Glen, you should know better than to attribute something so reasonable to me. Look at the top. It was posted by regular-reader Bill. Our writing styles aren't even similar. I'm insultingly sarcastic and cynical while Bill is reasoned and thoughtful.
Note to Bill: perhaps your byline should be in bold red letters so Glen can find it.
I've been sick lately and so I invited Bill to be a guest host from time to time.
Mon Jan 17, 01:04:00 PM CST
Posted by Bill
I thing we all know the answer to the question. The left immediately blamed Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, etc. without any evidence and before any evidence could have been known. The buffoonish Sheriff Dupnik engaged in baseless speculation at his first press briefing. All have been proven totally wrong about the shooter's motivation. But, let's just say for the sake of argument that Loughner had been motivated by a "right wing" philosophy. I say, "so what?"
Am I responsible for the actions of everyone who may hold views that I may share? Unless I subscribe to a philosophy that overtly advocates violence, I think not.
Do you recall the "Unabomber?" This anarchist hermit sent mail bombs that killed 3 and injured 23. This acronym name derives from "UNiversity and Airline BOMBER. Among his sources of inspiration were any number of leftist ideas. His published manifesto is strikingly similar to Al Gore's alarmist book, "Earth in the Balance." Al Gore later was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and has never been routinely questioned by the mainstream media regarding the Unabomber. I think Al Gore is profoundly wrong, but he is not responsible for the Unabomber.
Nearly every modern terrorist openly claims to be conducting his or her mayhem in the service of the Islamic religion. Yet, we are constantly badgered to make the distinction between the "Religion of Peace" and the actions of the jihadists. Remember Maj. Nadal Hasan, the alleged Ft. Hood shooter? Everyone from President Obama to the Army Chief of Staff to the media bent over backwards to look the other way at his motivations.
My point is that there will be crazy people in any society. In our modern times we have decided not to institutionalize most of these unfortunates. Sometimes they latch onto what is in every other respect a good cause or a misguided but non-violent cause and go off the rails into violence. That in itself doesn't automatically condemn the cause, which must stand or fall on the strength of its ideas.
2 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formOne of your better commentaries, Ed. I trust that it signals a moderation in your excesses similar to those, properly, condemned here.
Mon Jan 17, 12:34:00 PM CST
Glen, you should know better than to attribute something so reasonable to me. Look at the top. It was posted by regular-reader Bill. Our writing styles aren't even similar. I'm insultingly sarcastic and cynical while Bill is reasoned and thoughtful.
Note to Bill: perhaps your byline should be in bold red letters so Glen can find it.
I've been sick lately and so I invited Bill to be a guest host from time to time.
Mon Jan 17, 01:04:00 PM CST