Skip to comments.In Search of 'Why' ... Mark Steyn
Posted on 08/17/2012 4:58:50 AM PDT by Rummyfan
The media conventions are pretty much chiseled in concrete by now. If a guy guns down large numbers of people while shouting "Allahu akbar!" don't worry, it's a one-off, part of no broader pattern, just a "lone wolf" who succumbed to "workplace violence" (Major Hasan at Fort Hood) or worries about impending foreclosure (the Times Square bomber) or any of the other highly specific, individual, customized circumstances to which card-carrying members of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves are prone. But if a genuine "lone wolf" guns down large numbers of people without shouting "Allahu akbar!" the media herd stampedes to ask the obvious question:
And, being dreary groupthink liberals, when they're seeking a motive for mass murder the first place they look is the livelier factions of the conservative movement: Tucson, Ariz.? Must be "toxic rhetoric . . . coming, overwhelmingly, from the right" (according to Paul Krugman of the New York Times). Aurora, Colo.? Must be something to do with the Tea Party (according to Brian Ross of ABC News).
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
Actually, the Batman movie’s villain did have an identifiable cause in mind (essentially, Marxism), although there were others who were getting back at real or imagined insults and others just along for the violence, exactly like the real-life anarchists of today.
I think that assigning rational causes to the actions of genuine nutcases is a futile task. That said, the atmosphere of violence created by the left, ranging from the loony anarchists “storming” Starbucks to the jihadis being admired by the left for their willingness to take out harmless civilians, probably does trigger something in the back of their crazed minds that makes them feel this is cool and a way to be powerful and get respect.
Of course, when there’s an actual cause, such as that acknowledged by the shooter at the FRC (he didn’t like their policies and had 15 Chik Fil A sandwiches that he obviously expected would make his message clear), the press ignores it because it’s inconvenient to their left-wing narrative.
Another Steyn home run.
“So Hollywood gets more and more technically accomplished to less and less purpose.”
So why isn’t Steyn subbing much for Rush these days? Has there been a falling out?
Bane, or Joker? I haven't seen the new one yet, so I don't know about Bane. I always thought Heath Ledger's Joker was just a psychotic who did terrorism for terrorism's sake. I think Steyn was referring to The Joker.
I love Mark Steyn- I feel smarter from reading or listening to him.
Bane character did not believe in Marxism in latest movie. He used the Marxist language as a cover for anarchy and ultimately mass destruction with a nuclear device.
Don’t know about that.