Shame on the Christian Science Monitor

For this headline: "John Patrick Bedell: Did right-wing extremism lead to shooting?
Authorities have identified John Patrick Bedell as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting. He appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings. "

He was a registered Democrat; hated Bush; was a 9-11 truther; had numerous drug charges; and probably was insane. And I don't blame all the craziness and conspiracy stuff from the left for his behavior--he made his own decisions, unincumbered by political views. I think he was on the level with a woman I met about 40 years ago at a community meeting. We were all sitting around discussing an event we were planning, and she stopped, looked at me and said, "I know you're all watching me, that you know what's going on with my husband." We didn't even know her, where she lived, or who she was married to. We were shocked. So I put him at that level of "politics." His parents were concerned and had notified the authorities when he disappeared. But just like the Stack case (flew the plane into an IRS building) the media jumped on a chance to smear the peaceful, grass roots movement known as the Tea Party, a group they first ridiculed, then marginalized, and now that they see the movement's strength in less than a year, they are fear mongering. Even after the truth about Bedell came out, I heard the chattering heads on the left cable shows speculating in code words. Really, how do you people even turn those shows on? Your view of history and current events are totally screwed up.

As Ben Shapiro says: "This mirrors Noam Chomsky far more than Rush Limbaugh; meanwhile, the media is attempting to play it off as some sort of legitimate “right-wing” perspective. Real conservatives look at the 9/11 truthers as complete dolts, and complete left-wing dolts at that. This guy was more Van Jones (a fellow 9/11 truther) than John Boehner or Sarah Palin."

That aside: Do you really think Amazon.com should be releasing people's reading lists? Yes, it was all anti-Bush crazy stuff like what my public library stocks, but I still don't think it should be released to journalists.

The media's induction of Joe Stack into the Tea Party movement

Although there was no clue in his suicide note that Joe Stack (flew his plane into an IRS building in Texas) was anything other than deranged and unhappy with the government (also set his home on fire with his new wife and stepdaughter in it), some in the leftstream media immediately began linking him with various tea party groups. If anything, considering his Marxist and anti-capitalist remarks, he was left of center.

". . .the Washington Post's Jonathan Capehart wrote at the Post Partisan blog, "There's no information yet on whether he was involved in any anti-government groups or whether he was a lone wolf. But after reading his 34-paragraph screed, I am struck by how his alienation is similar to that we're hearing from the extreme elements of the Tea Party movement." NewsBusters.org

Regardless, he was first of all deranged, and those come in all political shades. But where is Capehart's analysis of the mental state and political biases of Amy Bishop, who killed her brother 25 years ago, then fled the scene and held people hostage trying to steal a car, assaulted a woman in a restaurant in 2002, fought with neighbors, planned a gender bias law suit, read aloud in class from textbooks instead of teaching, listed her children as co-authors of a paper, and finally shot a roomful of colleagues, three of the dead being minorities. According to people who knew her and spoke to the press, she was a leftist fanatic. Off-putting even to other liberals.

Capehart + Amy Bishop--I find nothing on Google that he's written about her political connections. I don't know. . . Does this seem a good way to build readership or save the dying newspaper industry? Capehart needs a new line of work.