"Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, 'he was shooting at the world.'"
It seems that Jared Loughner did not even like or watch TV or the news, according to his friends:
The friends went on to describe deep seated rage: "Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, "'he was shooting at the world.'"
This would make him typical of other mass shooters according to a study 0f 102 rampage killers done by the New York Times:
It seems that a number of the Times's columnists overlooked the paper's own findings on rampage killings when first discussing the Arizona shooting. Do they even bother doing any research? For example, Krugman blamed talk radio, the culture of right leaning hate and Rush Limbaugh. A NYT's editorial made the same points. Maybe if someone there had taken the time to reflect on their own study, they would have reached a different and more even-handed conclusion.
He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.
The friends went on to describe deep seated rage: "Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, "'he was shooting at the world.'"
This would make him typical of other mass shooters according to a study 0f 102 rampage killers done by the New York Times:
The Times found, however, that the debate may have largely overlooked a critical issue: At least half of the killers showed signs of serious mental health problems. ...
*While the killings have caused many people to point to the violent aspects of the culture, a closer look shows little evidence that video games, movies or television encouraged many of the attacks. In only 6 of the 100 cases did the killers have a known interest in violent video games. Seven other killers showed an interest in violent movies.
It seems that a number of the Times's columnists overlooked the paper's own findings on rampage killings when first discussing the Arizona shooting. Do they even bother doing any research? For example, Krugman blamed talk radio, the culture of right leaning hate and Rush Limbaugh. A NYT's editorial made the same points. Maybe if someone there had taken the time to reflect on their own study, they would have reached a different and more even-handed conclusion.
Labels: rampage killers
posted by Helen at 1:39 PM
25 Comments:
Maybe the guy just couldn't take another minute of his crappy life.
Do they even bother doing any research?
Of course not. They've already reached their conclusion. Investigating to find the truth would be a waste.
Cham - that was probably part of it. Rage against the world because his own life was so miserable. Miserable people tend to lash out.
Research and accuracy are no longer the point, are they? What a horrid commentary on America and the press.
Trey
Remember the famous line from the Duke Lacross case, "The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong."
How about "fake but accurate" in describing the forged National Guard memos CBS was pushing just before the 2004 election?
It seems that the truth has little place in what passes for journalism today. And they wonder why fewer and fewer people trust them anymore.
"Maybe the guy just couldn't take another minute of his crappy life."
----------
I don't know, "crappy life" to me sounds like you're trying to cut him down and show him you're better in comparison (like that's going to do a lot of good after he's dead).
As to the living people, you don't sound particularly insightful. I can elaborate if you want.
I don't know, "crappy life" to me sounds like you're trying to cut him down and show him you're better in comparison...
You're reading way too much into a simple statement, but please don't elaborate. It's clear you don't have the insight you think you do.
Please do not confuse Krugman, who wrote an opinion piece, with journalism, which is or meant to be objective journalism. I don't recall the NY Times "telling us" in a report--not an editorial and not someone's opinion, what caused the young man to do what he did.
His "friend" is a guy who gave up on the shooter and had not seen him for some time. Now he is commenting, expressing his opinion.
I have no idea what caused the guy to do what he did. But he does seem on the basis of his previous action to have been seriously disturbed.
ps: Rush may not be responsible but that dope said the shooter supported by Liberals? Now that is opinion seriously off base.
"A 53% majority of those surveyed call that analysis mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad. . ."
In other words 47% of Americans believe what the MSM fed them. The MSM's mission to discredit Obama's enemies is accomplished.
ic,
"The MSM's mission to discredit Obama's enemies is accomplished.
Hardly, if that 53% votes for the next president, Obama is gone. I'm not sure what survey you are using but Rasmussen showed only 28% believing that the shooting was caused by politics, meaning that 72% thought otherwise.
"Maybe if someone there had taken the time to reflect on their own study, they would have reached a different and more even-handed conclusion."
That would require someone to actually read the NYT.
Why does anybody even bother to read the Ol' Rag (NYT) anymore? They've long since plowed themselves into complete irrelevance. Not even worth using at toilet paper anymore. Who wants their poisoned ink on their @$$ anyway?
"Even-handed conclusions" are not the intention.
Hardly the first time people have had to wonder if the editors of the New York Times read the New York Times.
Helen/ic,
I think the distinction is between two different categories. Everyone in the 53% that believe the analysis is an attempt to target conservatives is part of the 72% that don't accept the analysis. However, I can imagine someone not accepting the analysis, but not believing it is an attempt to target conservatives.
“Do they even bother doing any research?”
Looks like we have added another noun to the lexicon...don’t do a “Krugman”.
Let's hope Krugman doesn't have a gun.
Krugman's delusional.
Should googlemap his address to look and make sure he doesn't have an altar in his backyard, with a skull and dried oranges around it.
If not delusional, malevolent, which is far worse.
Paul Krugman along with the NYTs are followers of Moronism.
Moronism –noun
1.a trend or system of thought started in the 1960s, fueled by mind altering drugs and propagated by people of borderline intelligence (formely a thought of as a form of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69) that believes in absurd, and delusional fantasy. (see global warming ) These people, will say whatever they want regardless of the truth but seek to deny the right of others to practice freedom of speech.
2. the philosophy, principles, or methods of the self described progressives, liberals, cretins, half-wits, idiots, imbeciles, and members of the far left (the democrat party).
We know that the right has not been thinking of assassinating leftist leaders. It is not part of our plan for taking the country back. Tea party leaders are busy learning the details of politics and will have more candidates and more people in Republican central committees next year. The left, however, has been advocating assassination at least since George W Bush was elected and long before that with inflammatory rhetoric. What I fear is the killing of a talk radio or Fox News personality. I hope Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have good security.
It continues to amaze me that a large number (47%) STILL believe the crap coming out of the lame-stream-media and liberal blogosphere.
Our educational system is a pure "propagand machine" for Progressive Liberal Multi-cultural thought. It is destroying the ability of people to actually think logically.
fred, you said "objective journalism".
i`m now smirking at your expense.
now i`m grinning at my smirk...
ok, now i`m laughing out loud.
thanks man, i needed that.
But I just heard Bill Maher on his program tonight blame Glenn Beck and Palin again. . .so it must be true!
Seems a common theme with these assholes, is anger at the world about their inability to get laid.
SO, the most obvious solution isn't more gun control, or 'more civility' in political speech, rather the solution is legal (and for 'at risk' men, mandatory) prostitution.
Let's see if Obama makes that a campaign theme for his reelection...
Michael said 11:36 AM, 01/13/11
" ... I hope Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have good security. "
========================
Isn't that a terrible commentary on public discourse in the USA today? Our Constitution specifically guarantees that everyone has a God-given right to speak their minds freely; yet there's a certain segment of the population to whom "freedom of speech" apparently means "freedom to threaten others over speech I don't like".
Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have both mentioned that they receive threats DAILY, and of course they both have to have security guards for themselves, their homes, and their family members too. What an awful way to live.
I am pretty impressed with it.
Lowest Unique Bid
Online Penny Auctions
Post a Comment
<< Home