Ok, so I guess now it's ok to stop pretending we don't know the motive of Friday night's shootout at the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs.
"Source: Colorado shooter politically motivated, said ‘no more baby parts’ after attacking Planned Parenthood."
"The gunman suspected of storming a Planned Parenthood clinic and killing a police officer and two others told the officers who arrested him “no more baby parts,’’ after being taken into custody, according to a law enforcement official."
"The attack on the clinic was “definitely politically motivated,’’ the official — who has been briefed on the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity because it is still unfolding — told The Washington Post. NBC News, which first reported the comment attributed to suspect Robert Lewis Dear, said Dear also mentioned President Obama in a range of statements to investigators that left unclear his precise motivation in targeting the clinic."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/28/investigators-search-for-motive-in-planned-parenthood-shooting-that-left-three-dead/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_planned-parenthood-315pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Yet, as you see even here, the Washington Post is feigning agnosticism as to the motivation. 'Gee he said no more baby parts and mentioned President Obama. Whatever could be his motivation?'
This is really not hard. Indeed, it's hard to the extent that you try to make it hard. It's really harder to say the motive is hard to ascertain than just telling the truth. This guy was motivated by prolife ideology. His reference to 'baby parts' goes back to that doctored video that claims PP was selling baby parts. Remember Carly Fiorina's absurd theatrics?
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/after-inciting-terrorist-attack-against-planned-parenthood-carly-fiorina-must-drop-out-of-the-race/23132/
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/30/cnn-david-daleiden-producer-doctored-planned-parenthood-videos-admits-fraud.html
Let me help you if you still find his motivation hard to read. He said 'No more baby parts.' This meant he attacked the PP clinic to make sure they don't sell any more baby parts. If you have another more intuitive reading than that, I'd love to hear it.
In that passage from WP, it's almost like they are seriously claiming that because he also mentioned Obama, this makes his motivation hard to guess-'He did say no more baby parts but then he said something wholly different, he said Obama, so which is it? It's so hard, we may never know.'
But of course in the mind of the extreme prolife Right, Obama is a godless, socialist who has the blood of babies on his hands. Really, is this hard to tease out?
I had a previous post yesterday that, partly in response to Tom Brown argued that while the media in this case seems extremely timid in terms of connecting the logical dots and making any speculations no matter how reasonable, they are not nearly so humbly agnostic when it's regarding foreign terrorism.
Then they are quick to speculate that it's ISIS, that it was due to Obama's 'feckless ISIS policy' , etc. When the Russian airplane went down, pundits like Chuck Todd had one response. 'Was it a bomb? Oh, so you think it was a bomb? Could it have been a bomb" Oh, so it was a bomb?'
But in this sort of domestic terrorism, they engage in this sort of extreme soft-pedaling.
I for my part was pretty certain it was about abortion from the first moment. What else could it be about? Ok, it was logically possible that it targeted PP totally coincidentally, but what is the likelihood of that?
There's such a thing as paralysis of analysis. Yes, there is the amassing of evidence but there is also intuition. Certainly my intuition told me this had to be about PP, which totally confirms it is.
To claim otherwise is simply laughable. We have the fact taht since that video, threats and violence against PP has increased exponentially.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/28/9810572/abortion-attacks-planned-parenthood-colorado
Tom said he thinks there's no coverup. But let's be clear what I'm alleging.I'm not saying there was literally a bunch of people in a room that agreed to coverup the motive. But there are matters of fact and matters of framing. Lies of commission and lies of omission.
The media tends to frame thing one way in terms of foreign terrorism, another way in terms of domestic terrorism.
It is very sensitive about being nonpartisan-especially ways in which the Right complains about.
I had another piece yesterday that argued that the very term prolife' could be read as hate speech, or at least incitement to violence. Think about it: if abortion really is morally speaking murder, then how can you say it's wrong for someone to do what was done Friday night?
You can argue he was a hero or martyr. Many prolife groups have condemned the violence and they deserve credit for that.
Yet, if they deserve credit, it also begs the question: why, if they believe abortion is murder, do they condemn the violence? Why not look upon Robert Lewis Dear as a modern day John Brown who was willing to destroy property and attack plantations in order to free the slaves and end slavery?
Now you can counter that many-most-prolifers don't condone what Dear did.
But the stubborn question remains why? I can only surmise that this shows that most prolifers on some level know abortion is not murder. It is something other than that. If it isn't then why is Dear a crazed gunman and not a hero or a martyr?
I think this is why the media is so ginger here about admitting Dear's motivation. They so hate to take sides and so much love to be neutral and 'nonpartisan'-but what this ends up doing so often is leading them to side with the Right.
They want to feel like they are just calling balls and strikes here. But to even admit here that Dear was motivated by prolife ideology-I argue that calling them prolife rather than antiabortion is in itself incitement to violence-is forcing them to take sides with the prochoice side.
If you admit that Dear is antiabortion then you're also admitting that it's wrong to go on terrorist Jihads against abortion clinics. But once you do that, you're already sort of admitting that abortion isn't really murder.
So the media is in hyper hairsplitting mode as to motive.
"Yet even as authorities worked to determine the exact motive and released few details about Friday’s shootings, the politics of the highly charged abortion issue seemed to outstrip their efforts to be methodical. While anti-abortion activists denied any knowledge of Dear and said he is not affiliated with their movement, pro-choice activists countered that rhetoric by conservatives against Planned Parenthood had precipitated the nation’s latest mass shooting."
Let's be clear that when they say methodical they mean nonpolitical.
"Source: Colorado shooter politically motivated, said ‘no more baby parts’ after attacking Planned Parenthood."
"The gunman suspected of storming a Planned Parenthood clinic and killing a police officer and two others told the officers who arrested him “no more baby parts,’’ after being taken into custody, according to a law enforcement official."
"The attack on the clinic was “definitely politically motivated,’’ the official — who has been briefed on the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity because it is still unfolding — told The Washington Post. NBC News, which first reported the comment attributed to suspect Robert Lewis Dear, said Dear also mentioned President Obama in a range of statements to investigators that left unclear his precise motivation in targeting the clinic."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/28/investigators-search-for-motive-in-planned-parenthood-shooting-that-left-three-dead/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_planned-parenthood-315pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
Yet, as you see even here, the Washington Post is feigning agnosticism as to the motivation. 'Gee he said no more baby parts and mentioned President Obama. Whatever could be his motivation?'
This is really not hard. Indeed, it's hard to the extent that you try to make it hard. It's really harder to say the motive is hard to ascertain than just telling the truth. This guy was motivated by prolife ideology. His reference to 'baby parts' goes back to that doctored video that claims PP was selling baby parts. Remember Carly Fiorina's absurd theatrics?
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/after-inciting-terrorist-attack-against-planned-parenthood-carly-fiorina-must-drop-out-of-the-race/23132/
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/09/30/cnn-david-daleiden-producer-doctored-planned-parenthood-videos-admits-fraud.html
Let me help you if you still find his motivation hard to read. He said 'No more baby parts.' This meant he attacked the PP clinic to make sure they don't sell any more baby parts. If you have another more intuitive reading than that, I'd love to hear it.
In that passage from WP, it's almost like they are seriously claiming that because he also mentioned Obama, this makes his motivation hard to guess-'He did say no more baby parts but then he said something wholly different, he said Obama, so which is it? It's so hard, we may never know.'
But of course in the mind of the extreme prolife Right, Obama is a godless, socialist who has the blood of babies on his hands. Really, is this hard to tease out?
I had a previous post yesterday that, partly in response to Tom Brown argued that while the media in this case seems extremely timid in terms of connecting the logical dots and making any speculations no matter how reasonable, they are not nearly so humbly agnostic when it's regarding foreign terrorism.
Then they are quick to speculate that it's ISIS, that it was due to Obama's 'feckless ISIS policy' , etc. When the Russian airplane went down, pundits like Chuck Todd had one response. 'Was it a bomb? Oh, so you think it was a bomb? Could it have been a bomb" Oh, so it was a bomb?'
But in this sort of domestic terrorism, they engage in this sort of extreme soft-pedaling.
I for my part was pretty certain it was about abortion from the first moment. What else could it be about? Ok, it was logically possible that it targeted PP totally coincidentally, but what is the likelihood of that?
There's such a thing as paralysis of analysis. Yes, there is the amassing of evidence but there is also intuition. Certainly my intuition told me this had to be about PP, which totally confirms it is.
To claim otherwise is simply laughable. We have the fact taht since that video, threats and violence against PP has increased exponentially.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/28/9810572/abortion-attacks-planned-parenthood-colorado
Tom said he thinks there's no coverup. But let's be clear what I'm alleging.I'm not saying there was literally a bunch of people in a room that agreed to coverup the motive. But there are matters of fact and matters of framing. Lies of commission and lies of omission.
The media tends to frame thing one way in terms of foreign terrorism, another way in terms of domestic terrorism.
It is very sensitive about being nonpartisan-especially ways in which the Right complains about.
I had another piece yesterday that argued that the very term prolife' could be read as hate speech, or at least incitement to violence. Think about it: if abortion really is morally speaking murder, then how can you say it's wrong for someone to do what was done Friday night?
You can argue he was a hero or martyr. Many prolife groups have condemned the violence and they deserve credit for that.
Yet, if they deserve credit, it also begs the question: why, if they believe abortion is murder, do they condemn the violence? Why not look upon Robert Lewis Dear as a modern day John Brown who was willing to destroy property and attack plantations in order to free the slaves and end slavery?
Now you can counter that many-most-prolifers don't condone what Dear did.
But the stubborn question remains why? I can only surmise that this shows that most prolifers on some level know abortion is not murder. It is something other than that. If it isn't then why is Dear a crazed gunman and not a hero or a martyr?
I think this is why the media is so ginger here about admitting Dear's motivation. They so hate to take sides and so much love to be neutral and 'nonpartisan'-but what this ends up doing so often is leading them to side with the Right.
They want to feel like they are just calling balls and strikes here. But to even admit here that Dear was motivated by prolife ideology-I argue that calling them prolife rather than antiabortion is in itself incitement to violence-is forcing them to take sides with the prochoice side.
If you admit that Dear is antiabortion then you're also admitting that it's wrong to go on terrorist Jihads against abortion clinics. But once you do that, you're already sort of admitting that abortion isn't really murder.
So the media is in hyper hairsplitting mode as to motive.
"Yet even as authorities worked to determine the exact motive and released few details about Friday’s shootings, the politics of the highly charged abortion issue seemed to outstrip their efforts to be methodical. While anti-abortion activists denied any knowledge of Dear and said he is not affiliated with their movement, pro-choice activists countered that rhetoric by conservatives against Planned Parenthood had precipitated the nation’s latest mass shooting."
Let's be clear that when they say methodical they mean nonpolitical.
No comments:
Post a Comment