We’re barely outside the Berg’s 18th Law theshold with the Las Vegas shooting.
But buried on paragraph 17 of The Guardian’s coverage of the atrocity is a hint as to why the story may well soon disappear from the mainstream media:
Paddock’s motive remains unknown. “This person may have been radicalised, unbeknownst to us, and we want to identify that source [according to Las Vegas sheriff Joe Lombardo].”
Of course, everyone on all sides is racing to show Paddock was with the “other side”; some lefty sites are “reporting” he had friends of friends with “alt-right” sympathies, while “InfoWars” is claiming he was influenced by “Anti”-Fa (although the target – a country western concert, with an audience many a “progressive” would like to see scourged from the earth (by organic, gluten-free, carbon-neutral means, not icky guns). Only ISIS seems to want to claim the guy.
But if it turns out that InfoWars is right, and that the target bepeaks the motivation?
Watch this story disappear faster than the last bag of Cheetos at a Dave Matthews concert.
People are forming opinions on the facts dribbled out by leaks, because law enforcement isn’t talking. That’s not a good thing – for law enforcement.
Remember the guy who shot up the gay nightclub in Miami? Nobody knew his motivation but we were assured it was not radical Islam, definitely not a terror attack. Until about a year later, when the tapes of his phone calls were finally released, and yep, it’s all about radical Islam. Law enforcement lied to the public to keep them calm, for their own good.
Now that law enforcement has established the precedent that it’s willing to lie to the public, why should I believe anything they say about this case? Why not speculate about what they’re withholding “for my own good?”
Law enforcement would enhance its own credibility if it was up front about the facts. Yes, we found semi-autos. Yes, they were modified to bump-fire. Yes, they were all legal to own and legally acquired. No, we have no indication he was treated for mental illness, he has no criminal record. Just tell us the facts.
Well said, Joe. The thing that says it for me is that, a day after the attacks and the death of the a-hole, even the number of guns found in his hotel suite was changing. From the moment the police went in, they knew they had a secured place, and they couldn’t even get the right # of guns there? Seriously?
Same thing with motives. Until you’ve read everything on his phone, hard drives, and in his homes, you’re going to firmly establish anything was not his motive?
I’m reminded of something my (still living!) high school math teacher said; people need to learn to say “I don’t know” when they don’t know. Thank you, Mr. Waskom!
bike;
Unfortunately for us, libidiots think they know everything about everything. God forbid just one of them would admit that “they didn’t know” something.
Mitch, I don’t know if you intend to comment on Jimmy Kimmel’s rant last night – but here are a few thoughts:
Mr. Kimmel focused on Republicans and the NRA – but perhaps he should think about turning the finger around and pointing to himself and his guests because while the NRA was teaching gun safety to the youth of American, Hollywood was teaching them that murder is both glamorous and stylish, and while the NRA was encouraging people to shoot at paper targets, Hollywood was encouraging them, by example to shoot at people.
So one could easily conclude that we have more of a first amendment problem than we do a second amendment problem.
We used to have laws, and standards that controlled the degree of violence on TV and films, we do not have them anymore because of the lobbying and court challenges of media advocacy groups (that serve the same function as the NRA). Now we no longer have these restriction, and perhaps that is a good thing – but it is disingenuous to wallow in media violence while pointing fingers elsewhere.
Narcissists like Stephen Paddock all want their fifteen minutes of fame, now Mr. Paddock got a full hour on ABC News with David Muir and 24 hour coverage on CNN.
With guns even more easily available, and traumatized combat veterans on every block in the America of 1950, why were these sort of mass shootings almost nonexistent? I don’t believe guns were harder to obtain back then. Guns could be ordered through the mail, no questions asked. There were virtually no mass shootings. So what changed? People? Human nature is largely immutable. Easier access to guns? I don’t believe so — to the best of my knowledge, you did not even have to fill out an ATF form back then. Has our attitude toward violence changed? Do we glorify violence? Are we are getting what we want and does the media, both “news” and entertainment, makes it all possible?
Worthwhile question, Emery. What do you think?
Look at the movies that went up post WW2 and tell me that they didn’t glorify violence. They weren’t as directly bloody as the present crop, but in many ways they were every bit as violent as anything we have now.
I’d say a sense of public morals and unity of purpose is the difference.
For decades now we’ve been bombarded with the message that “if it feels good, do it.” Well, for some rather evil people at the end of their rope, these killing rampages against imagined foes feel good, so they do it. We’ve abandoned the Judaeo-Christian ethics that used to be form the backbone of society for a Marxism/Leninist mechanical view of humanity and society. There are remnants, sure, but fewer and fewer as a debauched Hollywood saturates successive generations in hedonism without consequences.
And as for unity, well, we’re now a nation of hyphenated Americans looking to slice up a seemingly finite and shrinking pie. You have the coastal “elites” more interested in getting cheap TVs from foreign sources than in maintaining a strong manufacturing base and the quality of life of the “lower” classes. You have folks who are willing to outsource their pollution to foreigners rather than face the real effects of their policies (lithium mining isn’t environmentally friendly, folks). More tellingly many, many folks from “elite” reaches of society view themselves as global citizens rather than Americans, disconnecting folks who used to be leaders from the common citizens.
MBerg wrote: “But if it turns out that InfoWars is right, and that the target bepeaks the motivation?”
Sad stuff.
The reason Trump bleats so much about “fake news” is that it is one of the primary tools his supporters continue to use. I can only imagine what would be happening had the shooter been anything other than a retired white American.
An interesting question to ask during the month of October, a month when much of cable television schedule is devoted to slasher movies.
Hollywood not only glorifies violence but it presents it as murder without remorse, as hip, cool and stylish. I believe the first movie to do this in the modern sense was Bonnie and Clyde and it shocked the sensibilities of the nation, then Hollywood evolved to Sam Peckinpah and eventually to Clinton Tarantino.
Tonight, we will see more murder across the cable spectrum in one hour than the country will experience for the entire 24 hrs.
We need to view at Hollywood the same way environmental science looks at lethal pollution. One can smoke for a lifetime without contracting cancer, one can swim in dioxin polluted waters without apparent ill effects – but over time, over the population, we see the harmful effects.
And no, I am not calling for government action – (though a $10,000 per incident murder depiction tax would shove a stick in the eye to the Hollywood liberal elite) – but what I am saying is that to cause a homicide you need means and the urge to do it. Bashing the NRA speaks to means….fine, but what about the urge and motivation to do it. Who speaks to that?
I agree Greg. I remember when the “good guy” in western movies used to shoot the gun out of the hand when confronted with a bad guy. Movies did not dwell — were not allowed to dwell — on gruesome violence.
I can only imagine what would be happening had the shooter been anything other than a retired white American.
Like James Hodgkinson?
JD, I do not think your question will be answered. The answer is not in the eTASS-BFL handbook. At least not the factual and intellectually honest one.
‘Not every flower can say love, but a rose can. Not every plant survives thirst, but a cactus can. Not every challenged individual can read, but look at you go, little buddy! Today you should take a moment and send an encouraging message to a fucked up friend, just as I’ve done. I don’t care if you lick windows, or have a relationship with farm animals. You hang in there cupcake, you’re special to me, you’re my friend, look at you smiling at your phone! You crayon eating knuckle head you!
Yep, that’s exactly what we all expected. No answers, just pooping. Thanks for reinforcing the stereotype that is eTASS-BFL. Say, don’t you have lies to spread? Threads to hijack?
Pot meet kettle
No response to Mitch’s comment, Emery?
If old Hollywood did not, to a degree, glorify violence, please explain to me Alfred Hitchcock, cowboy movies where the hero shoots 25 times without reloading and kills 53 Indians, Cecil B. DeMille, gangster movies, film noir, and the like. Yes, they didn’t always show the blood and gore and such, but there is a reason the Waco Kid says “I must have killed more men than Cecil B. DeMille”, no?
Pot meet kettle
What’s next, “I am rubber you are glue?” Your infantile behaviour is very telling of the level of what you pass for intellect.
The reason Trump bleats so much about “fake news” is that it is one of the primary tools his supporters continue to use.
I can’t remember the last time Trump spoke or tweeted about “fake news” but the reason why it’s become so popular (and I agree it’s been overused) is because there were so many examples of “fake news” being promoted by the media before Trump even announced he was running for President. 60 Minutes running the TANG hit piece on Bush in the 2004 election. The NYT running a front-page story about whether McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist in the 2008 election. NBC doctoring George Zimmerman’s 911 call to create the appearance of a racist motive. “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Etc.
Maybe these aren’t considered “fake news” because no one’s alleging the Russians are pushing these stories but when the self-appointed gatekeepers and factcheckers are pushing false stories that promote their preferred political objectives, eventually we’re going to reach the point where people just don’t believe them without explicit proof. I agree that the term “fake news” is thrown around too casually by many people but the I can’t say there hasn’t been sufficient justification not to have the same trust in the media that my parents’ and grandparents’ generation may have had. And while I won’t pretend to know the future, maybe that’s going to be a good thing in the long-run.
Speaking of fake news, Newsweak just ran a story saying that Trump’s travel budget could send 128 ships to, and from, Puerto Rico. Trouble is, the company that did it only counted the fuel cost, as if wages, loading, unloading, ship depreciation/rental, and the like didn’t count. Best part of it; the guys who did it make accounting spreadsheets as part of their portfolio, so they can’t be ignorant of the fact that they’re missing most of the expense. It’s pure political bias put into an article by Newsweak.
Yeah, Emery, there’s a lot of BS out there, most of it coming from the left.
Thorleywinston:
/Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Why Isn’t the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!
5:59 AM – Oct 5, 2017/
Coming from the guy who perpetuated birther lies for over 5 years?
The more he shouts that something is fake news, the more you can assure yourself that it’s absolutely real, correct, and true. If Trump were genuinely aggrieved and felt that he was being lied about by the press, he would sue. It’s not like he’s been shy about filing lawsuits in the past.
Lying about birtherism? Remind me, Emery, who was it who kept the issue alive by withholding his long form birth certificate until April 27, 2011, and who even then kept the issue alive by releasing it only in digital form, where people were able to view the layers of the image?
Oh. I’m not a birther myself, but it’s not because of the evidence Dear Leader provided. It’s because that, as insane as Stanley Ann Dunham was, I don’t believe she was insane enough to travel ten thousand miles to give birth in a third world country.
My take is that Dear Leader was born in Hawaii, but he felt that the furor over unconvincing evidence of his citizenship was a useful way of diverting attention from the shenanigans he was pulling to get Obamacare passed. When that was done, he was then able to consider providing some, but not all, evidence.
Loren wrote: “No response to Mitch’s comment, Emery?”
When MBerg responds to my point about bloggers linking to and promoting fake news. I realize click bait is part of a bloggers business model. But when does ones’ personal core concepts and integrity override this?
Coming from the guy who perpetuated birther lies for over 5 years?
Birtherism was started by Clinton. You voted for whom? Answer to THAT! You really are a tool. A mindless tool.
All too true. I, personally, am in charge of putting those coded messages on the backs of road signs. That’s when I’m not administering those secret Deep State concentration camps that we managed to set up during the Clinton years and have maintained ever since. And, of course, my duties include the implementation of Sharia Law nationwide. Truth is, my span of responsibilities are almost as broad as Jared Kushner’s.
“Deep State” is a Russian term btw. What an odd coincidence.
jpa: So sad to think that all of the outrageous conspiracies cited by InfoWars are believed to be true by tens of millions of people living in America. Judging from your comments, I can see why MBerg believes his blog has a built-in audience for this type of content.