The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
Let me be the first to apologize. As Hedrik Hertzberg has explained in the latest New Yorker, it turns out that conservatives are to blame for the Left’s kneejerk reaction to the Tucson shooting. “From the outset,” writes Hertzberg, “commentators of all persuasions assumed” that the shooter was motivated by conservative rhetoric. And that assumption -- wrong though it may have been in the specific case of Tucson -- is the ultimate indictment of the "shocking vituperation and hatred" coming from conservatives; particularly (brace yourself) Sarah Palin.
Of all persuasions? Help me out, Ricocheterians: can anyone point me to a single conservative commentator who “assumed” "from the outset" that Loughner was a right-wing lunatic? But still, it’s perfect isn’t it? If Hertzberg, Krugman, et al. accuse conservatives of having blood on their hands, then it must be because conservatives are evil. Makes perfect sense. Anybody have an alternative theory?
- Comment (16)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
From his days as a Carter speechwriter to the once-hallowed pages of said mag , he hauls mediocrity by the truckload.
Nov '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
Liberals hate us. They really, really hate us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRk054bz44g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUPeGaj30Sw
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/they-hate-our-guts_511739.html
To liberals, conservatives are uncouth imbeciles — sub-humans fit only to be whipped like dogs, herded like sheep, and squeezed like lemons for tax revenue. And they will never give us a break.
You can believe that, if you believe anything.
Jul '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
You see, that's the funny thing. The first place I go for suspects is the New Yorker subscriber list. With outrageous pseudonyms like Hedrik Hertzberg, these people are obviously calling the shots for L'Internationale and the Illuminati. Hertzberg himself uses diction that I last heard from a space alien trying to sell me a hardback copy of Howard Zinn's complete works.
It turns out that these poor saps were imported by Lord North to serve as extraordinary Tory agitprops during the unpleasantness with the Colonies. When they sent for a cache of high explosives they imported from their home star system, it arrived in Boston and was awaiting delivery disguised as tea when some local ruffians in make up and feathers to hatchets to the boxes and dumped the explosives into Boston Harbor.
The clients change, but they are now established as the quadrant's veteran anti-American force. They have won all the contract bids and Galactic Grants. They have had luck electing the occasional alien as President, but it never quite seems to pay off. They have monopolized the objective so utterly that insiders now consider the objective utterly unachievable.
Jun '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
Yeah...that was my first thought...another 22-year-old jobless atheist dope-smoking death-metal-listening loner--the typical Tea Party rally speaker.
Jul '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
Being of some persuasion or other, I immediately assumed that the guy was a member of Sarah Palin's book club and that she bought him the gun, loaded up the magazine and drove him to Safeway.
Some of my squishy friends thought I was going a bit far. They speculated that Sarah Palin's dog told the guy to do it.
Son of Sarah.
Dec '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
Don't forget that he thought 9/11 was an inside job and became enraged at the name of George W. Bush.
Dec '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
It's all very simple: Their little plan backfired and they need somebody to blame. This is the abuser telling the abused, "You made me do this to you. I didn't want to do it, but you made me."
Oct '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
Oh c'mon . Let's quit wasting our time on this B.S. Why don't we just give it all a number... kinda like the old story about the prisoners who got to the place where the same joke became so familiar that instead of wasting their time telling the same joke, they simply gave each one a number.
When someone shouted out "number 7", they all laughed since they already knew the punchline.
So... "number 14" is "The conservatives are to blame". Now, we no longer have to waste our time reiterating the meme.
May '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
It is interesting how collective amnesia can hit - with pundit after pundit forgetting the years of the Bush Presidency. Having this infirmity hit at the same time as the biggest group think (Conservatives did it) stupidity since Pearl Harbor makes it truly remarkable. But the icing on the cake is that these same "intellectuals" endlessly put down Palin's (among others) acumen while demonstrating a collective IQ in single digits.
I can not think of an appropriate response other than ridicule & scorn. The only reason that this much effort is warranted is that letting these absurdities go unchallenged would encourage them.
Sep '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
AmishDude
Don't forget that he thought 9/11 was an inside job and became enraged at the name of George W. Bush. · Jan 19 at 8:45pm
Loughner? Or Hertzberg?
Nov '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
Number 14.....
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
::dead silence::
New guy trying to ingratiate himself sits down, turns to grizzled lifer. “What happened?! You said that joke always kills.”
“You told it wrong.”
Jan '11
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
Michael Kinsley at Politico is flogging the same dead horse: "Right wing's breathtaking bait and switch after Tucson." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47701.html
Or maybe it's a horse of a slightly different color. Whatever.
Michael, Hendrik: Let it go. You screwed this one up. We all know you screwed it up. You're just embarrassing yourselves by standing out there on the playground screaming that reality is unfair. Please. It's not even fun to watch.
Sep '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
"But it is also the truth that, when the news broke of the Tucson shootings, no one’s first thought was that some unhinged leftist was responsible. From the outset, commentators of all persuasions assumed something like the opposite—assumed it openly if their instant impulse was accusatory, implicitly if it was defensive."
Ridiculous. No one? Pauline Kael syndrome (couldn't understand how Nixon got elected, no one she knew voted for him)
But I'd rather focus on this style of writing lefties are so fond of: It's the,
There really is no similarity or connection whatsoever between these two things , but here is how they really can be connected. Allow me, brilliant wordsmith and intellect that I am, to guide you through the jungle of arguments against, to blaze a path through the thicket of logical obstacles, and bring you dear reader, to your desired destination!
This is why these people subscribe to the New Yorker, to give them a rationale for what they desperately want to believe. That, and the cartoons.
Edited on Jan 20, 2011 at 2:48amSep '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
When I picked up my first copy of The New Yorker I thought it had to be pornography. There were cartoons, and of course like Playboy or Hustler, some articles to provide a sense of legitimacy.
I flipped through to find the centerfold and there was none. Had they stopped at some point, like Esquire, and gone legit? Upon more exhaustive research, I learned that The New Yorker never had centerfolds. Sure, there were some racy ads here and there but never any real porn graced the pages. So let me say definitively that The New Yorker is not and never has been pornography.
But how come I thought the magazine might be pornography in the first place? Was it the magazine stand selling The New Yorker mixed in with magazines about bondage, bikers, with titles like Juggs, Leggs and Hustler which no doubt collectively accounts for the bulk of it's revenues?
Or was it the cartoons which are splattered all over every porn mag worth hiding under your bed? Which other literary publications have cartoons? None.
The New Yorker needs to stop publishing cartoons if it doesn't want to be mistaken for, and therefore promote, pornography.
Edited on Jan 20, 2011 at 4:03amJul '10
Re: The New Yorker Reconsiders Tucson and Finds that Conservatives are Still to Blame
And Hedrik Hertzberg has proved you right!