How can I prove to you we're live? Penis!
This will probably be a long rambling post just because there is so much ground to cover, so be forewarned. The topic? The reactions to the shooting in arizona. In case international people are unaware, a congresswoman in arizona was shot a few days ago so naturally the media's first response was to express their condolences and regret for this tragic shooting, which encompassed not just the congresswoman, but many nearby bystanders including a 9 year old girl (born on 9/11) who was killed. Oh no wait. I forgot, we live in 21st america so the media's first priority was to blame the tea party and sarah palin specifically. Obviously it was her rhetoric that drove this man to murder. I mean what other possible reason could someone have to kill a person other than sarah palin. She is the person who most often produces murderous thoughts in liberal's minds, so to them it's only natural that she would cause conservatives to murder in her name as well.
This rush to judgement would be to some extent understandable, after all in the 24 hour news cycle you need to fill the air with all kinds of news and speculation all the time right? Except only if it reflects negatively on conservatives. When somebody tried to blow up a bomb in times square what was the reaction. Well first it was suggested that it was probably somebody upset about health care, or some other anti government thing. After all we all know how crazy and violent those right wingers are. And when it turned out it was a muslim who did it, immediately the NYTimes and CNN urged everyone to be cautious about leaping to conclusions. We don't know why a muslim would try to set off a bomb in time square. Someone actually said we may never know why he tried to set off the bomb. Translation? It wasn't islam's fault, it was societal issues that are far too complicated to ever understand. This wasn't an islamic terrorist, and nobody should jump to that conclusion just because he was islamic and a terrorist. Here's a write up about how CNN reacted after the fort hood shooting (hint they urged not jumping to conclusions.)
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte
So the same news organizations that urge caution about jumping to conclusions days after attacks by muslims, within mere hours can decide that the arizona attack was because of the angry rhetoric of Palin and tea partiers. No caution necessary there. Not a single fact necessary. The media already knows that tea partiers are violent racists so obviously if a democratic congresswoman is shot at, they are the culprits. My favorite line, written within hours by Krugman was "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was." Despite winning a nobel prize, this shows a total disregard for what odds are (almost certainly willful, not accidental.) Odds are based on facts. Like if i'm on vegas and i bet on black at the roulette table, there are certain odds that the ball will land on black. Those odds are certain. Other odds can be less certain, like the Patriots will probably beat the Jets this weekend. There's no way to measure that likely hood, and some may even debate it, but there are still facts, like the patriots win the vast majority of their home games, they have won more games than the jets this year, they have scored A points this year and the Jets have scored B. Facts. There is no way to determine a clear cut answer, but there is a history to go off. Given that there have been exactly 0 documented murders committed because of Sarah Palin's the odds that a new murder was caused by her can only be either 0, or question mark/not enough information. It's like if there was a football team made up of aliens. If someone asked me who will win a game between the patriots and the aliens, i would say I don't have any idea. I don't know anything about the aliens. There's no way to determine any kinds of odds for such a game. But Krugman would say, we don't have proof yet that aliens are great football players, but odds are that they are. Krugman doesn't need outside information because he is so supremely intelligent that any thought that comes to his head must automatically be correct.
Here is a couple of write ups of how off base krugman is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075660624213434.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704803604576077892006683586.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
So moving forward. We find out that the guy who committed this act was a crazy person. Literally. To blame his actions on political speech of any kind would be no different than to blame democrats for the attempted assasination of Reagan, or blame john lennon's death on the rolling stones. Not only incorrect, but really completely ludicrous, and something no person could take seriously. So naturally those who jumped to conclusion in the media apologize for their haste in judgement, and admit that this was the act of a crazy person and that politics was not involved in anyway. Oh wait, there, i forgot again where i was. Most refused to admit they were wrong. Regardless of facts to the contrary they insist that this crime is still the fault of Palin and the right wing. Some are willing to admit maybe the original crime wasn't palin's fault, but her response in defending herself was uncalled for and reprehensible. I wish i was joking, but you just can't make this stuff up.
Here's a bit from MSNBC
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/11/mark-halperin-conservatives-should-turn-the-other-cheek-when-scapegoated-for-murder/
They are willing to admit that yes factually Palin and conservatives in general were wrongly accused of causing a murder, but that's no longer relevant. What's relevant is that rather than accepting blame for murders which they were in no way a part of, conservatives got upset about the accusations and started to defend themselves. Once again, you just can't make this stuff up. They literally blame conservatives for not turning the other cheek. Ostensibly if republicans would just accept responsibility, it would unite the country (in condemning conservatism), but by trying to defend themselves against scurrilous attacks, they are tearing the country apart. It's not clear to me how a person's brain can even come up with such a bizarre notion, but rest assured it is possible.
Here's an actual member of congress saying it doesn't matter what the facts of this specific case are because He has already decided that conservative speech can only lead to one conclusion, murder. If this attack wasn't caused by political speech, than the next one will be.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/11/dem_congressman_if_violent_rhetoric_didnt_case_this_shooting_it_will_cause_next_one.html
And today all three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) came out with articles criticizing sarah palin for her response to the media criticism.
ABC said "Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story" As if it was her own idea to blame her for the attacks. This was some secret conspiracy to get her in the news. If the krugman's of the world had just waited 2 days to point the finger everyone would have realized she had nothing to do with it, and she never would have been a part of the story. First the media makes her the center of the story, then blames her for being at the center of the story.
CBS blames her for suggesting she was a victim of false attacks, when the real victims were those people who were hurt in the attack. Really? So if someone comes out publicly and calls you a murderer, you aren't allowed to say no i'm not these are false accusations. Cause then you are playing the victim card, when you aren't the real victim at all. (and of course those people who wrongly accused you in the press should never be held to account for their actions, because they were well meaning liberals. The fact that they completely without merit accused someone of murder is not relevant.)
Finally NBC suggested she was ignorant if not racist for using the term blood libel. Along with other networks, and critics they have suggested than only a racist, or an idiot would use that term. I was unfamiliar with the term myself, but it originally referred to christians suggesting that jews stole/murdered their children in order to use the children's blood in their rituals. This was obviously a false accusation of murder, thus the parallel with palin. Those quick to find offense and wrongdoing from palin were quickly offended, shocking, i know. However, liberal Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz of all people has come to her rescue to educate the intellectual media to the fact that despite it's original meaning the term blood libel has come to take a more general meaning in modern times and is, at least in his opinion, in no way racist or improper for palin to use.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
So in conclusion the verdict from the mainstream media: Sarah Palin and tea partiers are evil and caused this terrible tragedy because of their hatred and vitriol. And even if they didn't they are still evil because rather than agreeing with us they are tearing the country apart by not agreeing with us. And anything Sarah Palin does is wrong and bad. And even if it turns out it's not wrong and bad, we'll find another reason that does make it wrong and bad. I have tended to give the mainstream media the benefit of the doubt that they are not really intentionally liberal, but that it just naturally seeps in. Most journalists are liberal, even when trying to be impartial some of it seep in, and the fact that everyone around you is also liberal means nobody ever gets called out on it. But the media's response to this event is so one-sided and bizarre, that it is impossible for me to come to any conclusion other than a deliberate and willful attempt to condemn conservatives by any means possible in order to sway public opinion against the tea party and conservatives ahead of the next election. To some extent this could be blamed on a few rotten apples like krugman, but if that were really true than we would see repercussions for those who so obscenely used their media power to smear conservatives. It could still happen, but i would be very surprised.
So finally. What have our dear members of congress been up to in the past week. (other than the guy who insisted that it's irrelevant whether or not conservatives caused this attack, because his psychic power has allowed him to see into the future when there are all kinds of attacks by conservatives.) The republicans have declared a moratorium on all bills to be passed. They did not want to have any partisan bickering starting up in the aftermath of this attack. The democrats meanwhile have used this event to try to further their political ends. Bernie sanders who was elected in vermont send out a fundraising letter. Somehow this attack means that he needs more money to get re-elected. Clyburn wants to reinstall the fairness doctrine. Because this attack by a lunatic who was in no way motivated by politics has definitively proven once and for all that we can't have conservatives going on radio and spouting their conservatism. Robert Brady wants to make it a crime to use language or symbols that could be perceives as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of congress. Presumably first on his list is putting Obama in jail for calling republicans his enemies, for discussing having hand to hand combat with them, or bringing a gun to a knife fight. Second would be Krugman who encouraged people to hang joe lieberman in effigy. O no wait. He doesn't mean for Obama/krugman or other liberals. Cause we all know they are non violent. He just means for conservatives who are naturally violent. Peter King suggests making it illegal to bring a gun within 1000 feet of a congressman or other important federal official. That makes sense. So from now all gun owners will be required to know where all federal officials are at all times, and never come with 1,000 feet of them. I'm sure with a law like that this guy never would have shot the congresswoman. He would have realized, oh no wait, it's illegal for me to carry this gun within 1,000 feet of her, i guess i'll just stay home and watch cartoons instead. Well done.
If you haven't read them, and are interested i also recommend the following from glenn reynolds
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/10/the-instant-politicization-of
George will
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003685.html
Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html
John Gordon
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/gordon/386308
And Roger Simon
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/01/11/the-sixties-were-violent-not-today/
Who points out the despite all the moaning about the violence of todays society, the 60s were far more violent than today with honest to goodness political assignations, and that back then violent protests by the anti government/anti war left were actually celebrated.
My final thought is that the media reaction to this event was so incomprehensibly bad, that i can only hope it was intentional. That they would act as crazy as possible, so that the conservatives would be forced to defend themselves and while the 2 sides were fighting it out Obama could come in as the magnanimous uniter. Who insists neither side should be yelling at the other at time like this. Thus throwing themselves under the bus in order to give Obama a small boost. I don't actually believe that anyone in the media is either that clever, or that willing to destroy their own credibility, but it would make for a more interesting story. Plus if you are going to destroy your credibility anyway, might as well have a reason for it.
This rush to judgement would be to some extent understandable, after all in the 24 hour news cycle you need to fill the air with all kinds of news and speculation all the time right? Except only if it reflects negatively on conservatives. When somebody tried to blow up a bomb in times square what was the reaction. Well first it was suggested that it was probably somebody upset about health care, or some other anti government thing. After all we all know how crazy and violent those right wingers are. And when it turned out it was a muslim who did it, immediately the NYTimes and CNN urged everyone to be cautious about leaping to conclusions. We don't know why a muslim would try to set off a bomb in time square. Someone actually said we may never know why he tried to set off the bomb. Translation? It wasn't islam's fault, it was societal issues that are far too complicated to ever understand. This wasn't an islamic terrorist, and nobody should jump to that conclusion just because he was islamic and a terrorist. Here's a write up about how CNN reacted after the fort hood shooting (hint they urged not jumping to conclusions.)
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte
So the same news organizations that urge caution about jumping to conclusions days after attacks by muslims, within mere hours can decide that the arizona attack was because of the angry rhetoric of Palin and tea partiers. No caution necessary there. Not a single fact necessary. The media already knows that tea partiers are violent racists so obviously if a democratic congresswoman is shot at, they are the culprits. My favorite line, written within hours by Krugman was "We don't have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was." Despite winning a nobel prize, this shows a total disregard for what odds are (almost certainly willful, not accidental.) Odds are based on facts. Like if i'm on vegas and i bet on black at the roulette table, there are certain odds that the ball will land on black. Those odds are certain. Other odds can be less certain, like the Patriots will probably beat the Jets this weekend. There's no way to measure that likely hood, and some may even debate it, but there are still facts, like the patriots win the vast majority of their home games, they have won more games than the jets this year, they have scored A points this year and the Jets have scored B. Facts. There is no way to determine a clear cut answer, but there is a history to go off. Given that there have been exactly 0 documented murders committed because of Sarah Palin's the odds that a new murder was caused by her can only be either 0, or question mark/not enough information. It's like if there was a football team made up of aliens. If someone asked me who will win a game between the patriots and the aliens, i would say I don't have any idea. I don't know anything about the aliens. There's no way to determine any kinds of odds for such a game. But Krugman would say, we don't have proof yet that aliens are great football players, but odds are that they are. Krugman doesn't need outside information because he is so supremely intelligent that any thought that comes to his head must automatically be correct.
Here is a couple of write ups of how off base krugman is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075660624213434.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704803604576077892006683586.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion
So moving forward. We find out that the guy who committed this act was a crazy person. Literally. To blame his actions on political speech of any kind would be no different than to blame democrats for the attempted assasination of Reagan, or blame john lennon's death on the rolling stones. Not only incorrect, but really completely ludicrous, and something no person could take seriously. So naturally those who jumped to conclusion in the media apologize for their haste in judgement, and admit that this was the act of a crazy person and that politics was not involved in anyway. Oh wait, there, i forgot again where i was. Most refused to admit they were wrong. Regardless of facts to the contrary they insist that this crime is still the fault of Palin and the right wing. Some are willing to admit maybe the original crime wasn't palin's fault, but her response in defending herself was uncalled for and reprehensible. I wish i was joking, but you just can't make this stuff up.
Here's a bit from MSNBC
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/11/mark-halperin-conservatives-should-turn-the-other-cheek-when-scapegoated-for-murder/
They are willing to admit that yes factually Palin and conservatives in general were wrongly accused of causing a murder, but that's no longer relevant. What's relevant is that rather than accepting blame for murders which they were in no way a part of, conservatives got upset about the accusations and started to defend themselves. Once again, you just can't make this stuff up. They literally blame conservatives for not turning the other cheek. Ostensibly if republicans would just accept responsibility, it would unite the country (in condemning conservatism), but by trying to defend themselves against scurrilous attacks, they are tearing the country apart. It's not clear to me how a person's brain can even come up with such a bizarre notion, but rest assured it is possible.
Here's an actual member of congress saying it doesn't matter what the facts of this specific case are because He has already decided that conservative speech can only lead to one conclusion, murder. If this attack wasn't caused by political speech, than the next one will be.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/01/11/dem_congressman_if_violent_rhetoric_didnt_case_this_shooting_it_will_cause_next_one.html
And today all three major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) came out with articles criticizing sarah palin for her response to the media criticism.
ABC said "Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story" As if it was her own idea to blame her for the attacks. This was some secret conspiracy to get her in the news. If the krugman's of the world had just waited 2 days to point the finger everyone would have realized she had nothing to do with it, and she never would have been a part of the story. First the media makes her the center of the story, then blames her for being at the center of the story.
CBS blames her for suggesting she was a victim of false attacks, when the real victims were those people who were hurt in the attack. Really? So if someone comes out publicly and calls you a murderer, you aren't allowed to say no i'm not these are false accusations. Cause then you are playing the victim card, when you aren't the real victim at all. (and of course those people who wrongly accused you in the press should never be held to account for their actions, because they were well meaning liberals. The fact that they completely without merit accused someone of murder is not relevant.)
Finally NBC suggested she was ignorant if not racist for using the term blood libel. Along with other networks, and critics they have suggested than only a racist, or an idiot would use that term. I was unfamiliar with the term myself, but it originally referred to christians suggesting that jews stole/murdered their children in order to use the children's blood in their rituals. This was obviously a false accusation of murder, thus the parallel with palin. Those quick to find offense and wrongdoing from palin were quickly offended, shocking, i know. However, liberal Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz of all people has come to her rescue to educate the intellectual media to the fact that despite it's original meaning the term blood libel has come to take a more general meaning in modern times and is, at least in his opinion, in no way racist or improper for palin to use.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/01/12/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-defends-sarah-palins-use-of-term-blood-libel/
So in conclusion the verdict from the mainstream media: Sarah Palin and tea partiers are evil and caused this terrible tragedy because of their hatred and vitriol. And even if they didn't they are still evil because rather than agreeing with us they are tearing the country apart by not agreeing with us. And anything Sarah Palin does is wrong and bad. And even if it turns out it's not wrong and bad, we'll find another reason that does make it wrong and bad. I have tended to give the mainstream media the benefit of the doubt that they are not really intentionally liberal, but that it just naturally seeps in. Most journalists are liberal, even when trying to be impartial some of it seep in, and the fact that everyone around you is also liberal means nobody ever gets called out on it. But the media's response to this event is so one-sided and bizarre, that it is impossible for me to come to any conclusion other than a deliberate and willful attempt to condemn conservatives by any means possible in order to sway public opinion against the tea party and conservatives ahead of the next election. To some extent this could be blamed on a few rotten apples like krugman, but if that were really true than we would see repercussions for those who so obscenely used their media power to smear conservatives. It could still happen, but i would be very surprised.
So finally. What have our dear members of congress been up to in the past week. (other than the guy who insisted that it's irrelevant whether or not conservatives caused this attack, because his psychic power has allowed him to see into the future when there are all kinds of attacks by conservatives.) The republicans have declared a moratorium on all bills to be passed. They did not want to have any partisan bickering starting up in the aftermath of this attack. The democrats meanwhile have used this event to try to further their political ends. Bernie sanders who was elected in vermont send out a fundraising letter. Somehow this attack means that he needs more money to get re-elected. Clyburn wants to reinstall the fairness doctrine. Because this attack by a lunatic who was in no way motivated by politics has definitively proven once and for all that we can't have conservatives going on radio and spouting their conservatism. Robert Brady wants to make it a crime to use language or symbols that could be perceives as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of congress. Presumably first on his list is putting Obama in jail for calling republicans his enemies, for discussing having hand to hand combat with them, or bringing a gun to a knife fight. Second would be Krugman who encouraged people to hang joe lieberman in effigy. O no wait. He doesn't mean for Obama/krugman or other liberals. Cause we all know they are non violent. He just means for conservatives who are naturally violent. Peter King suggests making it illegal to bring a gun within 1000 feet of a congressman or other important federal official. That makes sense. So from now all gun owners will be required to know where all federal officials are at all times, and never come with 1,000 feet of them. I'm sure with a law like that this guy never would have shot the congresswoman. He would have realized, oh no wait, it's illegal for me to carry this gun within 1,000 feet of her, i guess i'll just stay home and watch cartoons instead. Well done.
If you haven't read them, and are interested i also recommend the following from glenn reynolds
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/10/the-instant-politicization-of
George will
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011003685.html
Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068.html
John Gordon
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/gordon/386308
And Roger Simon
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2011/01/11/the-sixties-were-violent-not-today/
Who points out the despite all the moaning about the violence of todays society, the 60s were far more violent than today with honest to goodness political assignations, and that back then violent protests by the anti government/anti war left were actually celebrated.
My final thought is that the media reaction to this event was so incomprehensibly bad, that i can only hope it was intentional. That they would act as crazy as possible, so that the conservatives would be forced to defend themselves and while the 2 sides were fighting it out Obama could come in as the magnanimous uniter. Who insists neither side should be yelling at the other at time like this. Thus throwing themselves under the bus in order to give Obama a small boost. I don't actually believe that anyone in the media is either that clever, or that willing to destroy their own credibility, but it would make for a more interesting story. Plus if you are going to destroy your credibility anyway, might as well have a reason for it.
posted by Trashcan at 1/13/2011 12:38:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home