Someone wrote about my first Knoxville piece in the Huffington Post with a post entitled "I Hate This Shit." Eloquent, huh? His objection: "I really can not stand bullshit like this." That's why America loves bloggers.
He continues, "Every time there is a tragedy, some jackass is out there trying to exploit it, attempting to validate or air their petty political grievances ... Just stop. The details are just becoming clear about this tragedy, and I assure you- the blame lies with Jim Adkisson, not Pat Robertson. "
Except ... the article he links to confirms my point, it doesn't refute it. It's headed "Rampage Attributed to Hatred of Liberalism." Next time somebody wants to score cheap points on the Internet by calling another writer names, they might want to cite an article that doesn't prove the other guy's point.
Just a suggestion.
As for the blogger in question: In some people's minds, events happen in a vacuum. Nothing - not even a nonstop media barrage - influence's an individual's behavior. I suppose Middle Eastern terrorists aren't influenced by Islamist rhetoric, either. They'll just do what they're going to do, no matter what's said or done around them.
I don't happen to agree.
Did I miss the plot here?
Is this guy saying that it is a bad thing for bloggers to share their thoughts about how and why men indulge themselves in acts of violence?
I wonder who he does think is entitled to speak on the matter.
Wait, wait, don't tell me. I think I know.
Posted by: thebewilderness | August 01, 2008 at 10:07 PM