In its top story on Tuesday, the New York Times continues to obsess over its own utterly discredited theory about the Arizona massacre. Adam Nagourney pursues the newspaper's year-old campaign of demonization against Arizona voters:
In sharp contrast, Nick Baumann of Mother Jones does good work interviewing a long-time friend of the Arizona shooter:
In Gifford's District, a Long History of Tension
This article was reported by Sam Dolnick, Katharine Q. Seelye and Adam Nagourney and written by Mr. Nagourney.
... Given its locale and its demographic mix, the Eighth District long offered a stage for a combustible mix of issues that have torn apart other parts of the country. But the divisions seemed particularly searing here. Because of efforts to more aggressively close California’s border with Mexico, Arizona has seen a surge of illegal immigration that has heightened tensions. “There was no question there were more and more illegal immigrants coming in,” said Mr. Kolbe, who had held her seat. “They were flooding in.”
Ms. Giffords was seeking re-election at a time when Arizona passed a tough law aimed at illegal immigrants, which Ms. Giffords opposed, and as the state faced a threatened boycott from parts of the nation for passing a law that many people saw as intolerant.
“Immigration, that’s the ingredient that makes Arizona unique in a very twisted way,” Mr. Grijalva said.
In sharp contrast, Nick Baumann of Mother Jones does good work interviewing a long-time friend of the Arizona shooter:
[Bryce] Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a "fake." Loughner's animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says. ...
Giffords was the target of Loughner's rampage, prosecutors say, and the sworn affidavit accompanying the charges mentions that Loughner attended a Giffords "Congress in Your Corner" event in 2007. The affidavit also mentions that police searching a safe in Loughner's home found a letter from Giffords' office thanking the alleged shooter for attending an August 25, 2007 event.Tierney, who's also 22, recalls Loughner complaining about a Giffords event he attended during that period. He's unsure whether it was the same one mentioned in the charges—Loughner "might have gone to some other rallies," he says—but Tierney notes it was a significant moment for Loughner: "He told me that she opened up the floor for questions and he asked a question. The question was, 'What is government if words have no meaning?'"
Giffords' answer, whatever it was, didn't satisfy Loughner. "He said, 'Can you believe it, they wouldn't answer my question,' and I told him, 'Dude, no one's going to answer that,'" Tierney recalls. "Ever since that, he thought she was fake, he had something against her." ...
Obviously, this 2007 obsession was caused by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and SB1070 sending their thought rays of hate back from the future.
Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: "It wasn't like he was in a certain party or went to rallies...It's not like he'd go on political rants." ...
Tierney, who first met Loughner in middle school, recalls that Loughner started to act strange around his junior or senior year of high school. ...
Tierney believes that Loughner was very interested in pushing people's buttons—and that may have been why he listed Hitler's Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page. (Loughner's mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.) Loughner sometimes approached strangers and would say "weird" things, Tierney recalls. "He would do it because he thought people were below him and he knew they wouldn't know what he was talking about." ...
After Loughner apparently gave up drugs and booze, "his theories got worse," Tierney says. "After he quit, he was just off the wall." ... By early 2010, dreaming had become Loughner's "waking life, his reality," Tierney says. "He sort of drifted off, didn't really care about hanging out with friends. He'd be sleeping a lot." Loughner's alternate reality was attractive, Tierney says. "He figured out he could fly." Loughner, according to Tierney, told his friends, "I'm so into it because I can create things and fly. I'm everything I'm not in this world."
Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. "More chaos, maybe," he says. "I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what's happening. He wants all of that."
I think we have a pretty good understanding by now of the killer. So, why does the NYT continue to humiliate itself like this? Have you no shame, sir?
Posts
42 comments:
The mainstream media's coverage of this event is absolutely sickening.
(Shocked that Mother Jones would post something unbiased though. Bravo to them.)
Sorry - delete that post that goes to the leading man thread.
According to a student who went to high school and college with the shooter, he was "left wing," "quite liberal," and a "political radical." Perhaps he killed shot the congresswoman because she was too conservative.
"Whatever happened to CRAZY?"
Chris Rock on school shootings
Not a very intellectually complicated theory, though, so NYT readers aren't interested, and the writers don't supply it.
The MSM assumes that because Giffords is a Democrat that therefore Loughner must be a right-wing Republican. Some also assume that because Giffords is Jewish that therefore Loughner might be anti-Semitic.
Looking at the MSM's assumptions, none of them make any sense with regard to my own experience. I'm a conservative Republican who lives in Utah. I hated former Rep. Chris Cannon and former Sen. Bob Bennett a lot more than Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson. That's because I figure that people in my district have elected a Democrat and so they more or less expect someone who isn't conservative. But Bennett and Cannon were non-conservatives who kept getting re-elected as Republicans through pure chicanery, so I actually hated them more.
"What is government if words have no meaning?"
So, the New York Times made him do it?
The NYT is just evil. Not that Fox News/Daily Mail's attempt to blame Jared Taylor is much better.
The Times thinks it's 1995. That they can set the agenda by lying with impunity and getting away with it. "Shape the narrative", natch.
Of course, since then two things happened. First, and most important, Fox News, which reaches everywhere and gives a counterpoint to the whole rest of the media establishment. Which is why all the correct critters hate it so. And then the blogoshpere, which serves us well as a collective memory for the stuff that would otherwise be conveniently forgotten.
"Shaping the narrative" isn't as easy as it used to be. Time has yet to catch on to this fact. So they still try.
What the blathering heads don't get is, the expressive people don't have to resort to violence. It's usually the inarticulate who resort to it.
Even Kaczynski was inarticulate in his way, unable to communicate other than by hypercontrolled one-way screed. No "national conversation" for that guy.
"I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what's happening. He wants all of that."
So, the media is the cause. Wonder why the NYT isn't promoting that explanation?
NYT 'humiliate"? in the words of Svigor who often posts here "me have bullhorn, you listen"
The NYT still thinks its the paper of record, and it's not like WaPo and other MSM hasn't been helping, its the media orgy they've been waiting to have similar to when obama came along
Great post, Steve. And great job by Mother Jones. Who'd have thunk it?
Hitler called it "The Big Lie." The Slim Times keeps repeating, repeating, repeating the lie that Loughner was a "Tea Party Conservative" egged on by Glenn Beck. False and irresponsible, but they figure some of that just has to stick. So they continue repeating it. These are very aggressive people.
If you ever see the archived news reports of back when JFK was killed, the media right away assumed that it was a "Member of the right wing element in Texas" who carried out the assasination. That was until Lee Harvey Oswald was named as a suspect. But until Oswald's name came out, reporters talked on and on, using the words "right wing element" over and over. Also, I hope that Jared's friends did not know he had guns after seeing what a nut he was! If they did they should have done something to get the guns away from him even just so he didn't hurt himself!
really? a pretty good understanding. This is one account by a friend. Does it make it the best and definitive account?
not necessarily.
the NYTimes provided what it felt was context, nothing to be ashamed of.
you haven't debunked anything.
sir.
your defense of miz Palin is one of your blind spots
The NYT is singing to the choir of right-thinking people in America. If you don't agree with their slant on things, and as a result don't think very highly of the NYT, you may not be too surprised to hear that it's very likely they don't think very highly of you either. In fact, you're the kind of person they could not care less about; you're the kind of person they are sneering at.
I thought Chris Rock's schtick was in poor taste. But then I never thought he was all that funny anyway.
"Have you no shame, sir?'
The answer, it would seem, is "no"...
The media has been biased in a liberal direction as long as I can remember, but in the last fifteen years or so, they've just gone totally bats**t crazy. The most recent attempt to protray a "Communist manifesto" reading schizophrenic as a Tea Party activist is only the most recent example.
"your defense of miz Palin is one of your blind spots"
What the Hell has Palin done in this case to warrent mention, let alone attack or defense? There is nothing, nada, zip, bupkis, NO THING that ties Palin to any of this, in any way. Were it not for the near frantic liberal desire to tar Palin with this in some way, any way, we wouldn't even be talking about her.
Incidentally, Palin is about the last person I'd vote for, for president, but the level of hatred here is just absurd.
If you ever see the archived news reports of back when JFK was killed, the media right away assumed that it was a "Member of the right wing element in Texas" who carried out the assasination. That was until Lee Harvey Oswald was named as a suspect. But until Oswald's name came out, reporters talked on and on, using the words "right wing element" over and over
and in a sense, it stuck - because that's what made the whole 1960s revolution blossom. how often do you hear that Oswald was left? Or that RFK's assinian did it for palestinian rights??
Anyone to the right of Olympia Snowe is a barely repressed psychotic killer. A large scale government effort is needed to correct this. Hate can be eradicated the way we eradicated polio.
It's not by accident that the killer targeted Giffords. The intemperate language by Palin, Beck, Bachmann, etc. helped create a toxic environment. Giffords warned about this quite explicitly.
So, the New York Times made him do it?
Yeah, we can lay this right at the feet of post-modernism, and the climate of non-sensery they've created.
your defense of miz Palin is one of your blind spots
Are leftists going to start using Palin as their next Hitler? This quote suggests so.
"Hitler vomited a zombie army that ate flesh and infected the living with zombie-ism."
"Did not! That's nuts!"
"A-HA! You're defending Hitler!"
NY Times operates like Alan Dershowitz. Power, sleaze, cleverness, arrogance. Its pieces might as well be written by lawyers.
It's run by the likes of Barney Frank.
Anyone else hear that sound bite from the 9 year old girl's father? Basically, he said words to the effect that if he could go back and save his daughter's life with gun control, he wouldn't. The man's obviously a conservative or libertarian, or at least, a 2nd amendment advocate, and takes it seriously. I was astounded to hear that sound bite, really. I thought, "so there are some real men left!"
Don't expect much on the little girl from the media. Unless they decide to attack daddy or some really brilliant spin that I'm not thinking of.
From the BBC:
"Former President Bill Clinton says the US political climate must change in the wake of the shooting of a US congresswoman and others in Arizona."
When Bush was president, "Kill Bush" was Dissent. When Obama is president, dissent against him is Hate. Btw, was it through calm rhetoric that Clinton took the presidency in 1992? And what does Clinton think about Al Gore screaming 'Bush betrayed this country!!!' at the 2004 Democratic Convention?
The most recent attempt to protray a "Communist manifesto" reading schizophrenic as a Tea Party activist is only the most recent example.
Loughner also read Hitler and Ayn Rand. Simply put, he read across the political spectrum. Or did he read anything at all? Youtube doesn't fact-check its members' claimed reading lists.
Loughner hated the government. He was specifically obsessed with one member of the government, who was a Democrat. He hated the Federal Reserve. He wanted to join the military. He liked guns. He supported violence to resolve disputes. Don't connect the dots if you're scared of the picture it will draw.
Loughner has exhibited no left-wing behavior.
"Member of the right wing element in Texas" who carried out the assasination. That was until Lee Harvey Oswald was named as a suspect."
uh, probably because it really was a partly right-wing conspiracy involving a number of Texas oilmen and their rumblings had been in the grapevine for sometime and they had powerful contacts at the White House. Oswald, as he insisted to his very and sudden end, a "patsy." But there were leftys as well. Whenever something like this happens, hold on to the very first reports, such as 9/11. They are likely to contain some of the choicest morsels of truth, but the media has not yet decided exactly how to control it. Lougher's mom belong to the same synagogue as Gifford. I don't think they can hide that forever.
"I think we have a pretty good understanding by now of the killer. So, why does the NYT continue to humiliate itself like this? Have you no shame, sir?"
Because the New York Times is, in it's own way, as insane as Jared Loughner.
"agnostic said...
"Whatever happened to CRAZY"
Chris Rock on school shootings"
That was funny.
During all the political conventions, the rowdiest and most violent protesters and troublemakers on the Left. Republicans almost never protest Democratic conventions--indeed, even most protesters at Dem conventions are members of the Far Left(From 1968 to the present). During the 2008 conventions, conservatives didn't mess with Obama's convention, but whole bunch of liberals heckled the speeches at Republican conventions, and there were riots outside in Minneapolis. But media covered most of it up.
And given Obama's long relations with Wright and Ayers, hardy har har about the 'virtue of moderation' BS coming from the likes of NY Times.
Bourne wrote:
Fox News...gives a counterpoint to the whole rest of the media establishment. Which is why all the correct critters hate it so.
Uh, right.
Fox-News pushed the idea that the Killer "is tied to an extreme anti-Semitic hate group called AmRen". There are so many things wrong with that idea that the Mr.Rosen who "broke the story" should be stripped of whatever press badges he may have for gross incompetence, slander, and idiocy.
MOTHER JONES isn't being unbiased but making the best of a bad situation in light of the fact that Loughner is a left-ish(if not exactly a leftist)Jew.
If Loughner were German-American and right-ish, the MJ article would have been anything but dispassionate and 'unbiased'.
Leftist trick: calm dispassion when one of their own act crazy AND virulent passion when some rightwinger acts crazy.
When the stuff about Jeremiah Wright came out, MSM was very dispassionate and 'objective' in their coverage. They related the story but without judgmental passion. MJ is upset that Loughner is Jewish and has left-ish sentiments, and so, tries to make him appear as 'without ideology' whatsoever.
"He supported violence to resolve disputes."
Yep, that's how we know he is a right-winger. But of course.
It's not by accident that the killer targeted Giffords. The intemperate language by Palin, Beck, Bachmann, etc. helped create a toxic environment. Giffords warned about this quite explicitly.
This is the kind of thing that amuses me. Flat denial in the face of the reality. The guy was talking about killing Giffords in 2007. He actually threatened to kill a handful of other people. What's your major malfunction here? No calendar?
Giffords warned about it because after failing to tar the tea party people as racists the Democrats went with plan B and tried to tar them as violent extremists, flying in the face of reality. Most of the violent rhetoric has been on the left.
"He supported violence to resolve disputes... Loughner has exhibited no left-wing behavior."
Because the left never, never, NEVER supports violence to resolve conflict. Never!
"Shocked that Mother Jones would post something unbiased though. Bravo to them."
I'm not. Mother Jones is a little different from the rest of the "liberal" media, which is largely neoconservative and pro-elite. MJ tends to criticise those in power and oppose policies that are favored by the bipartisan elite. Most of the rest of the supposedly liberal media is largely concerned with trying to justify non-liberal policies like free trade and wars in the Middle East. The NYT, Washington Post, New Republic and The Atlantic are the best examples of this. Typically, they will criticise minor aspects of things like free trade or the war in Iraq while dismissing those who oppose such policies in full as crazy.
The media is pushing this because it WORKS. It got Clinton re-elected and Obama will ride it for all its worth.
Already we are seeing proposals out of Congress to create Congresspeople as special, above it all, protected classes:
1. Rep Clyburn wants Congressmen to be exempted from TSA scrutiny.
2. Rep King wants no guns within a thousand yards of a Congressman or judge.
3. Laws against "threatening" or "inflammatory" comments about office-holders, federal and state/local.
4. Gun bans and gun control.
It will probably get rammed through because Boehner and the rest are scared silly. They depend on and fear the Media. That's why no Republican has dared defend Palin, as lefties in the Media openly call for her assassination. Heck they're quoting Rahm Emmanuel and saying let no good crisis go to waste.
It's not by accident that the killer targeted Giffords. The intemperate language by Palin, Beck, Bachmann, etc. helped create a toxic environment. Giffords warned about this quite explicitly.
Of course it wasn't by accident. He targeted Giffords because he lived in her district, and she had been at several events in his hometown where he had a chance to develop a grudge against her. Maybe if he had driven to California and shot Nancy Pelosi, the "Sarah Palin made him do it" theory might hold some water. As it is, with him going on a rampage right where he lived, I think Giffords's actual politics meant about as much to him as Senator Palantine's meant to Travis Bickle.
Loughner has exhibited no left-wing behavior.
Sure, if you don't count listening to left-wing punk bands, supporting John Kerry, and being described as liberal by just about everyone who is asked about you, there's really no evidence at all that he was left-wing.
I'll grant you that some of that stuff is pretty old, but it's really not true to say that he exhibited no left-wing behavior at all.
airtommy said:
Loughner has exhibited no left-wing behavior.
Click on this YouTube link and watch him burn a Stars and Stripes flag. His title BTW.
America: Your Last Memory In A Terrorist Country!
"Whiskey said...
2. Rep King wants no guns within a thousand yards of a Congressman or judge."
I would like to see a law that forbids Congressmen or judges from getting within a thousand yards of our guns.
Post a Comment