The recent shooting in Arizona you likely haven't heard about

[Revalos]

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/shawna-forde-trial-will-mainstream-m

The 911 call is rather disturbing on that link, I'll warn you ahead of time.

I don't care what really happened (if it was the actual 'Minutemen' and Shawna Forde or an extremist group). The fact that I hadn't heard about this from any major news outlet until I looked on Fark this morning is rather disturbing.

I guess this is the consequence of "toning down the rhetoric." Apparently the media can't report on a politically sensitive heinous crime without fear of the other side of the spectrum calling them inflammatory.

[DCSL]

There are many things that are disturbing about that.

[crb]

I don't know, a nut job killed some people. Not a congressman, not a judge.

People get shot and killed all the time everywhere in the country. It doesn't make each one national news.

To me that story reeks of broad strokes, painting huge groups of people with your brush of hate because one nut job does something. It makes me think of all the many acts of violence (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/14/blame-righty-a-condensed-history/) the last few years blamed on right wingers initially, all of which were discredited, some even shown to be by left wingers. From the giffords shooting, to that immigration center shooting, to the time square car bomb, etc etc. That link has a full roundup.

So when I see what appears to be a left wing site running this story, I'm sorry, they've cried wolf too many times. Maybe it is a real wolf this time, but fuck if I'm going to care. To me, the left has lost any and all credibility when assigning motivation for acts of violence.

Maybe they should have read that story more as children.

[diethx]

Wow, the media is so busy running stories about Obama dying his grey hair, they're too busy to report about this. That's sickening.

[Warriorbird]

It's an organization with issues. I don't really attach it to the Republican Party. I think it's more a lesson that when people snap they can be as bad as what they fight against (Los Zetas, MS13).

[waywardgs]

These people should burn in hell.

[Revalos]

A friend of mine in Tucson sent me a link with more reporting on the upcoming trial for this murder:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_b82717a7-e5e8-55ec-b260-c5f04d05145c.html

I'll be heading to Tucson in a few weeks, so if I see any more local press on this there, I'll post that here too for those who want to keep tabs on this since the national media is still silent.

[waywardgs]

The Onion on Arizona:

Shooting Suspect Released After Not Breaking Any Arizona Laws

TUCSON, AZ—Jared Lee Loughner was released from custody this afternoon when it was determined that the suspect—accused of a shooting spree that left six dead and 14 injured, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords—had not technically broken any Arizona state laws. "While Loughner is clearly a deranged madman who, with this heinous, tragic act, has proved to be a danger to himself and others, he has not explicitly violated any statutes currently on the books in Arizona," Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said of the man whom witnesses saw murdering a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge. "We can only hope that if he acts out again, another Arizona citizen will be legally carrying a concealed firearm and be able to stop him." LaWall told reporters that the only way her state would have any legal recourse in the brutal slayings would be if Loughner were Mexican.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

A friend of mine in Tucson sent me a link with more reporting on the upcoming trial for this murder:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_b82717a7-e5e8-55ec-b260-c5f04d05145c.html

I'll be heading to Tucson in a few weeks, so if I see any more local press on this there, I'll post that here too for those who want to keep tabs on this since the national media is still silent.

I don't know. What mother lets someone put a gun to her daughter and kill her while "playing dead"? The article has so many areas without answers it hard to say one way or another. Like accusations Flores was a drug dealer, but nothing but one sentence saying it. Some fucked up shit though, for sure.

[4a6c1]

NPR was reporting that the judge would not accept a guilty plee because it was too soon for him to fully grasp the implications. HUR OKAY SOUNDS LIKE HES GOOD AT JUDGING STUFF.

[TheEschaton]

I don't know, a nut job killed some people. Not a congressman, not a judge.

People get shot and killed all the time everywhere in the country. It doesn't make each one national news.

To me that story reeks of broad strokes, painting huge groups of people with your brush of hate because one nut job does something. It makes me think of all the many acts of violence (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/14/blame-righty-a-condensed-history/) the last few years blamed on right wingers initially, all of which were discredited, some even shown to be by left wingers. From the giffords shooting, to that immigration center shooting, to the time square car bomb, etc etc. That link has a full roundup.

So when I see what appears to be a left wing site running this story, I'm sorry, they've cried wolf too many times. Maybe it is a real wolf this time, but fuck if I'm going to care. To me, the left has lost any and all credibility when assigning motivation for acts of violence.

Maybe they should have read that story more as children.

Who saidd that the Times Square bomber was the fault of rightwingers? And I don't really know the immigration center shooting you're talking about. Please, enlighten us on all these acts which we were blaming on right wingers.

[Stanley Burrell]

...What's weird is that if this happened again in the next week or so; on a smaller scale, without any other breaking events, the eye-candy factor would diminish...

No one shoot any nine year olds until this boils over or you can't be famous.

[Cephalopod]

To me that story reeks of broad strokes, painting huge groups of people with your brush of hate because one nut job does something. It makes me think of all the many acts of violence (http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/14/blame-righty-a-condensed-history/) the last few years blamed on right wingers initially, all of which were discredited, some even shown to be by left wingers. From the giffords shooting, to that immigration center shooting, to the time square car bomb, etc etc. That link has a full roundup.


I don't think Michelle Malkin is making the point she thinks she is. At least not if you actually LOOK at the sources she's citing. It looks like for every incident she's tried to map out, she has to pull at threads across the dank corners of the internet to make her point. If you want to look at HuffPo and DailyKos COMMENTERS as people 'blaming right wingers on everything', we need to start looking at the RedState, Atlas Shrugged, NewsBusters, BigGov't, etc COMMENTERS, too. Anytime Obama farts it's like a nuclear explosion to those people; should we say that everytime that happens it's the right-wing launching a salvo against Obama?

These Malkin diatribes get tired quickly. It's like she doesn't think anyone is actually going to read them, she just hotlinks as many of her drivel-laden previous posts as she can as long as it has a tangential link to the point she's making. I'm pretty sure she's hoping the sheer volume of bullshit she's peddling is going to prevent all but the most ardent supporters from digging into it, and they'll just parrot her link to Facebook and Twitter so that it will get veracity through reproduction.

...sorry, mini rant on Malkin there.

Regarding the OP, some sick people. I don't see info about the male gunmen that pulled the trigger on the little girl going to trial, though? Jason Bush and Albert Gaxiola?

[Warriorbird]

Michelle Malkin Walls of Text are really easily debunked. They're as questionable a source as her own posts in general (her favorite source). It's almost like posting from Red State or DailyKos.

[crb]

Who saidd that the Times Square bomber was the fault of rightwingers? And I don't really know the immigration center shooting you're talking about. Please, enlighten us on all these acts which we were blaming on right wingers.

Michael Bloomberg, you may have heard of him.

Paraphrasing: "This is probably domestic terrorism, could be someone upset about healthcare reform."

Do you watch the news, at all?

[crb]

I don't think Michelle Malkin is making the point she thinks she is. At least not if you actually LOOK at the sources she's citing. It looks like for every incident she's tried to map out, she has to pull at threads across the dank corners of the internet to make her point. If you want to look at HuffPo and DailyKos COMMENTERS as people 'blaming right wingers on everything', we need to start looking at the RedState, Atlas Shrugged, NewsBusters, BigGov't, etc COMMENTERS, too. Anytime Obama farts it's like a nuclear explosion to those people; should we say that everytime that happens it's the right-wing launching a salvo against Obama?

These Malkin diatribes get tired quickly. It's like she doesn't think anyone is actually going to read them, she just hotlinks as many of her drivel-laden previous posts as she can as long as it has a tangential link to the point she's making. I'm pretty sure she's hoping the sheer volume of bullshit she's peddling is going to prevent all but the most ardent supporters from digging into it, and they'll just parrot her link to Facebook and Twitter so that it will get veracity through reproduction.

...sorry, mini rant on Malkin there.

Regarding the OP, some sick people. I don't see info about the male gunmen that pulled the trigger on the little girl going to trial, though? Jason Bush and Albert Gaxiola?

I remember most of the incidents listed, and in all cases you had mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Reuters, AP) pointing fingers and early speculation at right wing extremism. Or in some cases the victims doing that (in the case of that vandalized office - that turned out to be a left winger). Just like they did with the Tucson shooting. Who cares who she is linking to, because a blog covers a story does not mean that traditional media did not also cover it.

[Cephalopod]

I remember most of the incidents listed, and in all cases you had mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Reuters, AP) pointing fingers and early speculation at right wing extremism. Or in some cases the victims doing that (in the case of that vandalized office - that turned out to be a left winger). Just like they did with the Tucson shooting. Who cares who she is linking to, because a blog covers a story does not mean that traditional media did not also cover it.

You may have missed my point.

Except in a few cases on her list, if there was mainstream media coverage of an event where the 'leftist media' speculated early that right-wing extremeism was at play, she provided very few actual references to back that up. Her simply saying 'the left-wing media said it!' doesn't mean much if all she provides for documentation is a blogroll. Trace back through her layers of blog-obfuscation for most of her stories and you'll find at the center that there is no verifiable proof of someone in the mainstream media engaging in the rampant speculation she's touting. Rather, you'll find people commenting in blogs and on news-site comment areas about it, and her pointing to those people as 'the left.' Sometimes it's outspoken left-wing columnists, people no one would ever accuse of being a 'journalist'. (see: Andrew Sullivan, former conservative and now Michelle Malkin's go-to liberal punching bag.)

The facts do not back up her diatribe, much like her 'Climate of Hate' screed that essentially focused on a large number of fringe nutjobs and claimed that THE LEFT IS VIOLENT.

I'm not saying that this doesn't happen, because it flat-out does and we can't ignore it. People in the media speculate (wrongly, rightly) that it's a left-wing-nutjob or right-wing-nutjob all the time. It's simply not as rampant in the 'upper echelons' of the Media Conspiracy as Michelle Malkin wants it to be, though, and it's no where close to as one-sided as she wants you to believe.

Since you say you remember most of these incidents and you remember mainstream media reacting in this way, I'll give you a challenge. I haven't checked this to see if I'm right or wrong: find CNN somewhere in her list, and show me an instance of CNN speculating prematurely that a right-wing extremeist was involved.

[Ryvicke]

Does anyone that posts here not get their news from the teevee or absolute fucking retards on the internet?

You guys know there's organizations in this country that employee actual journalists and make it a point to put journalist's asses on the line if their facts aren't correct, right?

CRB, I was IM'ing with three friends the morning/afternoon the Tucson shit went down. One of them was telling me he had just read the kid was a crazy Republican that hated Democrats, one of them was telling me he did it because he was a Democrat that thought Giffords was too conservative.

The two articles and supplementary "breaking news" blogs posts that I was reading made it a point to actually publish statements in their stories saying "no motive or political affiliation of the attacker is known at this time."

I mean--I'm lucky enough to work at place that gives me free access to the Wall Street Journal and I get the Times delivered in several electronic forms. But the pay wall on the Journal will let you see breaking news without subscribing.

Please god people--start reading a fucking newspaper that actually pays proper journalists. And for fuck's sake stop arguing about what idiots on the internet who don't know anything more than you know write. Or people on TV that need to fill airtime with speculation.

If you're a conservative, do yourself a favor and pay for the fucking Journal (you're rich, right?) and be actually informed of what is going on. If you're a smart conservative you'll read the Times too, because its news and politics sections are generally better.

I am so sad I went to j-school.

[Warriorbird]

Michael Bloomberg, you may have heard of him.

Paraphrasing: "This is probably domestic terrorism, could be someone upset about healthcare reform."

Do you watch the news, at all?

Michael Bloomberg != Democrat.

[Ryvicke]

Here's what the Times published last June on Shawna Forde/Brisenia Flores:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/27arizona.html?pagewanted=all

The Times is "mainstream media" right?

Another thousand words published on the story by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/23/arizona.slaying.minutemen/?iref=hpmostpop#cnnSTCText

And of course a search turns up about a zillion fucking articles from Tuscson and Southwest-based "mainstream" news outlets.

[Ryvicke]

Michael Bloomberg != Democrat.

I'm really glad someone pointed this out. I was too busy typing hate screeds.

[Latrinsorm]

Paraphrasing: "This is probably domestic terrorism, could be someone upset about healthcare reform."I thought everyone in America was against healthcare reform, and that's why every Democrat was voted out of Congress?

[TheEschaton]

Not only is he not a Democrat, he's been mentioned for the Republican ticket in 2012, if he doesn't rule himself out.

[Cephalopod]

Michael Bloomberg != Democrat.


I'm really glad someone pointed this out. I was too busy typing hate screeds.


Not only is he not a Democrat, he's been mentioned for the Republican ticket in 2012, if he doesn't rule himself out.

Guys. Guys.

Michelle Malkin says he's a liberal (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/michelle-malkin-pointing-fingers-popular-liberal-theme). He's a liberal.



In May 2010, liberal New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to preemptively pin the Times Square bombing attempt on "someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something." The culprit was unrepentant Muslim jihadist Faisal Shahzad.

[NocturnalRob]

If you're a conservative, do yourself a favor and pay for the fucking Journal (you're rich, right?) and be actually informed of what is going on. If you're a smart conservative you'll read the Times too, because its news and politics sections are generally better.
Umm...since when do "conservatives" traditionally not read WSJ? And why do you have to be rich to read the Journal? Angry Jay is angry. The Packers are in the Super Bowl, remember? Happyyyyy...happyyyyy...

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk104/rawrimalemon/MYSPACE%20NESS/zoolander-mugatu-happy.gif

[EasternBrand]

Guys. Guys.

Michelle Malkin says he's a liberal (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2011/01/michelle-malkin-pointing-fingers-popular-liberal-theme). He's a liberal.

I feel uncomfortable giving credence to Michelle Malkin, who is about as trollish on the right as Michael Moore is on the left, but I really don't think it's much of a stretch to make the claim that Bloomberg is one of the more liberal Republicans currently holding a prominent office.

[TheEschaton]

A liberal Republican != a liberal.

[Ryvicke]

Umm...since when do "conservatives" traditionally not read WSJ? And why do you have to be rich to read the Journal? Angry Jay is angry. The Packers are in the Super Bowl, remember? Happyyyyy...happyyyyy...

Oh I think conservatives (QUOTE-UNQUOTE?) definitely read the Journal! I don't think any of our PC conservatives do (unless we're counting you). My reasoning is that if they read the journal they would understand what journalism is and wouldn't come to the PC and squeal with cankerous delight as they post another fucking thread about some shit some blogger wrote (this of course excepts ClydeR for obvious reasons). Also they would know what notable public figures look like as depicted by small dots.

You have to be "rich" to read the Journal because it is the last major US newspaper with large swaths of its online content behind a "paywall." Although the Times is going there soon. The WSJ actually does the paywall better than anyone, most of the recent articles on the Times' upcoming paywall quote the WSJ as having almost half a million paying subscribers to theirs. For this reason I believe our most tardy conservatives don't read it--opting instead for free alternatives, like FOXNEWS.COM--which sadly doesn't have the words 'Opinion' or 'Editorial' above every page on their site--and therefore confuses idiots into thinking they're reading actually-sourced "news".

Fuck you for making me settle down and explain myself.

In closing:

SHORYUKEN
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/nobody_boy/shuryuken.gif

[NocturnalRob]

I don't discount the ability of bloggers to unearth stories of merit. However, take everything with a grain of salt, I guess. I think blogs, etc are posted here because people are looking for stories that speak precisely to their point. That's sometimes difficult to do when you're looking only at mainstream media. Or when you're wrong.

Also, isn't online access to WSJ ~$110/year? I think that's pretty cheap for such a massive news source.

[Ryvicke]

I don't discount the ability of bloggers to unearth stories of merit. However, take everything with a grain of salt, I guess. I think blogs, etc are posted here because people are looking for stories that speak precisely to their point. That's sometimes difficult to do when you're looking only at mainstream media. Or when you're wrong.

Also, isn't online access to WSJ ~$110/year? I think that's pretty cheap for such a massive news source.

Fine fine fine. Fine.

CHAMPIONSHIP BELT

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/nobody_boy/belt.gif

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Wasn't Jason Blair from the NY Times? Didn't the NY Times get blasted for their coverage of McCains alleged relationship with a lobbyist? I have no point other than to say every source should be read with some skepticism. No one is above reproach.