Actually... I agree!

Every bit as responsible. Or not responsible.

I wouldn't suggest reading that, by the way. Let's just say it's gone Full Loughner, and once again we are brought back to the dark chatter of Dallas '63, which, frankly, I have to admit sounds anti-American and despicable, but which also sounds like it had nothing at all to do with shaping the psyche of Marxist defector-to-Russia Oswald, Harvey Lee.

The conclusion is that you're to blame for Giffords to the same extent Dallas "dark chatterers" were to blame for JFK; like I said, I agree, but probably not in the way this pissant intends.

Serious question: RFK Jr., who the fuck are you? I mean, seriously: At the end of the day, what the fuck have you done apart from successfully making it out of the birth canal? What are your qualifications?

Do you at least have hobbies you're good at? I am willing to accept hobbies you're above-average at. Because seriously man, for as long as I've been alive you've been in the background, offering your opinions, using any excuse to drop the Kennedy Legacy as some kind of all-purpose Letter of Recommendation, and all this time, even when I was a good little liberal and was rooting for you, I've been waiting for you to actually accomplish something apart from serving on charity trusts set up by your grandpa, and you haven't done a single thing yet.

Who are you? What differentiates you at all from Paris Hilton? The only differences I can imagine are actually in Paris Hilton's favor; at least she works a few days a year opening clubs and appearing in bad National Lampoon movies. (Speaking of entities given undue respect due to past glory...)

Do you work? At all? I mean real work. Showing up to talk to the manager of your trust fund doesn't count.

Who are you and why the hell shouldn't I call Paris Hilton to get an opposing opinion on this?

So, this guy, whoever he is, I'm sure he's a decent amateur golfer, postulates that we need some like new national dialogue on "conscience" or something. (Conscience dreaming? Probably.)

You know what we really need? A great national dialogue on Cause and Effect because I think some people don't get it.

Corrected: A reader says there's actually no real evidence that says Joe Kennedy was a bootlegger; he says that's based on one article in the 1950s. I read other conservatives making that charge; I'm surprised it's more of a rumor than a fact.

So I omitted it.

On the other hand, he was anti-semitic and, while not pro Hilter, not really terribly against him, either. That, at least, is true.

You Know Who RFKJr. Is Maybe As Smart As...? Jenny McCarthy.

Posted by: Ace at 12:44 PM | Comments (332)
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Ah, the air was heavy with sweetest dew, and we were younger then, and the earth was too, the planet in full blush of early bloom.

Yes, I am old enough to remember those halcyon days, whatever halcyon means, I'm sure it means something good, when protesters could wave signs saying "KILL BUSH" and "I'M HERE TO KILL BUSH" and our media, so exquisitely sensitive towards any potential incitement, was altogether too distracted by the music of the wind playing in the flowers to notice.

But those were innocent days, when no one could ever get hurt or die, or at least no one of any particular political merit.

Look, all kidding aside, I want nothing worse for Barack Obama than an unexpected retirement in early January 2013; and in fact I want no politician harmed by political violence. (Or anyone, for that matter.)

I was greatly upset by the Tucson shooting, and not just for the lives lost, but for the degradation of America; that's why I ultimately headlined the post "Fallujah, USA," over reader objections. I don't want to live in that kind of tin-pot short-fuse banana non-Republic were people express their political opinions at pointblank-to-close range.

But the media let the left get away with murder -- or, more accurately, incitement to murder -- for eight long years and now they want to piously instruct us that we can't say socialist anymore?

Here's my rule, which is workable, because it's bright-line and nonpartisan: You cannot urge political violence, nor can you strongly imply that maybe some political violence would be a good thing.

That means all of these filth carrying "KILL BUSH" signs should have been arrested and tried, and the media should have pointed this out, because embarrassing a political movement is the only way to incite it to patrol its ranks for excesses.

But the media didn't, because they're in the tank for the left. Fine. That doesn't mean that we have to allow or accept such incitements now, from either side, but until the media confesses its own crime they do get to play referee or judge.

So urgings towards violence, and deliberately violent imagery, are out.

Here's what in: Socialist. It's allowed. I said so. The left says "You can't say that because it upsets people too much and that might provoke some into violence," and it's at this point I have to say, "Tough shit. Life is chancy."

The most important political debate, had over the past 160 years, is about socialism, whether we go towards it or away from it, and it's absurd to posit we can no longer reference a worldwide 160-year-old political dispute because of worries that someone might get hurt.

Is the word an incitement? So it is. As they say, All ideas are incitements. That's the point of them. And you cannot sand down the edges of every idea into a safe, non-pokey rounded top and pad everyone in rubber suits. The word has too much value to suppress, for anyone's safety.

You know who agrees? The Democrats, the left, and the media, who threw around the left's version of "socialist" -- "fascist," "Nazi" -- all my life and never once seemed especially concerned that if someone took them seriously, that if someone really did think this or that person was a fascist or Nazi and therefore steering this country to fascism or Naziism, then that person might become animated enough to kill someone.

They toss out the word "murderer" like it's going out of style -- virtually everyone on the right is a "murderer," eventually. They never seem to consider that if someone takes them seriously, and believes actual murderers are setting this country's policies, that would require people to rise up violently against said murderers, wouldn't it?

Is that an incitement, then? Of course it is. The left's only defense is that no one takes them seriously, but that's not true. See the Discovery Channel Gunman, for example. Some people are so crazy and stupid they do take the left seriously.

They seem comfortable with the risks associated with this sort of strident political name-calling. I join them in that -- I am comfortable in this risk as well. It's a risk that has to be accepted.

Now, I don't like that the left constantly tosses out inciting words like "Nazi" and "fascist." I scold them for that, I buffoonize them for that. But I don't say they can't say those words, or that those words will lead to murder (even though they could!) Because I accept the idea of free speech enough to know that I have to accept the hateful rhetoric of the left.

As long as it's merely hateful, and merely tends towards incitement, and does not expressly, explicitly incite.

So that's the deal, left: Shut the fuck up and accept that "socialist" is a legitimate term to throw at you (because you are, in fact, socialist or at least socialist-curious) and stop whining about it just like we on the right do not whine about you using the word "fascist" to describe everything from Star Wars to over-baked chicken at Popeye's. You have your dirty words, we have ours. Fucking deal with it already.

Here's what you also have to deal with-- martial metaphors. Like the kind Howie Kurtz scolds Sarah Palin about right before he notes she's "escalated her war with the press." After you, Alphonse. If the media can scrub all martial metaphors out of its usage for three straight months, I will then convince it even can be done; until then, I assume it can't. So if the media wants to make some point on this score -- lead by example.

It'll be tough. The day National Journal fretted about Palin's evil martial metaphors they had a dozen of them, and that was just in the headlines. But the media is so smart and educated 'n stuff I'm sure they can figure out how to do this, and then that will provide a good example for we rubes to follow.

And that's it. Yes, no inciting language. No inciting imagery. I agree 100%. I don't need to be convinced because I always was convinced.

Question for the media and Democrats: Were you always convinced? Or is this a revelation of more recent vintage?

And if it is a revelation of recent vintage: Then who exactly are you, who discovered this was a problem just over two years ago, to lecture me, who's been talking about it for ten fucking years?

And none of this is about incitement to violence. What it's about is incitement to political action, and the left doesn't like the words we're using because they're effective and therefore wants us to neuter our language and use less effective words.

Again: Fuck Yourself.

On the point of political incitement, absolutely, I'm there, 100%.

On the point of attempting to mau-mau Michelle Bachman for using the sort-of-really-good line "I want you armed and dangerous with facts about climate change"? Give me a break. That's golden. You don't like it just because you don't like her. If any lefty came up with that line, you'd be applauding it. And you're just claiming that's "inciting" because, unfortunately, she hasn't really incited anything, except people to vote against you.

Enough of the goddamn lies and enough of the stupid Matrix of Loughnerian fantasy.

By The Way: One of my frequent causes of heartburn is patrolling for inciting language on this site -- I have pretty much a 0% tolerance for it, and I routinely warn, delete, and ultimately ban people who can't keep themselves from saying stupid violent shit.

I even extend this rule to the world "revolution," when people mean it in the literal sense. (Or are being cutesy and intending both meanings, and trying to slide one past me under the "you don't know which I meant" non-rule.)

So I'm actually in a decent position here. My hands are clean, and I do spend time -- and get into fights with some commenters who go over the line -- about incitement.

Point is, I do believe that incitement 1) is dangerous and 2) is of very low expressive value anyway because who the fuck wants to read the 1000ndth comment by an emotionally-unstable jackass talking about how what wonders he can work with his mighty penis-substitute rifle?

So I'm a bear on this issue.

Is the media? The media now deigning to lecture me about this?

If there is a climate of hate -- let's stipulate for one second that there is, just for the purposes of this question -- what did the media do about this before January 2009? Or do they claim it only happened after Obama was inaugurated?

'Cuz Zombie's got lots of photos -- photos the MFM suppressed and would not run, for fear of embarrassing the left and jeopardizing their precious liberal Democrats' political fortunes -- that says they're liars if they make that claim.

Posted by: Ace at 11:57 AM | Comments (178)
Post contains 1528 words, total size 9 kb.

This is why, for quality political insights, you don't come to a blog like mine. For this level of analysis, you need to read Howard Kurtz, star opinion columnist for The Washington Post The Daily Beast.

The Loughner Left:

Blood libel, for those who are not familiar, describes a false accusation that minorities—usually Jews—murder children to use their blood in religious rituals, and has been a historical theme in the persecution of the Jewish people.

Had Palin scoured a thesaurus, she could not have come up with a more inflammatory phrase.

As someone who has argued that linking her rhetoric to the hateful violence of Jared Loughner is unfair, I can imagine that the former governor was angry about how liberal detractors dragged her into this story. But after days of silence, she had a chance to speak to the country in a calmer, more inclusive way. She could have said that all of us, including her, needed to avoid excessively harsh or military-style language, without retreating one inch from her strongly held beliefs.

Instead she went the blood libel route.

Which would be an admission that she had something to do with this. Which she didn't.

Let me clue Howard Kurtz in: I am one of those who agrees, generally, that actually inciting language is dangerous, and should be restrained. I do in fact believe there are enough Category 3 types that we should have worries about this, and do our best, to the extent we can, to at least make sure such people do not get the erroneous impression that acts of violence would be applauded by any political cohort.

Here's why I'm not having that debate now -- because right now it is being used to create a false link to Palin, the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, and me, and so no, I'm not interested in calmly, and in a mature fashion, discussing the ways in which I may, or may not be, an accomplice to mass murder.

That is what the Laughner Left demands as proof of "moderation."

Am I concerned about this issue, incitement? Indeed. And I'm no Johnny Come Lately on the issue, either, Howie-- I cared about it eight years ago when people were writing books about the assassination of George W. Bush (the book was on the Pro side of the issue) and, oh, what else? Movies about the assassination of George W. Bush (the movie was also, get this, on the Pro- side).

See, after screaming bloody murder about the Florida Democratic Party putting out a flyer suggesting that Donald Rumsfeld should be executed for war crimes, I noticed that no one in the media or on the left -- including Howard Kurtz -- was at all interested in taking up my crusade against incitement towards political violence.

But how things changed on January 11, 2009! Oh my! Now that we had a president in office we didn't want killed, oh dearie, how this became all that anyone cold talk about!

Now that be that as it may, I am still willing to talk about the issue-- because, unlike Howard Kurtz and the left, I don't want a president of either party assassinated. Unlike Kurtz and the left, I am not selective in my anti-assassination position. I am anti- all political assassinations. (Well, in America. I have a different opinion with respect to, say, Iran, but that's a completely different issue.)

So I am willing to discuss this, and say that yes, some incitement which urges, or seems to urge, violence against public figures is not just bad but pretty awful and un-American.

And I'm willing to do that now, as I was eight years ago, when it wasn't a very interesting topic for Howard Kurtz because, well, if Bush got killed, and so it goes.

But I'm not willing to discuss this now. Why not now? Because now the left isn't trying to have a discussion about inciting language -- if they were that concerned, they could have patrolled their own during the Bush Administration -- they're just interested in piling up political points and turning a massacre to their political advantage.

And by even indulging in this discussion, now, I tacitly agree with the left's charge that, oh yeah, by constantly saying incitement to political violence by anyone, right left or No Labels, is wrong, no matter who does it and no matter who is the target of it, I actually had a hand in the shootings in Tucson, because, well, I'm right-wing, which is Latin for "presumed guilty."

So no, I decline your generous offer to accept the blame you've laid at my feet, and I support Sarah Palin in similarly declining your selfless offer to profit by her demise.

And oddly enough-- even as Howard Kurtz offers to admit on Palin's behalf that she talked in violent code that resulted in murder -- I notice that not a single figure on the left is willing to do likewise.

I have not heard a single figure on the left say something like, "Honestly, I sort of said some things about Bush that were close to urging murder, and I regret that."

And I have not heard a single person in the media say, "Yeah, I guess if I have a problem with the 'Obama=Socialist' posters and think they're incitements to murder, maybe I should have said something about the 'Bush=Fascist" signs or 'Bush is a KILLER' signs; maybe they were incitements to violence, too. And maybe I gave them a pass because they're on the left, like me. And I shouldn't have done that."

Why is it that Sarah Palin -- or anyone on the right -- is demanded to come forward and confess their own guilt whereas not a single person on the left is? Oh, Howard Kurtz will permit Sarah Palin to say that it's not just her to blame, there might be some unnamed others who share in the blame, who might or might not be Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh; but why is it that not a single liberal has come forth and made a similar personal confession?

If this is so easy, as Kurtz alleges, why can't Kurtz himself do it?

Here you go Howard-- here's all you have to say:

"During the Bush Administration I was forwarded a lot of links by people on the right pointing out incendiary and dangerously provocative images and language used by the left to disparage Bush, thereby increasing the chances that some violence would be done to him. I ignored this, partly because of my unfounded conceit that no one on the left is violent, but mostly because it is in my own best political interests to overlook the excesses of my own side."

If this is so easy to admit, where the FUCK is Howard Kurtz's admission?

...

With her defiant video, Palin continued—no, escalated—her war with the press, which plays so well with her strongest supporters (despite a recent thaw in which she actually granted a few interviews to the lamestream media). She continued her us-versus-them approach to political discourse. She punched back at critics rather than trying to fashion a unifying message.

She "escalated" her war with the press? The press is calling her a murderess.

Is it possible to "escalate" a war with the press when they're calling you a murderer?

Oh, and by the way: You know all that toxic, martial language that Howard Kurtz wants Sarah Palin to apologize for?

"War with the press"? War?, Howard?

Isn't it funny that Kurtz can use this language without apology but, if Sarah Palin says "targeting," he needs her to apologize on national television for her part in a mass murder.

You Know When We Could Have Had A Nice Discussion About This? When James Lee took hostages and shot people at the Discovery Channel. I know early in that day, the left was eager to discuss hateful messages and the coarsening of the public dialogue, but when he turned out to be a left-wing loon who took Al Gore's statements about the literal destruction of the Earth if we don't ACT NOW to be genuine instead of nonsense hyperbole, the left suddenly didn't want to have that discussion anymore.

In fact, Media Matters For America was very sensible on this point... the moment we learned he was on the fanatical fascist environmental left:

But now, when we have a right-wing shooter, now we have to talk about this, huh?

Oh wait, did I say "right wing"? Oh that's right, I forgot for a moment, so overwhelmed was I by media insinuation -- of course Loughner is not right wing, doesn't watch right-wing TV, doesn't listen to right-wing radio, doesn't read right-wing blogs.

In fact he's an atheist Truther, more concerned about mind control by government grammar Men in Black than in any political debate, but oh yeah, let's pretend he's right wing, because you guys are down on your chips and really need some luck and you think we should play along because you're desperate.

I don't mean to be curt but, Fuck Yourself.

Posted by: Ace at 10:45 AM | Comments (237)
Post contains 1580 words, total size 10 kb.

The Arizona Republic requested the documents. They state that such records are released as a matter of routine in criminal cases.

Dupnik's office says, Nah. Why you want to bother yourself? I told you who's to blame, didn't I?

On Monday, The Republic requested copies of any reports from the Pima County Sheriff's Department involving contacts with Loughner or calls to his house. Pima County Deputy Rene Carlson said her office would not release the reports without a specific date, though this is not required by state statute.

Carlson said providing these documents would be tantamount to releasing criminal history.

Carlson said she could not speculate on the nature of any calls for service regarding Loughner. She also said no calls or incidents involved threats made by Loughner.

That's odd, because Dupnik already admitted Loughner had made threats -- he just claimed, improbably, that the one person Loughner didn't threaten was the one he was most obsessed with (and shot in the head, of course). Now the office seems to have a fresher recollection, and remembers still less.

Now, the Governor of Arizona is Jan Brewer and, I believe, a tough bird, and I don't think she'll be letting it rest at that. Don't scream at her for not doing it yet; the memorial is today. We're supposed to hold off on politicizing this tragedy and looking for scapegoats until later -- you know, like the left held off.

But... I trust -- and I will demand -- that by week's end the governor's office begins an investigation, retrieves the documents from Dupnik's office, and gives them to the public (after making small redactions to protect the innocent from unwanted publicity).

BTW: I think Patterico is filing his own FOIA request, but I can't find that post. He asks a lot of questions here.

Incidentally, he has the LATimes headline, Loughner's Ideology Rooted In the Far Right. Enjoy!

He makes a point that occurred to me in the top post, on Palin's address. He says he thinks Palin is counting on people knowing more than they might. That... worries me too, for her.

Because the fact is, there is no evidence that Loughner ever even heard of her, or anyone on the right for that matter. But her address, by denying that she's to blame for the shooting, sort of... well, in the heads of someone who isn't following this very closely, their takeaway might be So she agitated for someone to shoot someone else and now they have and now she's just saying you can't blame me, he's a nut.

Worrisome. She's sort of hedged in (nice work, media!) in how far she can go, how fulsome a defense she can make, so she can't actually go through the entire checklist of stuff all of you know. That, you see, would be self-serving, and someone accused of high crimes by the national media can never be self-serving in their own defense.

So... Hm. I do worry about that.

Posted by: Ace at 09:52 AM | Comments (177)
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.

Oh no they didn't, you say.

Oh yes they did, I say.

ABCNews' "The Note:"

BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks.

I accused the Laughner Left of paranoid schizophrenia. There's some evidence of that right here, because earlier in this posting, The Note wrote:

Her words, of course, amount to a rebuttal of those who have called her out for using violent images to “target” Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other Democratic lawmakers during the 2010 election.

So how is this Sarah Palin "finding a way to insert herself into the story"? The Note itself writes she was inserted by others -- but then go on to glibly accuse her of stealing the spotlight. A spotlight she did not want, and was put into by... liberals and the media (but I repeat myself) such as the liberal media types at The Note.

Of course they frame it as "A Tale of Two Speeches" -- Palin's today, which is horrible and just her inserting herself into the story for shabby political ends, and Obama's tonight, which The Note assures us...

” It remains to be seen exactly what Obama will say tonight, but White House aides say another goal of his address will be to lift the nation up in this moment, not sully it with politics.

Ah! So Obama won't be sullying it with politics. That's reassuring, given the number of top Democrats urging him to seize his "Oklahoma City moment" and "deftly pin this to the Tea Party."

Good to know, good to know.

By the Way: One commenter seemed to think I was calling out Sarah Palin for an error when I kept referring to "conscience [sic] dreaming;" I think she referred to "conscious dreaming."

Nope. Loughner wrote "conscience dreaming," which is in error, because he's a fucking illiterate moron in addition to being a moral monster. That's why I keep writing "sic," which means "as it appears (in error) in the original.

The right thing to say is "conscious dreaming," but even that's not really the typical term. I've always heard it as "lucid dreaming." But that just means, approximately, "conscious dreaming."

Anyway, Loughner knows it as "conscious dreaming," which isn't the typical term but it's accurate enough, but he's stupid to the point of diagnosable brain damage so he writes "conscience dreaming" instead, which would mean, I guess, dreaming about possessing an actual, functioning human conscience, which, now that I think about it, who knows, maybe that is the right term after all.

Maybe when Loughner dreams he dreams of an alternate world in which he is not a monster of a loser and loser of a monster.

Posted by: Ace at 09:34 AM | Comments (161)
Post contains 495 words, total size 3 kb.

Sure, demonizing Sarah Palin and conservatives in general is fun but it's just a means to an end...increased Democrat control of government and society. And what do Democrats do when they are in charge? Raise taxes! A lot.

Democratic Illinois lawmakers beat a looming deadline and approved a 66 percent income-tax increase in a desperate bid to end the state's crippling budget crisis.

Legislative leaders rushed early Wednesday to pass the politically risky plan before a new General Assembly was sworn in at noon, taking a slice out of the Democratic majority and removing lame-duck lawmakers willing to support the tax before leaving office.

The rate increase might be the biggest any state has adopted in percentage terms while grappling with recent economic woes. Nevertheless, Illinois' tax rate would remain lower than in several other states in the region.

The increase now goes to Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, who supports the plan to temporarily raise the personal tax rate to 5 percent, a two-thirds increase from the current 3 percent rate. Corporate taxes also would climb as part of the effort to close a budget hole that could hit $15 billion this year.

...Quinn's office said the higher taxes will generate about $6.8 billion a year — a major increase by any measure.

It will be coupled with strict 2 percent limits on spending growth.

So taxes go through the roof but there'll be a "strict" (sound serious!) limit in NEW spending? How about, I don't know...CUTTING spending?

Oh and Illinois Democrats? Yeah, don't count all that new money just rolling in. Behold what Oregon's massive tax increase did for the state's coffers.

In 2009 the state legislature raised the tax rate to 10.8% on joint-filer income of between $250,000 and $500,000, and to 11% on income above $500,000. Only New York City’s rate is higher. Oregon’s liberal voters ratified the tax increase on individuals and another on businesses in January of this year, no doubt feeling good about their “shared sacrifice.”

Congratulations. Instead of $180 million collected last year from the new tax, the state received $130 million. The Eugene Register-Guard newspaper reports that after the tax was raised “income tax and other revenue collections began plunging so steeply that any gains from the two measures seemed trivial.”

One reason revenues are so low is that about one-quarter of the rich tax filers seem to have gone missing. The state expected 38,000 Oregonians to pay the higher tax, but only 28,000 did.

In soon to be related news...Illinois' neighbors in Wisconsin (led by a new Republican Governor) is cutting taxes and is "Open for Business".

Posted by: DrewM at 08:44 AM | Comments (118)
Post contains 456 words, total size 3 kb.

Why is Sarah Palin speaking on this? Why does she have to speak about this?

Well, because, of course, the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have put her in the position of the Son of Sam's dog, delivering Satanic commands into the jug-ears of bug-eyed freak Loughner. They did this on the basis of zero evidence, and, as I keep saying, quite a welter of evidence against the thesis, but they did it just the same, because they can. They don't have the power to control the Narrative anymore, but they damnsure have the power to push it.

So here we have the spectacle of someone not the Sheriff of Pima County having to explain her purported negligence in the shooting while the actual Sheriff of Pima County has not been asked a single question about his own.

That's where we are. That's the country we live in.

Video at The Campaign Spot; here's the passage that will be quoted and debated.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you donÂ’t like a personÂ’s vision for the country, youÂ’re free to debate that vision. If you donÂ’t like their ideas, youÂ’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

Because everything Sarah Palin says or does is "controversial," of course this is controversial too; she used the term "blood libel," which, it is now alleged, cannot be used, ever, except in reference to the Jewish population which was first slurred by the original "blood libel." (No word yet from Keith Olbermann on why she can't say "blood libel" but he can say "Holocaust," referring to attempts to block the Ground Zero Mosque; but I'm sure he'll come up with one.)

Geraghty is already refuting this typical, brain-dead ankle-biting by saying the use of the term in other contexts is "more common than you think," which is wrong in my case, because I already did think it was very common. But his Nexus/Lexus search is more authoriative than my hunches.

It should be noted here that this newest round of shrieking and caterwauling is perfectly of a piece with the last; Sarah Palin's every word is scrutinized and criticized for being inappropriate and dangerous, and of course her use of the word "targeting" caused this attack, and now, we find out, that in a speech defending herself (obliquely) from such attacks, she has now further contributed to the "climate of hate" by using the term "blood libel."

Blood. What a giveaway, as Monty Python would say.

This is the lunacy that she/we will all be subjected to, every single word-choice challenged, because, yeah, the Narrative did get out the door and the Democrats and the media have determined that no one, no power on heaven or earth, shall ever stop the Narrative.

You can contain the Narrative, you can rebut it, but you can't stop the Narrative.

This is in fact blood libel, and this is now, officially, the Stupidest Shit I've Ever Heard In My Whole Fucking Life. We are now debating -- quite seriously, or we're supposed to be quite serious about debating this -- whether Sarah Palin can use martial imagery in her speech, even though everyone in politics does this, including the very media now assuring us this is all a terrible thing. And we are supposed to have this very serious debate while our opponents in the debate are simply making things up, or, more accurately: We are supposed to indulge our opponents' retreat to a fantasy world they've constructed, and not disrupt their fantasy too much, because, who knows, Paul Krugman might snap if we do.

Thus we are all summoned to discuss the effects of Sarah Palin's target symbols on the mind of Jared Loughner (quick version of that discussion: None) and pretend that it was a Tea Party "climate of hate" that cause Jared Loughner to get violent over his belief that the government was using grammar to mind control us and keep us from escaping into the world of "conscience [sic] dreaming."

We're really supposed to have this discussion. And we're supposed to be buttoned-up serious about it. People are dead, after all, so of course we must pay lip service to our opponents' own Loughnerian escape into fantasy worlds of conscience [sic] dreaming.

As Allah asked: Am I awake?

Yes, yes you are. All of this shit? It's really happening.

So, because one segment of the population has, along with Jared Loughner, fled to a dream world that they control, "consciencely" [sic], by simply asserting that white is black and day is night, we're supposed to join them, and find common ground with them, and find something interesting that we can jointly agree upon.

I suppose: Yes, this world of conscience [sic] dreaming you've made is certainly a nice one, and, assuming the various false premises you've conscience [sic] dreamed into existence, I do see that your syllogism does follow (again, Loughner-like) from those false premises.

I guess I'm supposed to say that.

Since the left has gone Loughner, maybe I'll join them.

Paranoid schizophrenics see patterns and connections where there are none, and where tangible, real-world evidence tells us there are none.

Leftists see patterns and connections were there are none, and where tangible, real-world evidence tells us there are none.

Therefore, leftists have become paranoid schizophrenics.

That may be true. But that's not how I feel. Here is how I currently feel, on Day 4 of being locked in a leftist Loughner Dream:

If you say a false narrative is crazy, you yourself have claimed to know what is crazy or is not crazy, and that belief is itself crazy.

Ace says this false narrative is crazy.

Therefore, Ace is crazy.

Posted by: Ace at 07:53 AM | Comments (304)
Post contains 1170 words, total size 8 kb.

This post is insanely long, and it might be too obvious for most people, and some may decide at the end I've wasted their time.

Maybe it is obvious; I don't know. Sometimes I think there's a value in stating the obvious explicitly, because otherwise people tend to assume it, and therefore overlook it -- and therefore its very obviousness makes it inobvious.

You know when a post is long? When it starts with a Roman numeral. If you just want some anti-left invective, skip to VI.

I.

I'm good at seeing plot twists coming in movies because I'm keyed into the basic structure of plot, and I know, basically, there are twenty plots and fifteen subplots and a couple dozen variations and once you know those, you know every plot.

Political arguments tend to follow similar patterns, but there are even fewer "plots." 90% of all arguments about policy are about the existence, or nonexsitence, of "Category 3." Which I'll explain later.

What makes Category 3 such a contentious point of debate is, first of all, that people tend to talk about risk, particularly the risk of death, in ways they know, inside, to be false. We speak, rhetorically, publicly, about the need to avoid risk, and especially death, as if this imperative is absolute. We must do everything we can to ensure there will never be another _____ -- fill in the blank. Today it's Jared Loughner.

In fact, we have never been absolute about death. We all remember from our Drivers' Ed classes that driving ten miles over the limit increases the risk of death in a collision by a nontrivial amount, some increased odds of death that is not so small as to be a rounding error. A number large enough to count -- 2%, 3%, 5%. Whatever it is. I'm not looking up because the actual number isn't important. What's important is that I know there is in fact an increased risk of fatality in a collision for each 10 mph I go over the limit, and I blow this off. I don't think about it. I shoot for a speed that has nothing to do with physical safety; it's really just about what I can get away with without drawing a ticket. Not anything having to do with elevated risk to a life that should, in theory, matter to me.

In the seventies, I think, lawsuits were directed at car companies for "design defects" that increased the odds of fatality in collision. In fact, they weren't defects at all. Car designers could make every car as safe as possible -- with heavy steel frames and heavy bumpers and and the like -- but they don't. They have mathematicians calculating risk, and they pick a risk-level they think is reasonable, taking into account the target cost of the vehicle. And yeah, cheap cars are lighter and smaller and therefore more deadly in collisions.

And to make sense of that risk -- because equations need numbers -- they had to assign a dollar-value to a human life.

The plaintiffs there claimed that it was inhuman and so on to "assign a value to a human life and say that that life will not be protected above a target cost," but the courts wisely ruled against such claims. Because, while we may talk as if each human life has inestimable value and is precious beyond mere dollars, in real life, we know that's not true. We don't act as if that's true. We are well aware of the risk of death when we undertake certain risks, and we go ahead undertaking those risks anyway.

It's not true that we assign life an infinite value, and that value, being infinite, therefore trumps all other considerations. We assign it a limited value, so that some risks do turn out to be "worth it," in our minds. The typical public rhetoric does not match the reality we all understand. You're not allowed to say that a human life only has a value of $10,000,000, or whatever you assign it, in public. You're called "inhuman" or cynical or whatever.

Nonetheless, we all do a quasi-economic calculation when we undertake risks, and whether we assign the value of our lives at $1,000,000 or $50,000,000, there is some number attached to it. Whatever it is, it's not "infinity." It's large, but it's not infinitely large.

It's because of this disconnect between what we say about death and what we actually know about death that Category 3 takes such an outsized role in the public debate. more...

Posted by: Ace at 06:33 AM | Comments (212)
Post contains 3390 words, total size 20 kb.

If you haven't seen it yet, Sarah Palin's video statement on the Arizona mass murder, "America's Enduring Strength," is tucked below the fold. Definitely watch it when you get a chance. I'm going to mention only one part of it right now and maybe come back for the rest of it later because liberals are, once again, having a contrived conniption.

Partway through the statement, Palin condemns the Democratic and media attempt to claim that the shooting is the fault of the Tea Party.

Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you donÂ’t like a personÂ’s vision for the country, youÂ’re free to debate that vision. If you donÂ’t like their ideas, youÂ’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

This paragraph is fairly unobjectionable for most people. As we saw yesterday, a majority of Americans recognized and rejected the disgusting attempt to link Jared Loughner with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

I think many liberal commentators realize that the slime job isn't working. So they have decided to simply deflect and object to something else about Palin. Now they're claiming that there is an "uproar" that she used the term "blood libel".

First, there's no uproar. Yes, the objection appears in a NYTimes blog and all over Daily Kos. But that's it. Because even their own definition of "blood libel" includes the manner in which Palin used the term.

Here's the NYTimes; I have emphasized the key word:

By using the term “blood libel” to describe the criticism about political rhetoric after the shootings, Ms. Palin was inventing a new definition for an emotionally laden phrase. Blood libel is typically used to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term has been used for centuries as the pretext for anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews.

Typically. Typically, but not exclusively, blood libels have been accusations against Jews. But blood libels have also been made historically against Christians -- including Catholics and the Knights Templar -- witches and pagans, and, more modernly, Satanists.

Liberals need something to mumble about, so goshdarnitow sometime between yesterday and today the term came to apply only to the Jews. They'd like you to believe this is "another" example of Palin's ignorance, even though, as I said, by their own definition her use of the term is appropriate. As with their response to the Arizona shooting, facts-be-damned they've got a story and they're sticking to it.

Anyway, the video is below the fold. You can get a transcript over here. Don't let any libtards you run into today redefine the term "blood libel" for the sole purpose of bashing Palin. They don't own the words and their attempt to redefine the term demonstrates their own ignorance, not hers.

And that should be the response. The next person who tells me that Palin shouldn't have said it because blood libels only are used against the Jews is going to get an incredulous: "Are you stupid? Historically...and etc."

This is willful ignorance so liberal commentators can feel good about themselves. Their slander over the weekend didn't stick, so now it's on to a new one. Notice, they can't claim not to have made the false accusation that the Tea Party caused the Arizona shooting. So instead of defending it, which they can't, they'll just quibble about the words Palin used. more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:52 AM | Comments (256)
Post contains 657 words, total size 5 kb.

Speaking of twos and ones, it's 21 friggin degrees here this morning. And I heard Bloomberg has another opportunity to demonstrate amazing leadership today.

So good luck, NYC morons.

Also, don't miss this in the sidebar. Also shut up with your hate speech and stop objecting to slander, it isn't helpful.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:34 AM | Comments (143)
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.