June 8, 2014

More evidence of dissembling at the NYT.

Recently, I wrote: "Question: When does the NYT want us to care about the impact of gun control laws on a convicted felon? Answer: When it's an occasion to portray Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as lacking in empathy."

David Hardy writes:
The fellow in the story was convicted of aggravated assault after breaking a man's nose, and wants a pardon so that his gun rights will be restored. Funny that a few years ago the Times ran an article headlined "Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights."

22 comments:

Michael K said...

I'm trying to figure out why the NRA is blamed for this. The NYT is not providing the evidence, just the rhetoric. I'm a life member and I don't want violent felons to be able to own guns.

gadfly said...

So it is Scott Walker's fault that a veteran, who in this case also happened to serve in Iraq during the war, is forbidden by Wisconsin law, as a convicted felon, from owning a gun.

It is also Scott Walker's fault that this adult, Eric Fiser, gets rowdy when drunk and just happens to live in the state where Walker is the current governor.

It makes perfect sense - Scott Walker is a Koch brothers conservative Republican and therefore must be blamed and attacked by a dying news rag which remains useful only as wrapping paper at fresh fish markets on the New York City docks.

Having spent time working in New York City, I can tell you that the city's residents "could care less" about what happens anywhere west of the Hudson River. So Dan Berry's article represents news that isn't news inside the Big Apple.

And a small correction. Boscobel was not the "birthplace of the Gideon Bible", it was the town where what is now known as Gideons International was organized in 1898. "The Bible Project" was approved by the organization in 1908 and the first bible was delivered to some town in Montana, a little more than 100 years ago.

Alex said...

Ban hands. Cut them all off so we can't hurt anyone.

chrisnavin.com said...

How about that 'empathy bullshit' tag Althouse?

Often, these things are borrowed from neuroscience or the latest social science research, with the appeal of novelty. They are dropped at parties and such, then disseminated through pop science as people chatter away.

Soon they can become an ideological marker and/or just a signifier, like vocal fry or skinny jeans, that you're part of a club.

Intellectuals can be just as susceptible, or recognize they must adapt somewhat to the latest fashion.

Then it becomes a badge of tribal membership, and a political cudgel to bash opponents and claim moral high ground.

A lot of people don't have much, so you have to let people be right, because they can't be anything else.

Before you know it, there's a whirlwind of bullshit floating through the public square, claiming victims.

Mkelley said...

Gee, it's almost like the old gray bag lady is just a shill for the Democrat Party.

Neshobanakni said...

Isn't it federal law that bans felons from owning guns - not Wisconsin law? Maybe his appeal should be addressed to President Obama.

campy said...

"Ban hands. Cut them all off so we can't hurt anyone."

There'd still be teeth.

beagle8boy said...

The NYT and our PC victims have been explained and labelled. It's called moral narcissism.

hawkeyedjb said...

"More evidence of dissembling at the NYT."

Huh. And the sun rose in the east. File this one under "Bottom stories of the day."

Gary Rosen said...

"The NYT is not providing the evidence"

We don't have to show you no steenking evidence!

Gary Rosen said...

"The NYT is not providing the evidence"

We don't have to show you no steenking evidence!

William said...

This kind of thing would never happen if Jill was still in charge.

RecChief said...

I'm much more interested in why this administration gave stinger missiles to Libyans, and how one of them ended up shooting down a chinook helicopter

tim in vermont said...

I generally support gun rights, but if the man was convicted of breaking a man's nose in a fight were police were called, I am fine with him losing his gun rights. I am pretty sure the NYT is too.

Mid-Life Lawyer said...

Isn't it amazing how far the NYTimes has fallen in our lifetimes? When I was young, it was the standard and now I generally screen Times stories out of my reading.

The same with the network news. I wonder how biased they all were before Watergate. It seems to me that after Watergate it became acceptable within the news organizations to obviously be partisan but maybe they were before and no one really noticed as much.

The Crack Emcee said...

"Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as lacking in empathy."

I dare you and Meade to walk through the ghettos of Wisconsin - camera in hand - and tell me that's not true,...

SJ said...

As I commented in the previous post on this subject...

Some states write stupidly-restrictive laws about guns and ammunition.

To the point where a man leaving a gun range with a piece of brass stuck in his boot is potentially a felon, due to unlicensed possession of ammunition components outside of a gun range.

If the Times is worried about laws which make exercise of Constitutional rights a dangerous legal minefield, they can write about cases like that.

Instead, they find a violent felon, and try to make his case into a sob story.

The earlier article is more interesting.

Though I notice that it was easy for the NYT to find several cases of violence committed by people who had been through the rights-restoration process.

I would think it much harder for the NYT to find people who've been through that process, and not committed a deed of violence since. Because these kinds of things don't generate events that are easy for reporters to discover, investigate, and write about.

Side question:

Suppose that a person convicted of slander/libel has their First Amendment rights restricted, unless they get a Gubernatorial pardon or a judge to review the case and restore rights.

Would this be considered a valid Constitutional process?

If not, is the comparable revocation of Second Amendment rights also valid?

What is the difference between these two portions of the Bill of Rights which makes it so easy to revoke/limit the valid use of one right, and not revoke/limit the valid use of the other right?

bbkingfish said...

I read the linked article from the NYT. Yes, it shows Gov Walker as lacking in empathy, but it does so quite frankly (in large part by quoting Walker directly). I simply don't see the dissembling, and would appreciate clarification.

By the way, upon reading the NYT piece, Mr. Pizer seems like a slightly different breed of cat than one expects from a guy you label as simply a "felon." I think your description of him is unneccessarily flat, and overly simplistic.

Do you think it possible that dissemblers are more likely than most people to see dissembling by others when no dissembling exists?

Ann Althouse said...

"I read the linked article from the NYT. Yes, it shows Gov Walker as lacking in empathy, but it does so quite frankly (in large part by quoting Walker directly). I simply don't see the dissembling, and would appreciate clarification."

The dissembling is only seen in the larger context, such as the 2011 article. The NYT is normally pro-gun control and concerned about convicted felons getting guns, however in this case, where there is a basis to make Walker look uncaring, suddenly it's championing this convicted felon who wants a gun.

Ann Althouse said...

What do you want to bet that if Walker gave some convicted felons pardons so they could get guns, the NYT would criticize him for which ones he picked?

Paul said...

Even if Walker pardoned the felon, the FEDERAL LAW SAYS NO GUNS FOR CONVICTED FELONS.

See, even if the state pardons.. the federal's don't.

bbkingfish said...

"The dissembling is only seen in the larger context, such as the 2011 article. The NYT is normally pro-gun control and concerned about convicted felons getting guns, however in this case, where there is a basis to make Walker look uncaring, suddenly it's championing this convicted felon who wants a gun."

Please show where the NYT piece argues against gun control, or for the idea of Mr. Pizer regaining his gun ownership rights, because I can't find those arguments.

Similarly, I don't see the relevance of the 2011 piece(3 years ago) to charges of dissembling today, and I don't see that article as an argument for gun control.

In short, I see no logical basis for your assertion that the NYT is dissembling. Please offer something from the actual texts of either of the articles that would support your assertions, because I can't find any.

Of course, I suppose it's possible that these notions are coming, not from any specifics of the article, but from inside your own mind. If so, they're your thoughts and you should own them.