Sunday evening UPDATE:
Since Kinsella cites the NYT (“approvingly,” one might almost say!) in his column, I hope someone forwards this to him:
New York Times concedes that Spencer and other anti-jihadists are not responsible for Norway murders
Oh deary dear.
After giving Steyn’s writing VERY brief consideration (four citations according to this video), Anders Wayne Murderdude of Norway declares that Steyn’s observations about Islam and Europe may be mistaken.
Those four Steyn citations are exceedingly tame — simple, factual two-sentence summaries of Steyn’s theses, which could easily be found in a book report by an indifferent high school student, cribbed from an Amazon.com book description — or even from the official complaint made by those belligerent Muslims (and those in their orbit) against Steyn/Maclean’s, come to think of it.
So Kinsella gets his facts wrong by using the word “approvingly” re: the Norwegian’s piddling employment of Steyn citations.
God, this gets exhausting.
How sad that we’ve reached the point where one must point out the following:
An uncomfortable, controversial personal interpretation of the “whys and wherefores” of an event is NOT a “willful mischaracterization of the facts.”
Such interpretations — those made after the shootings by Beck, Steyn, Coren – are opinions based on the facts.
Now, we all know that liberals frequently get “facts” and “opinions” mixed up, so this kind of mental, rhetorical lapse is understandable (if not excusible.) This bad habit of mind has been a primary cause of so much mischief liberals undertake in the name of their “good” causes, all of which we’re obliged to pay for, and suffer under. Ideas have consquences, etc.
No one Kinsella cites in today’s column got their facts wrong. Kinsella just doesn’t like the way Beck et al interpreted them, and the conclusions they came to.