Sunday, January 09, 2011

"News" or Insinuation? Nuts and the MSM's Fixation

The more we know about the Arizona perp, the more it's clear: this guy was a nutbag. Probably a paranoid. Apparently never treated for the illness, and maybe never even diagnosed.

But not to worry. The MSM will find a motive. Then they'll insinuate it into their "fact-coverage." Because nothing is more to blame, or more dangerous than political associations, right?

...At 40, Giffords was considered a moderate Democrat who favored immigration reform and who had been the subject of at least two "unfortunate incidents" during the recent campaign for reelection. Giffords defeated 'tea party' candidate Jesse Kelly by just 4,000 votes.

In a typically heated congressional campaign in the recent, hyper-partisan midterm elections, Kelly blamed Giffords for supporting President Obama's healthcare overhaul and for her more liberal views on immigration reform, a sore subject in Arizona, a border state whose efforts to halt illegal immigration have drawn condemnation from liberals and the federal government. ...

When one examines the available YouTube droppings of the perp, one is immediately struck by the surreal, illogical, un-hinged tone. There is no apparent "right" or "left" tilt other than his professed like for the Communist Manifesto and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

In fact, one could easily state that this guy was neither rightist nor leftist--but that he was simply nuts. It was his nest that 'one flew over'.

It's time to pray for the victims' souls and for their families' peace of mind--and for the perp's parents, who are probably in agony.

It is certainly NOT time to insinuate that the 'tea party'--or anything else--drove this nut.

More from McCain, who IS a journalist:

There is no evidence that Loughner was a Sarah Palin fan. There is no evidence that he was associated with the Tea Party or that he was concerned with immigration. Instead, there is a steadily growing heap of evidence that Jared Loughner was suffering from a mental illness, quite possibly paranoid schizophrenia.

"Evidence? We don't need no steeenkin' evidence!!"

21 comments:

neomom said...

I am so completely disgusted by all of this.

But of course the left can't let a good crisis go to waste or let some facts get in the way of a good straw man.

Headless Blogger said...

They were blaming Glenn Beck on Phoenix radio within 2 hours of the shooting, when they still believed Giffords was deceased. Still no retraction or apology on their website.

neomom said...

I wouldn't hold your breath for that retraction or apology.

J. Strupp said...

"There is no apparent "right" or "left" tilt other than his professed like for the Communist Manifesto and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."

And other than the fact that this lunatic just intentionally shot a Democratic Congresswoman in the head.

If the venom of recent events had played no role in this goof's decision to target this particular Congresswoman, he wouldn't have targeted anyone in particular.

But he did.

Let this also be an example of why it's never a good idea to use gun play metaphors to describe the removal of someone from public office. Obviously the nut jobs can't tell the difference.

Anonymous said...

Buy more ammo, right, DaddyZero?

neomom said...

Strupp - he may have "targeted" Giffords because she was HIS Congresswoman. She is Jewish and there is a loose affiliation to an anti-semitic group (not the Tea Party) and one of his fave books is Mein Kampf. But I'll stick with - he is nuts.

But if you are concerned about gun metaphors...

Obama: If they bring a knife to the Fight, We bring a Gun.

J. Strupp said...

And that shouldn't be acceptable either. Especially from the President of all people.

IMO, being nuts is a prerequisite for a person that attempts to assassinate a public figure.

The question is to what extent did the current political atmosphere play in determining this goof's target. It's pretty clear to me that we've grown considerably more irrational in our political discourse to the point that this sort of thing may become more common. Chalking this whole episode up to a random act and media bias is simply an attempt to sweep everything under the rug and pretend that we don't have a problem here.

neomom said...

No, this kid truly seems mentally ill - as in untreated paranoid schizophrenia ill.

There is also ZERO evidence that he knew of, or followed anything by Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Tea Party or other Right-leaning outlets. It is quite the opposite, that he appears to have been left-leaning - at least from his reading list.

I doubt that any sort of political "climate" affected him at all - it was the voices in his head telling him that the government was all about mind control and brainwashing with grammar because we weren't all dreamers. BonaFide whack-a-doodle stuff.

As far as media bias? In the immediate aftermath of the Islamist shootings at Ft. Hood, the media was tripping over themselves to caution everyone to not jump to conclusions or to paint every muslim with a broad brush. Yesterday? Let's just say they didn't follow their own advice. CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, The Atlantic, HuffPo... it was shameful.

So where is the real problem? Because it isn't right-wing violence.

J. Strupp said...

"I doubt that any sort of political "climate" affected him at all - it was the voices in his head telling him that the government was all about mind control and brainwashing with grammar because we weren't all dreamers. BonaFide whack-a-doodle stuff."

And the true randomness of what you propose would make sense if you didn't know anything about the recent history of this particular Congresswoman. But we do.

I can't really get into a MSM debate anymore neo. As a nation, we are all well aware of the liberal tendencies of the MSM. I think that's pretty much a given at this point. I'm also aware that conservatives tend overreact to these tendencies now and then.

neomom said...

The only group this kid is loosely associated with is a fringe anti-illegal and anti-semitic.

The Jewish part fits Giffords, but since she was trying to firm up the border security, she isn't an obvious target. However, there was a video I saw last night (can't track down the link) Where he said he had met her and didn't find her very bright. He was marching to a different beat than the mainstream politic.

And after seeing and hearing almost every single media outlet basically blame the Tea Party movement for this... pardon me for trying to correct the record. Because I'm quite sure no retractions will be forthcoming from anyplace.

Dad29 said...

It's pretty clear to me that we've grown considerably more irrational in our political discourse to the point that this sort of thing may become more common.

Sure. And you said the same thing about the TR, JFK, Ford, and Reagan events, too?

Sorry. Your position doesn't add up historically.

neomom said...

I nice compilation of some of our Dear Leader's more colorful comments that I'm sure were put out to difuse any heated rhetoric (via Gateway)

** “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** “Get in Their Faces!”
** “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** “Punish your enemies.”
** “I’m itching for a fight.”

There are far more from the likes of Olbermann, Shultz, Rhodes, Maddow, Matthews, Behar, Sullivan, Krugman, Blow, Klein, etc. etc. etc. It would take hours to compile all of it because there is simply a "target" rich environment.

Anonymous said...

What say you of Palin putting the crosshairs on her Congressional district?

You folks are laughable!

Buy more ammo, sayeth DaddyZero. Blanks, I suppose?

neomom said...

Whay say me of Palin putting cross-hairs on her Congressional District?

Political Strategy.

Just like when Kos put a target on her Congressional district. Or when the DNC put a bullseye on the map of the states they were targeting.

Stop acting as if terms like target and in the cross-hairs were never used before Sarah Palin.
Idiot.

John Foust said...

Buy more ammo, right Dad29? Bring your Ka-Bar, and your biggest ammo belt!

Tim Morrissey said...

Insane person. End of story.

neomom said...

Well John and Anony -

If someone else in that parking lot had been carrying - maybe they wouldn't have had to wait for him to have to reload to take him down.

How many could have been saved?

Because we all know there is no way that we will ever keep the weapons out of the hands of the criminals and the deranged. It seems you just want to ensure the victims remain unarmed.

And - by the way - how can it be that whilst young Jared had many run-ins with the Pima County law enforcement, he didn't have an arrest record? Could that have stopped him from purchasing the weapon maybe? Cronyism since his mom worked for the County perhaps? Cozy with the Dem Sheriff that was so quick to point to others to blame.

John Foust said...

More fantasy, Neomom. You're telling me someone in the crowd would pull out their weapon and successfully take out the loony without endangering anyone else, and without drawing fire from any other armed citizen who, in the confusion, did not properly assess the situation and the proper target? Why wouldn't it cause a chain reaction? Is my fantasy more likely or less likely than yours?

neomom said...

Not really so much fantasy...

http://www.examiner.net/homepage/x1991351495/Theft-suspect-shot-leaving-western-Independence-Sunfresh

http://www.oregonconcealedcarry.com/index.php?showtopic=2272

Unfortunately, this man was close, but not close enough...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073921275131528.html

John Foust said...

I thought we were talking about this recent killing in a crowd. Tell me how the fantasy works in this situation.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what Paul Ryan has to say on the matter.


"There’s fringe rhetoric on both sides,” said Ryan, a conservative. “I think everybody needs to assess the appropriateness of their language and the kind of discourse they advance. We need passionate debate about ideas, but every time you decide to say something you should think through the consequences.”

Words of wisdom to live by, eh?


“We should always be talking about how we can have a more civilized discourse in society; language in society has grown coarser (but) I don't think it would be appropriate to read some sort of political or philosophical agenda into this," he said.

Maybe people here ought to LISTEN, not hear him, correct?