The usual wide-eyed New Yorker "ain't no one here but us liberals" tone, where simply listing the actions of the other side is assumed to elicit shock and horror. A bit tiring.
Suggesting that Perry not signing the bill into law and killed 13 people isn't emotional editorialising?
People who text and drive are bad at risk assessment. People who are bad at risk assessment are more likely to ignore laws like this. So what is the fking point of this paragraph except to create a link in the reader's mind that Rick Perry literally murders people with his veto pen?
> Texas is as politically divided as the rest of the U.S., but a recurrent crop of crackpots and ideologues has fed its reputation for proud know-nothingism and retrograde thinking.
The author is proudly preaching to the liberal New Yorker's choir.
Look, maybe the sources I rely on are biased, but I never hear about stuff like this from other states. When your governor starts buying into conspiracy theory material, and acting on it, I start to feel that "know-nothingism and retrograde thinking" may actually fall a bit short.
I think I see the problem...
It was supposed to be a substantive meta-comment about New Yorker reportage, which I think is on the same level of partisanship as the Huff Post (which I thought was banned here).