. Should I have self-consored this comment and not written it?"

In short, hey Lefties: stop inventing terms in a woefully inadequate attempt to sound intelligent when you libel those on the Right. Will anyone call them on their stupidity? Aren't these the same people that defend to the death a rapper's right to use the n-word in every sentence of every lyric, call all women b!tches and hoes, advocate the murder of policemen, and commit a number of other atrocities to women, homosexuals, white people, and President Bush? Talking about hypocrisy...