[img]1|left|||no_popup[/img]I never have reached a satisfactory conclusion as to why liberal journalists instinctively volunteer as human shields every time a Muslim terrorist crawls out of the ground.
When they write or recite their stories, they can’t quite force themselves to form the concept “a Muslim terrorist gunned down 13 unarmed persons today at Fort Hood.”
Instead, they play child’s games. The liberal journalists uniformly jiggle and dance around the ugly Islamist act as if they were 3-year-olds who had to go to the bathroom but were not ready to acknowledge it.
For 6 days, the boys and girls on the worst and most influential left-wing newspapers in America have distorted their bodies into horrid caricatures as they feign and duck and dart and sway, trying every rhetorical trick they have learned to avoid calling the killer Hasan “a Muslim extremist.”
My question is:
Are these journalistic embarrassments merely mindlessly committed to political correctness, blurring the line between their personal and professional lives?
Or are they terrified that the nearest Muslim terrorist will blow up their buildings if they report anything critical of Muslim radicals, saying that the mass killer in Texas was an Islamic jihadist?
Since last Thursday, the journalistic sissies at the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times have engaged in a bitter contest to see which formerly respectable newspaper can think up the greater number of descriptions that give no hint Hasan is the latest Muslim terrorist to crawl out from beneath a sweaty pile of badly overweight Islamic radicals.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, one of the featherweights among New York Times reporters, wrote last Saturday that the massacre was a disaster because it was so darned humilating for President Obama who is trying to cozy up to the Muslim world only to be undercut by a very unlucky Virginia fella who just proves how hard it is for a decent Muslim to get by in this country. (How did I miss marrying this dim bulb among my former wives?)
Avoid Specificity at All Times
Great gashes of revealing information, largely scoped out by television, have been exposed, practically hourly, since Hasan shot more than 50 people.
Meanwhile, unreflective print journalists reflexively have spent the last 6 days playing human shields for Muslim extremists and America’s best known Muslim, Swish Obama.
Not very imaginatively, they have been listing justifications for the Muslim radical’s rampage. Anything to avoid admitting that Hasan was another dime-store Islamic extremist.
His mother was a hunchback.
His father drove a hatchback car.
His brother was a tailback.
Any or all of these excuses, you understand, validate killing 13 and wounding dozens more. His venemous behavior, his vile verbal outbreaks, his radical Muslim associations, convictions and writings obviously are irrelevant.
Whom Do You Believe?
Our dear liberal friends are legendary for corrupting the language. Remember how they had to replace “global warming” to the comfortably vague “climate change” when the earth began markedly cooling off.
One of Swish’s priorities after the election was thinking up a new, more generic, less scary name for the war on terror because it was coined by a hated Republican and because it reflected illy on his fellow Muslims. And so the war on terror was crunched into the child-like “man-caused disaster.”
I guess that changes killer Hasan from a “terrorist” into a “man-caused disaster.” I’ll buy that.
In its day-after editorial, the Los Angeles Times invoked the name of every non-Muslim killer they could think of in order to absolve the Muslim killer by saying, “See, he’s no different than that right-wing extremist Timothy McVeigh.” I will bet Mr. McVeigh’s family is thrilled he was a registered Republican because he is cited every week or so when another Muslim freak sneaks out of the ground and begins picking off innocent persons.
Boys Will Be Boys, and Evasive
My new favorite dishonest liberal journalists are Joshie Meyer and Greg Miller of the Los Angeles Times. They penned a doozy this morning, the lead story in the newspaper, whopping masters of evasion.
Before sitting down to write, they were told to cross their legs, put both arms behind their shoulders and twist themselves into a remnant of the Hunchback of Notre Dame in order to enter the mood for avoiding calling Hasan a Muslim radical.
The boys succeeded beautifully. As standard-issue loyal liberals, they mock rather than dialogue. They make fun rather than explain seriously. Adept at illusory games, they are ill-equipped to debate issues. Given their penchant for treating locution like silly putty, I would imagine when the boys got married, instead of calling their brides by name, they told the preacher, “I’ll take the porky, perspiring broad over there in purple ankle sox and red, untied sneakers.”
If you didn’t know anything about Hasan or Fort Hood before reading the boys’ lead story, you might think a freckled, cornfed Iowa farm boy wandered onto the Army base last Thursday.
Could have been anybody, liberals tell us. No need to be specific.
No sign of a Muslim hater anywhere in the boys’ 29-paragraph tribute to the joys of religious eunichism.
It was a Mona Lisa of euphemisms that should be hanging at LACMA this afternoon.
The boys’ lead sentence should be embroidered in black licorice and handed to every Journalism School applicant as an example to avoid with the same avidity as that loose girl down the block. It was like reporting on the Lincoln assassination without mentioning where he worked.
Evasively, What’s ‘is Name Meyer and What’s ‘is Name Miller swished and swayed through their gosh-gee, all-American-boy fable as if they were discussing the president of the Chamber of Commerce.
Their opening sentence, a study in avoidance:
“The FBI and the military investigated contacts over the last year between an Army psychiatrist accused in the deadly Fort Hood rampage and a Yemen-based militant cleric linked to some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, but concluded the shooting suspect did not pose a threat, senior law enforcement and military officials said Monday.”
Did you notice the delightfully vague, could-be-anybody terms:
Army psychiatrist?
Militant?
Cleric?
Not until the ninth paragraph was the term “Muslim” even mentioned.
Hmmm. Maybe it really was an insecure farmer from Indiana dressed up to resemble a Muslim extremist who did the deed.
