I think you're overreacting in these individual cases, ogged. the NYT was just going for a spectacular shot. And it is spectacular. Meanwhile Reynold's "selective quotation" was a full sentence that linked to the original article.
On the larger topic, I have mixed feelings about the appropriateness of politicing off of a masacre. Those who use it as occassion for the same old bullshit ("this shows why vouchers are so important...") certainly purchase their one-way ticket to eighth circle of the inferno. But one can imagine that a person might feel compelled to speak if he finds his cause directly involved. I recall reading a article by a prison reform where the author invoked the case of the Byrd killing in Texas. His/her point: the loathesome killers basically got free classes in White Supremacy during their time in prison. That struck me as appropriate reference to a horrendous event that otherwise one wouldn't want to politicize. Here, I think what's more horrific is the *speed* at which people are rushing in to turn this story into the latest talking points.
Agreed on the larger point, but Reynolds quoted one sentence from a paragraph that says something quite different from what the quote (and gloss) would lead one to believe.
It's a spectacular picture, but why crop and magnify it? Why that one?
The people who did this thing are indeed what we should be fighting. But our military is otherwise occupied, fighting a completely unrelated war in Iraq.
I don't understand how InstaPundit is so popular -- he just seems to get it wrong a lot of the time. Of course, if I actually followed most of the links from Atrios, it might begin to appear to me that he gets it wrong most of the time, too. BUT I don't think both sides are "just as bad," despite our natural human longing for symmetry. Maybe they are, but it just feels unlikely.
Putin's playing this to the hilt, and Bush's followers are sucking it down. Here's W's opportunity to reward Vlad for his undying support.
By the way, I don't see any MY quote in Reynold's post.
Posted by Mithras | Link to this comment | 09- 3-04 11:25 PM
It's the last link in the post (currently).
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09- 3-04 11:35 PM
Oh, right. Sorry, my eyes started to burn from all the lying before I got there.
Posted by Mithras | Link to this comment | 09- 3-04 11:48 PM
I think you're overreacting in these individual cases, ogged. the NYT was just going for a spectacular shot. And it is spectacular. Meanwhile Reynold's "selective quotation" was a full sentence that linked to the original article.
On the larger topic, I have mixed feelings about the appropriateness of politicing off of a masacre. Those who use it as occassion for the same old bullshit ("this shows why vouchers are so important...") certainly purchase their one-way ticket to eighth circle of the inferno. But one can imagine that a person might feel compelled to speak if he finds his cause directly involved. I recall reading a article by a prison reform where the author invoked the case of the Byrd killing in Texas. His/her point: the loathesome killers basically got free classes in White Supremacy during their time in prison. That struck me as appropriate reference to a horrendous event that otherwise one wouldn't want to politicize. Here, I think what's more horrific is the *speed* at which people are rushing in to turn this story into the latest talking points.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 09- 4-04 8:36 AM
Agreed on the larger point, but Reynolds quoted one sentence from a paragraph that says something quite different from what the quote (and gloss) would lead one to believe.
It's a spectacular picture, but why crop and magnify it? Why that one?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 09- 4-04 10:05 AM
F*** them, if that's how they want to play:
The people who did this thing are indeed what we should be fighting. But our military is otherwise occupied, fighting a completely unrelated war in Iraq.
Posted by son volt | Link to this comment | 09- 4-04 10:36 AM
I don't understand how InstaPundit is so popular -- he just seems to get it wrong a lot of the time. Of course, if I actually followed most of the links from Atrios, it might begin to appear to me that he gets it wrong most of the time, too. BUT I don't think both sides are "just as bad," despite our natural human longing for symmetry. Maybe they are, but it just feels unlikely.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 09- 4-04 2:03 PM