Exposing the lack of compassion by conservatives and
debunking right wing hypocrisy at every opportunity.
Sully agrees (grudgingly to be sure) with Malkin:
There's really something more visceral at play here to my way of thinking. The SOURCE of Roeder and Muhammad's radicalization are as far removed as possible.
It's dog-bites man when a Muslim black man radicalized in Yemen hates America. Quite another when the victim's job description does not comtemplate him being in the line of fire like a soldier, and the shooting is in Church not a military recruiting center -- that's shocking enough. Add to that the shooter belongs to the majority religion, not a marginalized minority; is a member of the predominate political demographic, being a white male; and the cognative dissonence of trying to save lives by taking them as Roeder no doubt would argue, as opposed to Muhammad simply being on a killing spree.
As foreign as Muhammad may seem to so many in the heartland, we "get" him. He's pissed at us and he has his reasons, no matter how warped. Roeder on the other hand could be a neighbor and we'd never suspect he was dangerous, and the reasons for what he did leave us shaking our heads and arguing amongst ourselves.
So it's not bias or anything sinister, just human nature why the two incidents are treated differently. In so many basic, gut level ways they couldn't be more dissimilar.
Dr. Tiller's suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, is white, Christian,There are obvious differences, and profound similarities. None fairly explain let alone excuse the difference in attention -- which of course adds fodder to the victimization card the Malkinites of the world love to play first and foremost: liberal media bias.
anti-government and anti-abortion. The gunman in the
military-recruitment-center attack, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is
black, a Muslim convert, anti-military and anti-American. Both crimes
are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate
treatment of the two brutal cases by the White House and the media is
striking.
There's really something more visceral at play here to my way of thinking. The SOURCE of Roeder and Muhammad's radicalization are as far removed as possible.
It's dog-bites man when a Muslim black man radicalized in Yemen hates America. Quite another when the victim's job description does not comtemplate him being in the line of fire like a soldier, and the shooting is in Church not a military recruiting center -- that's shocking enough. Add to that the shooter belongs to the majority religion, not a marginalized minority; is a member of the predominate political demographic, being a white male; and the cognative dissonence of trying to save lives by taking them as Roeder no doubt would argue, as opposed to Muhammad simply being on a killing spree.
As foreign as Muhammad may seem to so many in the heartland, we "get" him. He's pissed at us and he has his reasons, no matter how warped. Roeder on the other hand could be a neighbor and we'd never suspect he was dangerous, and the reasons for what he did leave us shaking our heads and arguing amongst ourselves.
So it's not bias or anything sinister, just human nature why the two incidents are treated differently. In so many basic, gut level ways they couldn't be more dissimilar.
Subscribe via Email
0 Comments:
POST A COMMENT