I'm glad to see he feels like this as I had expressed my misgiving about this idea of withholding the name and facts about the killer.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-police-chief-john-haulin-refuses-to.html
Here is Josh:
"Over the course of the day we've had a handful of readers write in to ask or demand that we not report the name of the shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, in the Oregon school massacre. As the massacres continue, an increasing number of people think that we should expunge the names of the offenders both to obliterate their memory and deny them whatever infamy or perverted glory they hoped to gain by their crimes. I respect this viewpoint. I simply do not agree with it as something a news organization can or should do. There are various specifics of the argument. But for me it comes down to this: news organizations should report all relevant news. Criminals, of all people, should not directly or indirectly affect that. Except in very specific cases, when grave and overriding equities are at stake, that's the rule we should follow. You can agree or disagree. If it's the latter, I respect your disagreement. But that's not the real point I want to discuss here. Over the course of yesterday and today I've noticed a new phenomenon that seems to have come into its own with this latest tragedy. The refusal to name these offenders' names is now transforming into a purported symbol of action and defiance."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-great-evasion
I don't like the media making this unilateral call either and I don't see how it's a symbol of defiance and action-but rather the reverse. We just basically pretend it never happened-until the next time.
I also think that there is profiling value in knowing the facts of the killer so we can figure out whether or not its' a profile and what we can do to prevent it in the future. Simply refusing to say his name is weak water indeed. And it may retard our shot at prevention in criminology terms.
"It's notable that things kicked off with Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlingrandly pronouncing that neither he nor members of his office would ever utter Mercer's name. Notably and I think not coincidentally we now know Hanlin is a gun extremist who is not only part of thefar-right "constitutional sheriff's" movement but apparently a Sandy Hook Truther - that is to say, someone who believes or is spreading the idea that the government may actually have been behind the Sandy Hook/Newtown massacre to create a groundswell of support for gun control. I don't need to wonder why the availability of firearms doesn't occur to Hanlin as part of the problem."
Thank you. This was my thought exactly in my above piece. Indeed, as he bragged in a ltter to Vice President Biden about picking and choosing the laws he enforces, I don't think it's at all unfair to say that he's got blood on his hands and should be up for legal discipline and censure.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/does-sherrif-john-hamlin-have-blood-on.html
"For the Fox Newses and Sheriff Hanlins this is simply bad faith, an effort to find a feel good cudgel and ignore the consequences of their overriding belief in guns. For many others it is clearly a sincere effort to find something, anything to do or say in response to the country's palpable impotence in the face of mass gun violence."
TK. To me refusing to say Mercer's name is on the same lines as Jeb's stuff happens-with its shades of Rumsfeld.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/stuff-happens-jeb-channels-donald.html
Bring it on home Josh:
"There is no coincidence that this is coalescing as a new "thing" as it becomes increasingly clear, on all sides, that no amount of gun massacres at schools or workplaces will lead to any change whatsoever. After Sandy Hook people really thought that we'd reached a level of scale and barbarity that the scales would tip on the gun issue. But it didn't. And with each successive massacre, it's been harder to pretend that any level or scale of carnage would make any difference. So now that pretending can't even pass the laugh test we've moved on to this pretend issue. One reader who I am not in any way trying to criticize told us today via email that we should stop naming Mercer and "could be leaders in the movement of denying these murderers the attention they crave."
So refusing to name the killer is now the only 'action' we can take.
"It is a grand evasion because we need to make ourselves feel better by finding a way to think we are doing 'something' even though we're unwilling to do anything that actually matters. Except for those immediately affected or those in the tightly defined communities affected we also shouldn't give ourselves the solace of watching teary-eyed memorials or all the rest. Again, as a society we've made our decision. I would go so far as to say that it's good for us to know Mercer's name since we are in fact his accomplices. It's good that we know each other."
"We've made our choice. We should feel that, not play games or make excuses or come up with diversions to make ourselves feel better."
I'm glad he wrote this piece both because he's right and hopefully maybe some will be persuaded but also because I'm glad I'm not the only one revolted by this non-naming game.
At the end fo the day Jeb is right: not naming Mercer is just another way of saying 'Stuff happens now let's go buy another coffee.'
As Stephen Colbert says, our action is to decide we're not going to take any action.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/stephen-colbert-shoting-oregon
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-police-chief-john-haulin-refuses-to.html
Here is Josh:
"Over the course of the day we've had a handful of readers write in to ask or demand that we not report the name of the shooter, Chris Harper Mercer, in the Oregon school massacre. As the massacres continue, an increasing number of people think that we should expunge the names of the offenders both to obliterate their memory and deny them whatever infamy or perverted glory they hoped to gain by their crimes. I respect this viewpoint. I simply do not agree with it as something a news organization can or should do. There are various specifics of the argument. But for me it comes down to this: news organizations should report all relevant news. Criminals, of all people, should not directly or indirectly affect that. Except in very specific cases, when grave and overriding equities are at stake, that's the rule we should follow. You can agree or disagree. If it's the latter, I respect your disagreement. But that's not the real point I want to discuss here. Over the course of yesterday and today I've noticed a new phenomenon that seems to have come into its own with this latest tragedy. The refusal to name these offenders' names is now transforming into a purported symbol of action and defiance."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-great-evasion
I don't like the media making this unilateral call either and I don't see how it's a symbol of defiance and action-but rather the reverse. We just basically pretend it never happened-until the next time.
I also think that there is profiling value in knowing the facts of the killer so we can figure out whether or not its' a profile and what we can do to prevent it in the future. Simply refusing to say his name is weak water indeed. And it may retard our shot at prevention in criminology terms.
"It's notable that things kicked off with Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlingrandly pronouncing that neither he nor members of his office would ever utter Mercer's name. Notably and I think not coincidentally we now know Hanlin is a gun extremist who is not only part of thefar-right "constitutional sheriff's" movement but apparently a Sandy Hook Truther - that is to say, someone who believes or is spreading the idea that the government may actually have been behind the Sandy Hook/Newtown massacre to create a groundswell of support for gun control. I don't need to wonder why the availability of firearms doesn't occur to Hanlin as part of the problem."
Thank you. This was my thought exactly in my above piece. Indeed, as he bragged in a ltter to Vice President Biden about picking and choosing the laws he enforces, I don't think it's at all unfair to say that he's got blood on his hands and should be up for legal discipline and censure.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/does-sherrif-john-hamlin-have-blood-on.html
"For the Fox Newses and Sheriff Hanlins this is simply bad faith, an effort to find a feel good cudgel and ignore the consequences of their overriding belief in guns. For many others it is clearly a sincere effort to find something, anything to do or say in response to the country's palpable impotence in the face of mass gun violence."
TK. To me refusing to say Mercer's name is on the same lines as Jeb's stuff happens-with its shades of Rumsfeld.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/stuff-happens-jeb-channels-donald.html
Bring it on home Josh:
"There is no coincidence that this is coalescing as a new "thing" as it becomes increasingly clear, on all sides, that no amount of gun massacres at schools or workplaces will lead to any change whatsoever. After Sandy Hook people really thought that we'd reached a level of scale and barbarity that the scales would tip on the gun issue. But it didn't. And with each successive massacre, it's been harder to pretend that any level or scale of carnage would make any difference. So now that pretending can't even pass the laugh test we've moved on to this pretend issue. One reader who I am not in any way trying to criticize told us today via email that we should stop naming Mercer and "could be leaders in the movement of denying these murderers the attention they crave."
So refusing to name the killer is now the only 'action' we can take.
"It is a grand evasion because we need to make ourselves feel better by finding a way to think we are doing 'something' even though we're unwilling to do anything that actually matters. Except for those immediately affected or those in the tightly defined communities affected we also shouldn't give ourselves the solace of watching teary-eyed memorials or all the rest. Again, as a society we've made our decision. I would go so far as to say that it's good for us to know Mercer's name since we are in fact his accomplices. It's good that we know each other."
"We've made our choice. We should feel that, not play games or make excuses or come up with diversions to make ourselves feel better."
I'm glad he wrote this piece both because he's right and hopefully maybe some will be persuaded but also because I'm glad I'm not the only one revolted by this non-naming game.
At the end fo the day Jeb is right: not naming Mercer is just another way of saying 'Stuff happens now let's go buy another coffee.'
As Stephen Colbert says, our action is to decide we're not going to take any action.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/stephen-colbert-shoting-oregon
No comments:
Post a Comment