Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Newest Disgrace
The Wall Street Journal distinguishes itself this morning, offering the news straight and well-reported. In “Possible Associate of Suspect is Sought,” we learn that Jared Loughner may have had an accomplice. In “Judge Remembered as Fair-Minded,” we find a profile of the slain Judge Roll, a sober, hard-working jurist. And in “Gunman Described Himself as ‘Terrorist,'” we learn that Loughner was a rock musician, a pothead, a high school dropout, and a very ill young man who had caused five disturbances at his community college and posted a long series of strange, disjointed videos on YouTube in which he claimed to be capable of “mind control” and railed against “English grammar.”
Political content? Zero.
Which brings us to the New York Times.
The Times’s lead headline at this hour: ”In Attack’s Wake, Political Repercussions.” Other stories at this hour on the Times’s online front page: ”Boodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol on Politics” and “A Turning Point in the Discourse, But in Which Direction?”
Disgraceful. Utterly disgraceful.
Published in General
Which is why I pay for the WSJ and tsk tsk to myself when Ricos cite or praise the NYT. Consistent and predictable, in both cases. No wonder the Times keeps pushing that federal subsidy for the press nonsense.
Why is it too much to ask for a reasonable period following these kinds of mad acts during which time we can sort out the facts, deal with the personal and collective grief and report on the aftermath? It seems to me there’s nothing more disrespectful to the victims of such tragedies than to use them as pawns in an effort to make points about various political and social issues. If there is political poison at work, it’s being administered by those who pile on with their pre-packaged analyses before we’ve had any chance to deal with the horror of the situation. The victims, their families (like our our George Savage), their friends and all of the rest of us, deserve the chance to grieve before the lectures and recriminations begin. Have these people and no shame?
Beautifully said.
Peter, this is the never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste crowd. Why wave an imaginary bloody shirt when the real thing will do?
There’s a part of me that wants to make counter political arguments and a part of me that says, no, let it go as this is not the time. Yet, the left works so hard to counter the results of the ballot box, to dictate from either the bench or the bureaucracy, do they think that no one would ever react to their own subversions?
Of course, what makes no sense is, that Rep. Giffords is a Blue Dog, a former Republican in a conservative district that defends 2nd Amendment rights and her state’s stance on illegal immigration. She won a district that was a redrawn after the 2000 census that includes parts of Jim Kolbe’s old district. Kolbe was a moderate openly-gay Republican. Tucson is not exactly a hot bed of the radical right.
I think part of the problem is the fact that we, on the right, have cooperated with the nonsense and sillyness from the left and allowed them to wear us down regarding loosing the distinction between ‘discernment’ and ‘judgement.’
God pronounced to us ‘Judge NOT, lest ye be Judged,’ yet he then turned around and gave us the right to be fruit inspectors. When the left began proclaiming Fruit Inspection as Judgement, and we cooperated, that was the beginning of the end of civility.
Now, we have far too many on the right who are willing to ‘go along’ with the memes spewed forth by the left such that we are supporting, rather than ridiculing, what those on the left are saying.
Statements like, “Sarah showed poor judgement when she used gunsights on her map,” make it dificult to establish the proper level of ridicule to those who will put forth that meme, and as such emboldens the left to carry it to the next level.
A next level for which those among the ‘reasonable’ right will continue to lend creedence and will once again ratchet up the shameless attacks aimed at gaining a political victory1
Thanks for this Peter and Pat. I agree. Last night as I watched news reports, I was horrified at the lack of compassion for the victims. Lives were lost. Deep, unimaginable pain is being felt by family members. It’s sickening in its sadness. It is dismissive of this pain, and downright disrespectful, to either try to assign blame or to try to deflect blame by sharing “clues” or “tidbits” about the killers. He (or they) are unstable, ill, chemically unbalanced, etc. etc. He (or they) were not lucid, therefore any association or not with any political group is irrelevant. I mean, maybe the guys liked to watch “Mad Men.” Is there a link? It’s so absurd and so cruel to the families to try and make connections. (I have to say that I blame the police chief for a bit of this, as well, but maybe that was addressed on another post.) When a person dies, we try to honor their life and mourn with those left behind. Turning such (all!) focus on the evil that caused the death is disgraceful.
Except for one thing, Ursula. When something senseless happens it is just human nature that among the first words out of our mouths is, “Why?”
We are curious beasts and that is both our blessing and our curse. It is a curse in this case because the real answers may yet come out. The perpetrator is alive and available for examination. The media is so used to these things being murder/suicides that they almost enjoy the freedom to place thoughts in the killer’s heads and explain them as they see fit.
Really doesn’t this just go back to our discussions of the difference between conservatives and leftists? The conservative will generally absorb an incident and sort out the facts before judging. A leftist is so consumed with politics, they immediately assign political weight to every incident and judge, mostly incorrectly, from there.
And Jaydee, you are correct when pointing out that some of us allow the language of the debate to be confiscated. Even some right here at Ricochet have bemoaned and, therefore, advanced the tripe put forth by the left, that Sarah Palin’s “targeting” language during the election campaign was regrettable I say BULL. It is language that has been used by political strategists for many decades. By allowing, even supporting, these distortions, just because she doesn’t happen to be your favorite candidate, one actually casts aspersions on all conservatives. We must take back the language to win the debate.
Nothing really to add to that, Pat. Your concise eloquence speaks volumes. My prayers for the suffering, their families, and for our own George Savage.
Peter, this is just one more indication that The New York Times has become a partisan rage. The articles you cite were written to give liberals their talking points. These days, that is the Times’ chief function, and the same can be said for MSNBC, CNN, and the legacy networks. Events unfavorable to the left-liberal cause are either ignored, relegated to a tiny article on p. 78, or treated solely as a story about conservative reactions to these events. The proper thing to do is to ignore the Times.
I basically echo Pat and Peter’s sentiments, but I do think, however, that when we’re talking about a shooting at a political event, at the hands of a young man who was largely politically (and mostly psychotically) motivated, it’s hard to impede the natural questions and issues that I imagine even the families of the victims are beginning to ask. Who was this guy? What did he believe? Was he a part of a political activist group?
Of course it’s so soon and I have nothing but condolences and prayers to offer to the victims who survived and the families of all those involved yesterday.
I heard a few different people on Fox News yesterday say “Please send positive thoughts to the friends and families of the victims.” If we can’t say “prayers” at a time like this, when can we?
I wouldn’t use the NYT to paper train a dog. Time to let it go. The harm it does to our country far outweighs any benefit it provides by the occasional report by John Burns or whomever.
The media have once again performed up to our expectations; this is appalling, but not entirely unexpected.
What’s even more appalling is the rhetoric of Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, spewing more chunks of the same old-as-the-hills, shopworn gobbledygook about the coarsening of the political discourse in this country, etc.
Quite the double standard. I don’t recall revulsion at the rhetoric of, for example, SEIU’s Andy Stern, who said horrifying, Lenin-esque things like, “If they can’t see the power of persuasion, then maybe they’ll understand the persuasion of power.”
Well said. And to answer your question, no they have no shame. But, of course, you knew that.