the narrative
NYT Columnists Who Blamed Conservatives for ‘Right-Wing’ Killings Ignoring Fort Hood Massacre
30 Responses to “the narrative”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
November 16th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
This is a bizarre complaint, and somewhat nonsensical. The writers discussed that there had been a rash of right-wing ideologically-motivated killings. This is true. How is that premise disproven by the Fort Hood incident? Had they claimed that only right-wingers killed people?
November 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I think you’re reading too much into it. The complaint is what they’re ignoring in this case. I mean, where’s the hand wringing investigations into the underlying cause of Sudden Jihad Syndrome?
November 16th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
They are probably ignoring it because it’s just that—a case—not a sudden trend. There was a rash of right wing violence over a short period of time, which made it notable and obviously worth examining. If we see several more cases of Sudden Jihad Syndrome in rapid succession over the next few months, and they ignore that, then there will be a valid complaint to be made. That they fail to scrutinize every single individual case of violence is not really strange though, I don’t think.
November 16th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
A rash? I recall like two incidents and the press was all right wing violence. Hell, look at cnn.com right now.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
January 21—the day after inauguration— Keith Luke raped and killed his immigrant neighbor and her sister, then shot a homeless man before police intercepted him on his way to a local synagogue, where he told them he intended to “kill as many Jews as possible” and said he was fighting the extinction of the white race.
February 10 in Maine, radioactive dirty bomb materials were found in the home of James Cummings, an admirer of Adolf Hitler with a large collection of Nazi memorabilia and a filled-out application for the National Socialist Movement.
February 26 in Florida, 60-year-old Dannie Baker—obsessed with the fear that immigrants are taking over the country—walked into a neighboring house where Chilean students were gathered. He killed two and wounded five.
April 5 in Pittsburgh, white supremacist and recently discharged veteran Richard Poplawski shot and killed three police officers who he believed had been sent by the Obama Adminstration to take away his guns.
April 28, Army Reservist Joshua Cartwright shot and killed two deputies in Fort Walton Beach, FL. His wife reported that her husband believed the US Government was conspiring against him, and was severely disturbed that Barack Obama had been elected President. A recurring theme.
May 6, Stephen P. Morgan killed former NYU classmate Johanna Justin-Jinich. His diary said “I think it’s ok to kill Jews and go on a killing spree.” Johanna was Jewish.
The May 31 killing of Dr. Tiller and the June 10 Holocaust Museum rampage by James von Brunn were only the last two cases of right-wing extremist violence over a short period of 4 and a half months.
Now, I could be wrong because I haven’t checked, but I’m willing to wager that those NYT columnists didn’t comment on the Orlando shooting spree either.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Some of your ‘examples’ there are quite the stretch Guav…for example the last one, you do realize that James von Brunn was a “truther” and one-time democrat? Hardly right wing. If anything the anti-Semitic killings you reference are more akin with Islam’s well-documented violence against the Jews.
Generalizations are tricky; bad things- or so the left tells us when railing on stereotypes, so I find it curious that your accounts are not so much right wing in nature, but anti-Jew.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Ooooh 8 cases. Your Google foo is strong. I won’t even get into the huge stretch trying to tie all of these to the right.
Also, the large body count of the Fort Hood killings and the D.C. snipers is greater than the incidents you dredged up. But the press doesn’t freak out about that.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Drake, how does him being a Truther have any bearing on whether or not he was a right-winger? Last time I checked, the Truthers were made up of lunatics from accross the political spectrum. He was a Birther too, by the way. That in itself doesn’t make him right wing either. One time Democrat? OK—but nobody accused him of being a Republican.
Yosemite Sam, it’s 8 cases in a short time period. That’s what made it a “trend” and worth examining. Let’s forget about notions of Left/Right for a minute—half a dozen violent incidents by adherents of any ideology in 4 months makes it worth examining in a way that the Fort Hood shooting simply does not. All I’m saying is that it is not surprising that the NYT writers did not discuss either the Fort Hood or Orlando shootings.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Come on Guav, I’m not buying it.
It is more than a bit of a stretch to tie these disjointed cases to the right.
Most of them are the types of white supremacist, jew hatred cases that find adherents across the ideological spectrum.
As Uncle said, they aren’t talking about Fort Hood because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Let’s turn it around. Say Major Hasan was a member of a Christian identity church in Bonner’s Ferry Idaho and had a website about whites being the master race and how Hitler was a great guy.
Also, that he gave a speech at a medical seminar where he ranted about the Jews and the white master race.
Do you think, in that case, he should have been removed from his position in the Army?
Do you think the New York Times would be talking about it?
So what is the difference between the above scenario and reality. I would say nothing except the religion and ethnic background of the suspect. But in the eyes of the media, that makes all the difference.
In a sane world, both cases would be investigated and in both cases, the officer should have been removed from the army.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I don’t dispute the enumeration Guav supplied, but he didn’t make the case that these were “right-wing killings”. or related to any “right wing” movement. I don’t think he can.
November 16th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Hey Guav. Quit being ignorant. Jihad is all around.
http://thereligionofpeace.com/
14,000 deadly islamist attacks since 9/11, and counting.
Now THAT’s a rash of incidents.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Yosemite Sam:
I don’t disagree at all—it has nothing to do with what they were talking about at all. My point is that there’s no reason to expect that those writers should have discussed the Fort Hood shooting any more than they should have discussed the Orlando shooting—neither were part of a sudden trend. The other cases—regardless of where on the political spectrum we place them—had underlying common themes. I don’t think Newsbuster’s criticism of the writers for not talking about the Fort Hood shooter is valid, that’s all.
I think he should have been removed from his position in the army either way—but that’s an entirely different issue, isn’t it? And for that matter, there are white supremecists and Christian identity in the military—there are also Latin Kings, Vice Lords and all sorts of other unsavory elements.
The New York Times is talking about it. The criticism was concerning two people who write columns for the NYT, not the NYT in general.
You’re making it sound like the NYT has not covered the shootings. I’m confused as to what your complaint is.
straightarrow:
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but Christian Identity white supremecism and Army Of God militant anti-abortion views are not very popular with lefty liberals. You can throw the Earth Liberation Front, Animal Liberation Front, PETA and Anarchists at me, I’m not going to whine about how they don’t belong on the left side of the scale. Both sides have their nuts to varying degrees and we don’t get to pretend that they have absolutely nothing to do with our sides just because they embarrass us from time to time.
Through my involvement in the hardcore punk scene throughout the 90’s, I became very familiar with Nazi skinheads and their ideology, because we had to fight them all the time. These were not liberal or progressive people. As it currently stands in the contemporary political landscape, racists, racial separatists, militant anti-immigrationists or anti-abortionists do not really find a home on the left or with the Democrats, but they are comfortable with the far right conservatives and often within the Republican party itself. There’s enough overlapping ideology and commonality that as it pertains to modern politics, it’s on the right. Things might have been different in the early 1900s, but it is almost 2010.
Well nothing is to you guys—the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy always rears it’s head and according to you guys, no nutjobs are ever right wingers or conservatives. White supremacists? Nope. Radical anti-abortionists? Nope. Christian theocrats? Nah, not them either. Militia movement? Of course not. Why don’t you explain to me what a right wing extremist does look like.
ATLien: Hey, remember that time that I said there was no such thing as Islamic extremism? Me either.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“You’re making it sound like the NYT has not covered the shootings. I’m confused as to what your complaint is.”
I mean talking about it in the sense of how they are handling the other stories. As in OH NO the right-wing death squad militia boogy man is going to kill us all. I don’t see the same attention towards Isllamic extremist killings from the press.
Sorry I wasn’t clearer in what I meant.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Guav, remember when i didn’t call you a douche? Me, either, douche.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Yosemite Sam: OK, but Newsbusters is basically just complaining that two opinion columnists didn’t write opinion columns about the Fort Hood shooter. They also didn’t write one about the Orlando shooter. I guess I just don’t understand why they should have. Their columns had been about what they saw as a new growing trend. Why does any discussion about violent ideologically-motivated actions have to be accompanied by OMG AND MUSLIMS TOO!
Personally, I sort of just expect that intolerant, backwards Islamic extremists want to kill me because I don’t think like them. I don’t generally expect that from my fellow countrymen though.
ATLien: Since I believe this is the first time you have called me a “douche,” the answer to your question is “Yes” 🙂
November 16th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
“Their columns had been about what they saw as a new growing trend.”
BS. The media had been going on about this non-trend for the last 20 years. The scary militia movement that is going to kill us all!!!! Violent Islamic extremists, nothing to see, move along.
“I don’t generally expect that from my fellow countrymen though. ”
Well, Major Hasan is one of your “fellow countrymen”
Maybe if the media paid attention to what was in front of their faces and quit trying to build up their overblown militia fantasies then the coverage might have helped the army to have the backbone to remove Major Hasan from his position of trust.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Touché.
Sorry, but when someone blows up a federal building full of children, you’re allowed to worry about those people. It’s not “paranoia.” For the same reason we’re allowed to really worry about Islamic extremists after 9/11.
Krugman’s column, from what I can read on Newsbusters, didn’t really talk about the militia movement, although it referenced Oklahoma City, and Judith Warner’s column didn’t say anything about militias. You’re equating the militia movement with right wing extremists more than they are.
Can you tell me what a right wing extremist looks like and believes?
November 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“Sorry, but when someone blows up a federal building full of children, you’re allowed to worry about those people.”
Where am I saying that the Feds. shouldn’t look at REAL threats coming from this sector?
My point is that the media is all over so called right wing violence but has little to say about Islamic extremist violence which has killed many more people. I wonder why?
The militia movement is a joke; a bunch of overweight, fat, white guys playing army. Most of them disbanded in the 90’s. The media is just trying to resurrect a long dead meme. The perpetrators of OK city were tried, convicted and punished.
“Can you tell me what a right wing extremist looks like and believes?”
Can you define what you mean by the right or the left for that matter?
What I see is the media, for political purposes, trying to tie a bunch of nut jobs to legitimate political protest.
My sole point is that the media sees right-wing boogie men behind every tree, but can not and will not deal with other types of extremism that is there for everyone to see.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some way out there crazies to the right of Pat Buchanan who crack up.
But they are not the only crazies out there and it would be refreshing if the media would deign to recognize that fact.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I don’t know what you mean by claiming that the media has little to say about Islamic extremist violence in this country. You act as if 9/11 was not covered, as if “the media” has not covered the Fort Hood shooting. When it happens, it’s covered. When it doesn’t, it’s not.
Not sure why being overweight should make anyone less potentially dangerous, anymore than being skinny on dialysis would make someone less dangerous. It only takes a few people to do something very destructive.
Well no, because I already know my thoughts on the topic—and have expressed some of them here—I’m trying to get yours. I want to know what you would consider a right wing extremist, since you guys say that none of the people I consider right wing extremists count as “right wing” or “extremist.” See my last comment to straightarrow.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
You seem to be deliberately trying not to get my point.
I didn’t say that the media did not cover Islamic extremist violence. I meant they don’t make a big deal about it. They don’t write long, ranting columns about it. They don’t editorialize about it like they do their right-wing boogieman.
“It only takes a few people to do something very destructive.”
Oh come on, dude. The militia movement is a joke: a bunch of harmless cranks that trot through the woods and play army. Nobody would even care about them if the media didn’t see fit to pump them up to get everybody all scared by the right-wing boogieman. If the militia guys spent one day on a real military campaign they would run crying home to momma.
“Well no, because I already know my thoughts on the topic—and have expressed some of them here—I’m trying to get yours.”
In order to answer your question, I need to know what you think is the Right. If your definition of the Right includes people who believe in limited government, lower taxation, etc. , then no one on your list is “right-wing”. If by right-wing you mean racists and Nazi’s, then quite a few of those people could be called “right-wing”. The trouble is that to many on the left side of politics, any people who disagree with them are not only on the right, but on the “far-right”
November 17th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Of course they do. Here’s a column in the NYT which says “Islamic extremism is a profound threat to the entire non-extreme world.” Here’s an NYT article discussing how Islamic extremism, in the form of shariah, is spreading into Indonesia’s legal system. And Muslim Extremists Recruiting From UK Jails. And Alleged Shooter Tied to Mosque of 9 / 11 Hijackers.
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t understand why you’re saying it, because I think you’re incorrect. Do you just want the front page of the New York Times to read MUSLIMS ARE FUCKING DANGEROUS HOLY FUCK every day?
No, you don’t, because I’m not interested in my definition, I’m interested in yours. Your definition and opinion exist independent of mine. I want to know what you think is the Right.
You already have an idea of what I consider right wing extremists to look like, which is why we’re having this conversation in the first place. And you guys have said that you think my concepts of right wing extremists are wrong. So tell me what concepts of right wing extremists are right (in your opinion).
November 17th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“Do you just want the front page of the New York Times to read MUSLIMS ARE FUCKING DANGEROUS HOLY FUCK every day?”
Not really. Not anymore than I want to see endless columns from Krugman, Rich et. al. screaming about how the REICH WING ARE FUCKING DANGEROUS …..every day. Which is A LOT of what they write.
“So tell me what concepts of right wing extremists are right (in your opinion).”
I gave my definition in my previous comment. Here it is again:
“In order to answer your question, I need to know what you think is the Right. If your definition of the Right includes people who believe in limited government, lower taxation, etc. , then no one on your list is “right-wing”.
If by right-wing you mean racists and Nazi’s, then quite a few of those people could be called “right-wing”. The trouble is that to many on the left side of politics, any people who disagree with them are not only on the right, but on the “far-right” ”
Is that not clear. Many people on the non-Left resent being classified with mouth breathing Nazi’s and racists who really have no problem with collectivism as long as it benefits their preferred group.
I don’t think the classification of people into Left and Right is in any way useful or helpful. Since I reject the concept of Left and Right, I asked you your definition of Right so I could have a frame of reference. I can’t give you my definition of “Right-Wing extremist” if I don’t even agree with the concept of Left and Right.
I would call people who act out in hate extremists and leave it at that. People that go out and murder innocents seldom need much justification to initiate their evil.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
OK, fair enough—but I only asked because early on you said I couldn’t tie those examples I gave to the Right. Wouldn’t you have to agree with the concept in the first place to say that? I do agree that such classification are often not useful or helpful, but I don’t think they NEVER are. But if you say that you don’t believe in the concept, I’ll take your word for it.
This is certainly true, but switch the designations and the same thing is true, of course.
Whereas there was obviously elements of socialism and collectivism with the actual Nazi party, that is not really so much the case with the modern day incarnation of people who call themselves Nazis—they tend to be anti-tax, anti-immigrant, anti-multicultural, anti-liberal, anti-Socialist, etc … this is why they are far more comfortable with the Republicans, and on the right, and why I place them over there. They have almost nothing in common with the modern Left or Democratic party.
Here’s a pretty good short piece that pretty accurately encapsulates how I look at it—Yes, James Von Brunn Is Right Wing.
November 18th, 2009 at 9:28 am
“OK, fair enough—but I only asked because early on you said I couldn’t tie those examples I gave to the Right.”
Yeah, I was clear as mud with that comment. What I meant was that in several of those cases you cited the perpetrator didn’t seem to be motivated by politics or anything, they just lost it. For example, Joshua Cartwright just lost it when the police came to arrest him for beating his wife. He didn’t go out and initiate anything. This would have happened if he was a hate filled Leftie as well.
But, you are correct, the Left-Right dichotomy is sometimes useful since so many people have used it for years and it works as convenient shorthand for more complex situations.
“people who call themselves Nazis—they tend to be anti-tax, anti-immigrant, anti-multicultural, anti-liberal, anti-Socialist, etc”
Well, I don’t know about anti-tax. I suspect if they were in charge they wouldn’t have much of a problem with taxes.
Anti-immigrant: No disagreement. But you’ll find some of this on the Left as well. Go to a Union meeting in Youngstown, Ohio. No love for immigrants there, but they love other aspects of the Left’s agenda.
Anti-multicultural: See above
Anti-Liberal: I assume you mean liberal in a social way(e.g. gay marriage, etc.). If this is the case, I agree that the neo-Nazi’s are most assuredly anti-liberal. The Ohio union people are as well.
Anti-Socialist: I don’t know about this one. If they perceive that Socialism is benefitting the objects of their hate, yeah they’ll be against it. If it benefits them, then they love Socialism.
This is why I don’t really like the Left-Right dichotomy. It is overly simplistic and divides people who probably have a lot more in common than they would probably think.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:22 am
This is a very good point. Conceded.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that “anti-tax” isn’t actually workable, so I think that anybody in charge wouldn’t have a problem with taxes when it came down to the reality of the situation. But that’s just me speculating.
Some, but very little. Of course there are going to be exceptions to everything and people holding opinions that don’t fit neatly into the generalizations (which is why you’re not a huge fan of them—I understand). Look at me—for the most part, I am a liberal. We can generalize and say that liberals are for gun control and conservatives are for gun rights, but I’m for gun rights and anti-gun control. It doesn’t mean the generalization doesn’t have a good deal of merit though, just because there are liberals for gun rights.
Neo-Nazi and white separatists/supremacists are almost completely anti-Socialist and anti-Communist. If you are just talking about the Right in general, then yeah, I agree. As with the anti-tax thing, people on both sides talk a good game until their interests are directly effected, or until they find that the policies they advocate also apply to themselves.
True.
November 18th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Been to a union town lately?
November 18th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
I meant very little on the left—unions being a good example—not very little among unions.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“I meant very little on the left—unions being a good example—not very little among unions.”
Did you mean that Unions are not part of the Left?
If so, then I would have to disagree. I have relatives that live in union towns in Ohio and except for immigration, etc. they are very much of the Left. They support minimum wage laws, socialized medicine, etc. Except for the social liberal part of the Left, they are pretty much in lock step.
If you ever drive through the steel towns of Pennsylvania or Ohio, listen to the local talk radio. It is a hoot. People will call up and bitch about Republicans and talk about the need to raise the minimum wage and then in the same breath bitch about illegal immigrants, mexican truckers(Big Issue with the unions) and gun control. Are these guys Left or Right?
Well economically they are as Left as can be. Socially, not so much.
Again, this gets back to my point of the uselessness of trying to fit people into a Left box or Right box. Very few people fit and the ones that do are often rather stupid.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
“Look at me—for the most part, I am a liberal. We can generalize and say that liberals are for gun control and conservatives are for gun rights, but I’m for gun rights and anti-gun control. It doesn’t mean the generalization doesn’t have a good deal of merit though, just because there are liberals for gun rights.”
This is why I like to differentiate between Liberal and Left. Hell, I’m a liberal. I don’t have a problem with gay marriage, I like immigrants and I’m a big fan of diversity. Same is boring.
But, I think government should be quite severely limited, taxes should be low, we should pay for what we want (no deficit spending), I love guns, etc. etc.
Am I Liberal or Conservative, Left or Right? It depends on the issue.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
No, I meant that unions are an example of an element on the left that is often anti-immigration, but that generally speaking, most of the rest of the left is not.