About Loughner

I admit, while I've stated it's a pointless debate here and on comments at SE, there are elements of the Arizona shooting that interest me.

For example, liberals (who I think immediately went on the offensive) began pontificating based on little facts (since little had come in). It all seemed to add up to:

Rhetoric = shooting.

I don't know. But if I were preparing a case or for a debate, I'd want a little more evidence than what's been posited by those who take this position. Sure, there are some issues worth discussing. For example, do people take political cues from political rhetoric? It's something that's always been on my mind considering some of the talk that comes out of Quebec nationalists which to my mind are insidiously and needlessly inflammatory.

Of course, if they do act alone on them, one could easily just dismiss it as a mentally challenged individual who had bigger problems than a political view. God, doesn't anyone watch Law & Order anymore?

What fascinates me is how people who should know better blew smoke out of their smug asses before facts came in. So Loughner read the Communist Manifesto and alluded to anti-government nonsense (two mutually exclusive things by the way likely suggesting the guy didn't know himself where he stood). It hardly makes him a left or right wing nut. We just don't know at this point. Anyone taking a firm stand on this front is trying to score cheap political points...and is an asshole.

A typical liberal hackhit piece we can use is one from my pal, my buddy, my brother in arms, Paul Krooooogman.

It begins and ends with:

"We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was."

Right there we should stop reading.

But I didn't. Meh.

Journalistic integrity, liberal conscience my friggin ass. I think these people actually believe if they eat their own shit the intellectual gods would smile and grant them immortality.

All I ask, left or right, is for some sane, smart, level headed judgment backed up with some facts. Seeing it's too difficult to gather total facts for a NYT writer, I'll accept some. Anything that passes as fact to support a claim. If the facts support the position then so be it. Then we can move to address it. In the meantime, how does a piece like this help anything?

And then he adds:

"I’m going to take down comments on this one; they would need a lot of moderating, because the crazies are coming out in force, and it’s all too likely to turn into a flame war."

I wonder if a blog post like this questioning his puerile position would be deemed as "crazy." Seems to me these days words like "racist" and "crazy" can apply to anyone.

Hitler anyone?






.