Sarah Palin is Right About 'Blood Libel' — UPDATE!! Jonah Goldberg Walks Back 'Very Modest Objection' to Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel'

From Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, at WSJ, "Judaism Rejects the Idea of Collective Responsibility for Murder":

Despite the strong association of the term with collective Jewish guilt and concomitant slaughter, Sarah Palin has every right to use it. The expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder.

The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews—their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel ....

Murder is humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any group threatens every group. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Indeed, the belief that the concept of blood libel applies only to Jews is itself a form of reverse discrimination that should be dismissed.

Judaism rejects the idea of collective responsibility for murder, as the Hebrew Bible condemns accusations of collective guilt against Jew and non-Jew alike. "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezekiel 18).

How unfortunate that some have chosen to compound a national tragedy by politicizing the murder of six innocent lives and the attempted assassination of a congresswoman.

To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral.

Great piece.

RTWT at the link.

RELATED: The Knoxville Metro Pulse is libeling Instapundit, "Is Glenn Reynolds Getting Sarah Palin in Trouble?":

... Reynolds is no stranger to overheated rhetoric himself. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, he famously called anti-war skeptics "objectively pro-Saddam." (And of course, if you're looking for rhetoric that did help lead to a whole lot of violence, all of the war-drum beating that people like Reynolds did in late 2002 and early 2003 is a fine example.)

All the war-drum beating that "people like Reynolds did" led to a "whole lot of violence"?

Well, there's some more collective guilt for you. Asshats. "Rhetoric" isn't to blame for the violence last weekend, or in 2003. See, "Tucson and the Failure of the Political Class" (via Glenn).

UPDATE: Here's Goldberg, "‘Blood Libel’ and Beyond" (via Memeorandum):

As for the “blood libel” flap, I’ve decided to ratchet down my already very modest objection to the term. While I still think it would have been better had she not used the phrase, so much of the criticism of it is in bad faith. Her intent was honorable and her point was right. Moreover, she’s hardly the first person to use the term outside the bounds of discussions of anti-Semitism. She wasn’t even talking about “the blood libel” but warning against the creation of “a blood libel,” which is exactly what Krugman, Olberman & Co. were doing. The “controversy” was a red herring and little more.

And this just isn't going away. At Politico, "Some Say 'Blood Libel' Signaled Base":

Sarah Palin’s use of the charged term “blood libel” may not have been an accidental blunder, but a deliberate “‘dog whistle” appeal to her evangelical Christian supporters for whom the expression has meaning, commentators and others are saying.

Taegan Goddard, founder of nonpartisan news site Political Wire, floated the idea after the release of Palin’s video remarks Wednesday, writing that “… while it’s not entirely clear what Palin intended, it’s possible she was trying to use dog whistle politics to speak to her religious base who often feel they’re an oppressed minority.”

Commentators have adopted the phrase “dog whistle” to describe Palin’s use of certain words and ideas that will be immediately heard and understood by conservative Christians, but often will not be picked up on by the broader public.

Evangelicals relate to the phrase “blood libel” because they view themselves as a religiously persecuted minority - much like the Jews.

Well, I love the smell of desperation in the morning ... or the evening, be that as it may. The left's "dog whistle" is simply a dishonest ideological construction to facilitate racist smears when there is no real racism in the first place. In this case, I'm not quite sure what utility Palin would have in dog whistling: She is embattled. Before folks in Tucson even knew what happened the progressive-left erupted with despicable allegations of Palin's complicity to murder. It doesn't get more sick than that, and as Goldberg's walk-back indicates, some in the conservative Jewish community may be realizing that criticisms of Palin only work to embolden those who aren't their friends. It's pretty straightforward actually. Progressives are the new anti-Semites, and the right's pushback against Palin is having an enabling effect on the far-left. I wouldn't be surprised if Charles Krauthammer updated some of his remarks in the near future. He certainly agreed Palin was libeled. He simply suggested that she'd have been better off remaining above the fray.

Christina Taylor Green Laid to Rest

At LAT, "Funeral Held for Christina Green, 9-Year-Old Victim of Tucson Shooting":

The U.S. flag that flew atop the World Trade Center is displayed at the service for Christina Taylor Green, who was born on Sept. 11, 2001. 'I felt I had to be here to pay my respects,' says a mourner outside the church.

Less than a week after the deadly mass shooting that left six dead and 13 injured, Tucson began to bury the dead on Thursday.

The first funeral from Saturday's shooting was for the youngest victim, Christina Taylor Green, a 9-year-old girl who was born on Sept. 11, 2001, the day of the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

The U.S. flag that flew atop the World Trade Center was displayed at the funeral, linking the two tragedies that served as parentheses enclosing the brief span of the child who has become a symbol of how violence can shatter a life.

Hundreds of mourners lined the roadway leading to St. Elizabeth Ann Seton church, where the funeral began at 1 p.m. Mountain Standard Time. Many wore white and carried a single rose.

"I felt I had to be here to pay my respects," said David Johnson, 38, of Phoenix. "It was something I felt really strongly about. It hits really close to home."

According to the program, Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas led the service, a Mass of resurrection. Readings included Psalm 23 and John 14:1-6.

The University of Arizona choir performed as did a piper, who played "Amazing Grace."

The front of the program had a picture of a smiling Christina wearing a tiara. On the back were the lyrics to Billy Joel's "Lullaby," with its haunting lyric, "Good night my angel, now it's time to sleep."

PREVIOUSLY: "Christina Taylor Green (Profiles of the Arizona Shooting Victims)."

RELATED: "Why Progressives Lost It."

Why Progressives Lost It

It's interesting, as Charles Krauthammer noted earlier, but by late Sunday (at least) it was beyond any doubt that Jared Loughner acted alone --- Loughner committed crimes of unimaginable evil on his own, without any impetus from Sarah Palin, conservatives, the Tea Party, Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh. But the charges of guilt by both allegation and implication continue, so it remains important to once again recall why the progressive left has been insistent on spreading hate and lies following the massacre. From Daniel Henninger, at WSJ (via Memeorandum):

There has been a great effort this week to come to grips with the American left's reaction to the Tucson shooting. Paul Krugman of the New York Times and its editorial page, George Packer of the New Yorker, E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post, Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and others, in varying degrees, have linked the murders to the intensity of opposition to the policies and presidency of Barack Obama. As Mr. Krugman asked in his Monday commentary: "Were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen?"

The "you" would be his audience, and the answer is yes, they thought that in these times "something like this" could happen in the United States. Other media commentators, without a microbe of conservatism in their bloodstreams, have rejected this suggestion.

So what was the point? Why attempt the gymnastic logic of asserting that the act of a deranged personality was linked to the tea parties and the American right? Two reasons: Political calculation and personal belief.

The calculation flows from the shock of the midterm elections of November 2010. That was no ordinary election. What voters did has the potential to change the content and direction of the U.S. political system, possibly for a generation.

Only 24 months after Barack Obama's own historic election and a rising Democratic tide, the country flipped. Not just control of the U.S. House, but deep in the body politic. Republicans now control more state legislative seats than any time since 1928.

What elevated this transfer of power to historic status is that it came atop the birth of a genuine reform movement, the tea parties. Most of the time, election results are the product of complex and changeable sentiments or the candidates' personalities. What both sides fear most is a genuine movement with focused goals.

More at the link.

And more later ...

Obama's Address at Tucson Memorial

I shared my emotions previously, at the Daniel Hernandez essay, but I'm not to begrudge this too much. It was respectful. But it was Obama. He goes through the motions. He can't shake the mien of indifference. That, and the partisanship. I hate the Wellstonianism. The Democrats need a mass murder to get behind this president and rally the base. Sad. And despicable. (More commentary here.)

Charles Krauthammer: Palin's Statement on Tucson 'Unfortunate and Unnecessary'

Krauthammer responds to Jewish criticisms of Sarah Palin's use of the term "blood libel."

He mainly laments that Palin gave the speech at all. Sure, it might be a sensitive issue given that Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish, and she's fighting for her life while the rest of the nation debates allegations of "blood libel"? I'm personally not bothered by the use of the term as it's applied to the libelous attacks on Palin and tea party conservatives. Frankly, Glenn Reynolds' essay at WSJ the other day has been one of the most penetrating: "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel." Harvard's Alan Dershowitz vigorously defended Palin today. And Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider writes that "Sarah Palin has finally weighed in with a long, thoughtful reaction to the Arizona tragedy and all the talk that it was somehow the result of 'heated rhetoric'." There's still lots more up on this at Memeorandum, but see the Los Angeles Times, "Sarah Palin Video on Giffords Aftermath Stays True to Who Palin Is":

The video had elements of a presidential-level address, with an American flag featured prominently in the frame. Palin spoke in a calm tone — noticeably different from her rousing "mama grizzly" style during last year's election campaign — about the democratic process and the need to condemn violence "if the republic is to endure." She appealed for a common response to the tragedy, saying, "We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate."

She released the video on the same day that President Obama traveled to Arizona to speak at a memorial service, and won a position opposite the president on many news outlets. By comparison, potential GOP candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee this week issued statements on the shootings that went largely unnoticed.

Ken Khachigian, a former speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Reagan and a longtime GOP strategist in California, said he was struck by Palin's bearing in the video, saying he thought the former vice presidential nominee "appeared more grown-up."

"She captured some of what she did at the [Republican] convention in '08," he said. "She was more conversational, more dignified."

In her message, Palin did not refer directly to accusations that her use last year of a map showing Giffords' Arizona district, among others, targeted in crosshairs helped foster a climate of violence. Instead, she said, "After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern and now with sadness to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event."

The resulting "blood libel" serves "only to incite the hatred and violence that they purport to condemn," she said. "That is reprehensible."

Jewish groups and others reacted swiftly, saying Palin had associated her political plight with centuries of anti-Semitic behavior. A "blood libel" is a term that dates back to the Middle Ages, when Jewish people were accused of using the blood of Christians in religious rituals.

"Palin's comments either show a complete ignorance of history or blatant anti-Semitism," said Jonathan Beeton, a spokesman for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who, like Giffords, is Jewish. "Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Rep. Giffords' faith and the events of the past week."

But Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, commenting Wednesday on the Big Government website operated by conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, defended Palin's use of the term.

"There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim," Dershowitz said.

More at the link.

And previously: "The Great Communicator: Sarah Palin Calls Out Despicable 'Blood Libel'."

And see Instapundit here and here.

Daniel Hernandez Speaks at Tucson Memorial --- UPDATED!!

Gabrielle Giffords' intern gave an excellent address, if not the best of the night. I'll have more commentary later. I was moved to tears at a couple of moments during the evening, when Gov. Brewer spoke so eloquently and when President Obama announced the Rep. Giffords had opened her eyes tonight for the first time since Saturday's massacre. But I think Mr. Hernandez's address will really stay with me as representing dignity and poise in the American tradition, and a maturity far beyond his years. He's a hero despite his best efforts to live down the honor:

Until later, see Michelle's live blog, "Branding the Tucson Massacre" (at Memeorandum).

Also, Lynn Sweet, "'Gabby Opened Her Eyes For The First Time:' Obama At Tucson Memorial." Plus, at New York Times, "Obama’s Remarks in Tucson" (via Memeorandum). And, "Obama Calls for New Era of Civility in U.S. Politics," and "Facing Challenge, Obama Returns to Unity Theme."

UPDATE: YouTube took down the video, but here's another from an audience member:

Plus, FWIW, Olby interviews Hernandez:

Progressives and 'Blood Libel'

Palin's statement is at the link: "The Great Communicator: Sarah Palin Calls Out Despicable 'Blood Libel'."

Progressives are going crazy over the meaning of "blood libel." See Media Matters, "Palin, Conservatives Invoke 'Blood Libel' Accusation to Attack Their Critics Over AZ Shooting."

Ben Smith notes the background:

The phrase "blood libel" was introduced into the debate this week by Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds, and raised some eyebrows because it typically refers historically to the alleged murder of Christian babies by Jews, and has been used more recently by Israeli's supporters to refer to accusations against the country. It's a powerful metaphor, and one that carries the sense of an oppressed minority.

Glenn has been responding, and he links to AoSHQ, who destroys progressive criticism:

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.

And see Alan Dershowitz:

The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

Also, Yid With Lid (Jeff Dunetz), at Big Journalism, "What’s Wrong With Sarah Palin Using the Term Blood Libel?", and Pamela Geller, "A Conspiracy Against the Mind, Against Life, Against Man and the Virtue of Sarah" (also at Big Government).

More at Memeorandum.

The Great Communicator: Sarah Palin Calls Out Despicable 'Blood Libel'

It's Reaganesque.

The full text is here.

Additional commentary:

* The Hill, "Palin accuses media of 'blood libel' in Giffords shooting aftermath." (Via Memeorandum.)

* At LAT, "Sarah Palin unapologetic after criticism related to Arizona shootings‎."

Added: There's a debate over the origins and usage of "blood libel":

* Ben Smith, "The origins of ‘blood libel’."

* Jonah Goldberg, "“Blood Libel”."

And from Charles Krauthammer, "Massacre, followed by libel":

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

Obama Plans Call for Unity at Memorial for Tucson Victims

Is Tucson Obama's Oklahoma City?

Well, no actually. But the political similarities are fascinating, and it's certainly time for the president to make good on his pledge to heal the nation's partisan wounds. Those aren't metaphorical anymore. See Mara Liasson, "'Consoler In Chief': Tough Role In Partisan Times."

The White House is making plans for President Obama to visit Tuscon, Ariz., in the aftermath of the deadly shooting there, although a person familiar with the president's schedule tells NPR that the details of Wednesday's visit were still being worked out.

In the past, presidents have been able to unify the country during moments like these. But in today's hyperpartisan political climate, even those potentially unifying moments can be hard to pull off.

Many Americans look to the president for reassurance in times of tragedy. At these times, he is the "consoler in chief." Ronald Reagan, for example, performed this role beautifully in his speech honoring the astronauts who died when the space shuttle Challenger blew up in 1986.

"We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye, and slipped the surly bonds of Earth, to touch the face of God," he said.

George W. Bush had an impromptu but affective moment as he shouted through a bullhorn on top of a pile of rubble at the World Trade Center site in September 2001: "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon."

Reagan spoke after a terrible accident; Bush after coordinated terrorist attacks. But in 1995, President Bill Clinton faced a situation more similar to the one Obama faces today: an attack on federal employees at the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

"Let us let our own children know that we will stand against the forces of fear," he said at the memorial service for the Oklahoma City bombing victims. "When there is talk of hatred, let us stand up and talk against it. When there is talk of violence, let us stand up and talk against it. In the face of death, let us honor life."

More at the link.

Laisson has more from McCurry, who suggests that an "Oklahoma City moment" is impossible "in a time when we chew up and spit out political ramifications more quickly than 16 years ago."

I don't quite buy that. The evidence is inconclusive that the political environment is more politically polarized than it was in the 1990s. I do think that the changing mass media environment has an amplification effect --- that the loudest and most vitriolic voices receive outsized airtime, and this is exacerbated by the reverberations of ideological cocooning. The feedback from the most strident voices in the MFM and netroots fever swamps gains a favorable hearing in the Democrat Party establishment, where we've seen a deep and lasting move to the ideological left in recent years (at the congressional level today the party is bolstered by a striking number of ideological socialists).

In any case, see also NYT, "Obama Speech to Focus on Serving Country."

RELATED: "Have You No Sense of Decency, Rachel Maddow, at Long Last? Have You Left No Sense of Decency?"

Gov. Jan Brewer Delivers Emotional State of the State Address

The full text is here.

And at New York Times, "Governor Strives to Restore Arizona’s Reputation," a discussion of Brewer's speech at the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce's annual luncheon:

TUCSON — Gov. Jan Brewer had intended to use her speech at the Convention Center here on Tuesday to talk about the severe budget shortfall that Arizona faces, after two years in which she had been identified with a series of contentious issues, particularly immigration.

But no. “Today is not a day for politics or policy,” Ms. Brewer said. For a fleet eight minutes, Ms. Brewer, looking sober and saddened, paid tribute to those who were killed and injured in a mass shooting on Saturday — and also offered something of a defense of a state whose reputation has been under a cloud.

“I want to speak to you about the Arizona I know, the place we saw again even on such an awful Saturday,” she said. “It is a place of service, a place of heroes, a place with a bruised, battered heart that I know will get past this hideous moment.”

Her remarks, a downstate reprise of the official State of the State address she gave to lawmakers in Phoenix on Monday, illustrate the challenges Ms. Brewer faces. She is eagerly trying to defend a state whose reputation has been battered in recent years, particularly since the massacre here on Saturday.

But fairly or not, Arizona’s image has been forged in part because of Ms. Brewer herself, who has been identified with the tough law aimed at illegal immigrants, budget cuts that include denying aid to people who need life-saving transplants and laws permitting people to take concealed guns into bars and banning the teaching of ethnic studies in public schools.

“She faces some real challenges where the image of Arizona is concerned,” said Nathan Sproul, a Republican consultant here. “I think this is the darkest time for Arizona, per the way the nation looks at us, since when we repealed the Martin Luther King holiday in the 1980s. That took Arizona a decade to overcome. I think this presents Arizona with the strongest challenge since then.”

That's a clever use of quotations from the Times' Adam Nagourny. Public opinion data do not support the notion that Gov. Brewer's leadership left the state's image in tatters. It's the opposite, actually, and Brewer cruised to reelection last November. That said, the massacre itself won't recede from the American psyche for years, although my sense is that the crisis will bring out the best in some of our leaders --- Jan Brewer for sure, and perhaps President Obama as well. He's expected to deliver an address to the nation tomorrow night.

See also, "Brewer Visits Tucson Shooting Victims in Hospital."

RELATED: "Tribute to Rep. Giffords Will Affirm the First Amendment as ‘Bedrock’." (Via Memeorandum.)

Murder in Arizona and the Left's Despicable Exploitation of It

A phenomenal "talking points" from O'Reilly:

And some excellent commentary at Instapundit, here and here.

Because Conservatives Are Good People by Nature

"Conservatives always seem surprised by the activities of the Left. In the last three years of running HillBuzz, I honestly have come to believe that’s because conservatives are by and large really good people by nature. They are stunned, perpetually, by the actions of the Left because the Left consistently does things conservatives can’t imagine one human being doing to another. Because they would never do these things to people, conservatives can’t imagine other people ever doing them."

That's Kevin DuJan, who's been mercilessly targeted by the left for excavating the depths of Democratic Party demonology. See, "Learning from the Left’s response to this weekend: what to do the next time the Left decides to politicize a tragedy?"

Meanwhile, via John Hawkins, "Liberals Loved The Gabrielle Giffords Shooting."

And at Atlas Shrugs on the hardline progressive left, "The Face of Hate." And once more from Michelle, "The Progressive “Climate of Hate:” An Illustrated Primer, 2000-2010."

Have You No Sense of Decency, Rachel Maddow, at Long Last? Have You Left No Sense of Decency?

Well, that didn't take long. I wrote previously that Rachel Maddow was "crestfallen" at the news that alleged killer Jared Loughner wasn't a tea partier. She'd argued at the time that "nothing was to be gained" without the facts. While welcomed, Maddow's restraint was surprising, given how hate-addled progressives like Markos Moulitsas and TBogg were assigning blame before we knew much of anything, especially the fate of the fallen. And as I noted earlier, Maddow's response was all the more unusual, since "nobody on the progressive left has been more aggressive in portraying conservatism as a violent millenarian movement." Well, throw all of that out of the window. Here's the clip of Maddow's comments last night:

The segment's called "Facts Matter," but obviously they don't. The public consensus now is that "heated rhetoric" isn't to be blamed for Jared Loughner's actions in Tuscon. Or more starkly, as Ed Morrissey puts it, "57% of Americans don’t buy media spin on Tucson massacre." But here's Rachel Maddow anyway, flailing away with an attack on the tea parties that's both unprincipled and record-setting in its depravity. Maddow goes after former Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle's comments from last year on "Second Amendment remedies," and she cites this article at the Reno Gazette-Journal to make the case. Maddow makes an elaborate set-up, citing the lack of evidence linking Loughner to right-wing extremist groups, and then she tries to get around the fact that "right-wing rhetoric" had nothing to do with it by claiming that Angle's comments weren't rhetoric at all, but actual incitement to gun violence. This is beneath demagoguery, and that's saying a lot. Just checking Memeorandum is making me nauseous. Sen. Bernie Sanders has issued a fundraising appeal looking to exploit the massacre for partisanship? And Sarah Palin death threats on Twitter?

Anyway, I'll have more later, but see Tom Maguire until then, "And Speaking Of Krugman And Double Standards At The Times..." (via Memeorandum).

Gabrielle Giffords' Medical Status

The video below is from yesterday, but there's updated news this afternoon. At Also, at Tucson Sentinel, "Doc: Giffords '100 Percent' Certain to Survive" (via Memeorandum):

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is "100 percent" certain to survive, said Dr. Peter Rhee, a surgeon treating her for a gunshot wound to the head.

"As a physician I'm going to get into a lot of trouble for this, but her prognosis for survival is 100 percent, as far as it being short term," Rhee told Britain's Channel 4 News ....

At NYT, "Doctors Say Giffords Is Able to Breathe on Her Own":

TUCSON —Gabrielle Giffords has shown no increase in brain swelling and is now able to breathe on her own, doctors said at a news conference Tuesday morning, but they said they planned to keep the wounded congresswoman on a ventilator as a precaution.

Dr. G. Michael Lemole Jr., chief of neurosurgery at University Medical Center, said Ms. Giffords remained in stable condition on Tuesday. She was hospitalized after being struck in the head with a gunshot fired at point-blank range while she was talking with constituents outside a Tucson supermarket on Saturday. Six people were killed in the shooting incident and 14 more were injured, including the Ms. Giffords, the apparent main target of the attack.

“I am happy to say that she is holding her own,” Dr. Lemole said. “She is able to generate her own breath.”

Doctors have removed nearly half of Ms. Giffords’s skull to prevent swelling from damaging her brain. “This the phase of the care where so much of it is up to her,” he said. “She is going to take her recovery at her own pace.”

Relatives of some others wounded in the shooting appeared at the hospital news conference along with Dr. Lemole. They said that though their family members continue to recover from the physical wounds they received, the emotional scarring would probably take far longer to heal.

Bill Hileman, whose wife Susan Hileman was shot three times, said that when he visited her bedside, she asked him, “What about Christina?” Ms. Hileman had been holding hands outside the supermarket with the Hilemans’ nine-year-old neighbor, Christina Green, when the shots rang out; the girl was also hit and later died of her wounds.

Mr. Hileman said that though his wife had been in a morphine-induced haze, she was clearly devastated when he told her that the girl had died. “We’re going to have that as an ongoing issue that we’ll be dealing with,” Mr. Hileman said about his wife’s feelings of guilt. Ms. Hileman had invited Christina to accompany her to the event at the supermarket that morning because of the girl’s interest in politics.

Memorial services were scheduled for Tuesday evening at two Tucson churches for victims of the shooting. President Obama and his wife are expected to attend another memorial service on Wednesday.

More at the link.

Christina Taylor Green

She was just 9 years-old.

My wife, who'd been working most of the weekend, broke down in tears when she saw Christina's father interviewed. She came downstairs and told me what Mr. Green said about his daughter: "She was born and she left us in very tragic moments in United States history." See, U.S. News, "9-Year-Old Girl Is Youngest Victim of Arizona Massacre."

My youngest son was born just over a month before Christina. Yes, that kind of minuscule connection --- of random similarities in age of children who'd never met --- still makes the sadness that much deeper. (And makes the left's ridicule that much more sick and reprehensible.)

I promised my wife I'd say some words for Christina, here at the blog, and all the families involved are in our prayers. See Los Angeles Times, "Profiles of the Arizona Shooting Victims."

Progressives Escalate Blame Game Over Arizona Shooting -- UPDATED

This is really amazing.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik doubles down: "Arizona Sheriff Blasts Rush Limbaugh for Spewing 'Irresponsible' Vitriol." (Via Memeorandum.)

And at Pat Dollard, "Leftist Tucson Sheriff Tries to Gain Political Profit From Blood of Dead Victims."

Contrast that to the measured reason of Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu ... [video removed from YouTube] ...

To be sure, there is a lot of heated rhetoric in American politics, as ever. For instance, last spring, three Democratic congressmen cruelly slandered Tea Party members by accusing them of spitting on them and calling them racial slurs—a charge that was reported as true by the Times even after it was thoroughly debunked by videotapes of the event. Film director Rob Reiner compared the Tea Party to the Nazis on Bill Maher’s HBO show last October. And in May, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg infamously blamed an Islamist attempt to bomb Times Square on “someone who didn’t like health care or something.” Indeed, the Left’s hysterical response to all who disagree with it—that they are racist or sexist or “phobic” or somehow reminiscent of Hitler—has become so predictable that satirists, from the libertarian Greg Gutfeld to the liberal Jon Stewart, have made fun of it in routines.

But never mind that, because the Left’s sudden talk about incendiary political rhetoric in the wake of the Arizona shooting isn’t really about political rhetoric at all. It’s about the real-world failure of leftist policies everywhere—the bankrupting of nations and states by greedy unions and unfundable social programs, the destruction of inner cities by identity politics, and the appeasement of Muslim extremists in the face of worldwide jihad, not to mention the frequently fatal effects of delirious environmentalism. Europe is in debt and on fire. American citizens are in political revolt. Even the most left-wing president ever is making desperate overtures to his right.

But all that might be tolerable to leftists if they weren’t starting to lose control of the one weapon in which they have the most faith: the narrative. The narrative is what leftists believe in instead of the truth. If they can blame George W. Bush for the economic crisis, if they can make Sarah Palin out to be an idiot, if they can call the Tea Party racist until you think it must be true, they might yet retain power in spite of the international disgrace of their ideas. And though they still mostly dominate the narrative on the three broadcast networks, most cable stations, most newspapers, and much of Hollywood, nonetheless Fox News, talk radio, the Internet, and the Wall Street Journal have begun to respond in ways they can’t ignore.

That’s the hateful rhetoric they’re talking about: conservatives interrupting the stream of leftist invective in order to dismantle their arguments with the facts. As for leftists’ reaction to the Arizona shooting, call it Narrative Hysteria: a frantic attempt to capitalize on calamity by casting their opponents, not merely as racist or sexist or Islamophobic this time, but as somehow responsible for an act of madness and evil. Shame on them.

RELATED: "The Left's Climate of Hate and Libel."

Progressives and the Giffords Shooting: Setting New Records of Depravity

From the comments at this post:

Cynthia said...

I think you've missed a few bases that should be covered. Pointing the finger at the right-wing hate speech isn't knee-jerk and unfounded. Would you like a list of all the right-wingers who've carried out murder in the last 10 years and how no liberals have? I think this point is pertinent, but including it takes a lot of the air out of your argument. Perhaps, as a liberal, I'm sick and tired of being portrayed as sub-human and treated as such in the blogosphere. By identifying myself as liberal I'm fair game - probably because right-wingers know all they'll get out of me is civil discourse while they rage and insult. It's dehumanizing to hear speeches made by tea partiers implying and standing next to militias who outright say that America needs to rid itself of us liberal scum. Are you really going to say that that kind of language comes from the left in equal proportion to the right? You can go ahead and try, but I'll be right here with a mountain of proof to prove you wrong.

I responded at the link, but Cynthia's comments are problematic and worth further rebuttal. For one thing, I'd like to see the list she's talking about. Most political killings in the last few years have been perpetrated by unhinged fringe loners. There's perhaps been one political murder committed by an alleged right-winger in recent years (Scott Roeder, himself mentallly unstable), and mainstream conservatives and Republicans unequivocally repudiated the attack. Until Cynthia produces the list, that's really all that needs to be said.

On the other hand, Michelle has compiled the ultimate "illustrated primer" of left-wing progressive hatred. Pictured here is the "Mother I’d Love to Punch," at The Edge of Forever.

And as Michelle indicates:


*****


The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.

They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.

Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.

And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.

They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.

***

The progressive climate of hate: A comprehensive illustrated primer in 8 parts:

I. PALIN HATE
II. BUSH HATE
III. MISC. TEA PARTY/GOP/ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE
VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE
VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection

*****


More later.

Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for Cynthia's reply ...

The Left's Climate of Hate and Libel

Awesome essay from Glenn Reynolds, at WSJ, "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel" (at Memeorandum):

Shortly after November's electoral defeat for the Democrats, pollster Mark Penn appeared on Chris Matthews's TV show and remarked that what President Obama needed to reconnect with the American people was another Oklahoma City bombing. To judge from the reaction to Saturday's tragic shootings in Arizona, many on the left (and in the press) agree, and for a while hoped that Jared Lee Loughner's killing spree might fill the bill.

With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate."

The critics were a bit short on particulars as to what that meant. Mrs. Palin has used some martial metaphors—"lock and load"—and talked about "targeting" opponents. But as media writer Howard Kurtz noted in The Daily Beast, such metaphors are common in politics. Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges. When Democrats use language like this—or even harsher language like Mr. Obama's famous remark, in Philadelphia during the 2008 campaign, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"—it's just evidence of high spirits, apparently. But if Republicans do it, it somehow creates a climate of hate.

There's a climate of hate out there, all right, but it doesn't derive from the innocuous use of political clichés. And former Gov. Palin and the tea party movement are more the targets than the source ....

To paraphrase Justice Cardozo ("proof of negligence in the air, so to speak, will not do"), there is no such thing as responsibility in the air. Those who try to connect Sarah Palin and other political figures with whom they disagree to the shootings in Arizona use attacks on "rhetoric" and a "climate of hate" to obscure their own dishonesty in trying to imply responsibility where none exists. But the dishonesty remains.

To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

It's either/or for the progressives, but RTWT.

BooMan responds, for example, repeating the same old line that Loughner was most likely clinically deranged, but it's the rights fault anyway, or it's the right's fault that they're getting blamed, false or not. Got that? Freakin' asshat.

PREVIOUSLY: "Jared Loughner Fixated on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Attended 'Congress On Your Corner' Event in 2007."

And the Megyn Kelly clip is available here as well, in case this one gets pulled down before I'm back online tomorrow morning.

RELATED: Doug Ross, "Which Democrats objected to the use of mass murder as a vehicle for disseminating propaganda?", and "Breaking: Sarah Palin responsible for mass bird kills, genocide in the Sudan, and AT&T's loss of exclusive rights to the iPhone."

Plus, at Gay Patriot, "Why no theories of left-wing responsibility for Reagan’s shooting?", and The Rhetorican, "Alinsky: Original Sin In the Glass House of Eden."

Jared Loughner Fixated on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Attended 'Congress On Your Corner' Event in 2007

I've been checking the Twitter feeds for some of the Media Matters goons. They're despicable. There's no sense of reality among progressive leftists, although some of those who've fanned the allegations of Sarah Palin's complicity have started to walk back the charges. So now that there's evidence that Jared Laughner was obsessed with Congresswoman Giffords as far back as 2007 --- a year before Sarah Palin became a major national political figure --- will progressives recant and apologize? Don't hold your breath.

At WSJ, "Suspect Fixated on Giffords: Accused Gunman Went to Congresswoman's Event in 2007; 'I Planned Ahead'":

TUCSON, Ariz.—Accused gunman Jared Lee Loughner appeared to have been long obsessed with U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

A safe at Mr. Loughner's home contained a form letter from Ms. Giffords' office thanking him for attending a 2007 "Congress on your Corner'' event in Tucson. The safe also held an envelope with handwritten notes, including the name of Ms. Giffords, as well as "I planned ahead," "My assassination," and what appeared to be Mr. Loughner's signature, according to an FBI affidavit.

Federal authorities charged Mr. Loughner on Sunday with two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder and a count of attempting to assassinate a member of Congress, during a scheduled public appearance by Ms. Giffords here Saturday. More charges are expected, officials said, and Mr. Loughner, age 22, remains in federal custody.

Mr. Loughner had complained to a friend about how he was treated by the Arizona lawmaker during an event several years ago, which aggravated Mr. Loughner, according to the friend.

Authorities allege Mr. Loughner's anger exploded on Saturday. Shortly after 10 a.m., as U.S. District Court Judge John Roll greeted Ms. Giffords in front of a Safeway supermarket, authorities charged Mr. Loughner fired a Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol into the back of her head. In the seconds that followed, say authorities, Mr. Loughner shot 19 others, six fatally, including the judge and a 9-year-old girl, before his gun jammed and he was wrestled to the ground.

More at the link.

See also, Atlas Shrugs, "Arizona Shooter Jared Loughner Targeted Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Back in 2007," and Maggie's Notebook, "Jared Loughner Letter From Gabrielle Giffords."

Plus, at Big Journalism, "The Media’s Disgusting Rep. Giffords’ Shooting Blame Feeding Frenzy."

RELATED: At LAT, "Loughner Accused of Murder, Attempted Murder."

Daily Kos Targeted Gabrielle Giffords in June 2008

Heated rhetoric? Reckless political language? And calls to "repudiate" incitements to violence?

Of course, it's almost always conservatives and tea partiers who get the blame. And within minutes of the news from Tuscon yesterday the progressive blogosphere and left-wing media erupted with allegations that Sarah Palin's "hit list" was responsible for the shooting of Giffords and the lives of 6 others. And right now we have Politico desperately attempting to portray shooter Jared Loughner as a right-wing anti-Semitic extremist (despite overwhelming evidence of his hardline progressive Jew-bashing tendencies). And on top of that, Jared Taylor, founder of the American Renaissance organization, reports that he'd never even heard of Loughner until yesterday: "This is complete nonsense."

We don't know what caused the gunman to mount a killing spree in yesterday's carnage. Loughner was most likely confused and mentally deranged. He was most definitely not a constitutionalist or limited government afficionado. But the point here once again is the rank hypocrisy among progressive bloggers and their enablers in the Democratic media complex. The evidence is clear that Markos Moulitsas placed Rep. Gabrielle Giffords "in the crosshairs" nearly two years ago. See Patterico, "Markos Blames Palin for Giffords Shooting — But There’s Just One Problem: Kos Put a Bulls Eye on Giffords," and especially HillBuzz, "IS DAILY KOS INVOLVED IN ARIZONA MURDERS?"

Of course the evidence of that "extremist rhetoric" has been stuffed down the memory hole at Daily Kos. But there's lots more where that came from. See Big Government, "About That Dangerous Political Rhetoric, Markos Edition."

And Markos' own infamous essay from October 2008 is still available, "Crush Their Spirits":

... we have an imperative to take advantage of a historic opportunity to break the conservative movement's backs and crush their spirits ...

Hence our need this year to take advantage of this perfect Democratic storm to not just win, but to utterly wipe the board clear of as many Republicans as we can catch in this wave.

Break their backs? Wipe the board clear? And that's after placing Congresswoman Giffords on the bullseye hit list earlier in the year.

When there's evil of this magnitude we can't trust the press to give us straight and honest reportong. Last night, WSJ's Washington Wire blog once again repeated the lie that "slurs" were hurled at Democratic lawmakers during the healthcare debate on Capitol Hill in 2010:

The shooting comes on the heels of two unusually contentious years in American politics in which lawmakers were shouted down at town hall meetings and some had their offices vandalized.

Partisan tensions during the health care debate led to angry confrontations between Democrats and constituents back home. The weekend of the vote, a small handful of protestors shouted slurs at lawmakers walking to and from the Capitol. In response, House Democrats walked arm-in-arm to the Capitol at one point, a move that struck some at the time as offensive to the thousands of peaceful demonstrators.

That claim has been repeatedly debunked, of course. But the work of citizen journalists is never done.

Keith Olbermann Special Comment on Tucson Shooting: 'Violence Has No Place in Democracy'

From Olby: "Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans."

Good try, I must say, although the overwhelming bulk of the "special comment" blamed the right, despite the fact that the shooter was a conspiracy theorist and atheist progressive and that Giffords was targeted by Democrats and Daily Kos fanatics. See, "IS DAILY KOS INVOLVED IN ARIZONA MURDERS?"

PREVIOUSLY: "Rachel Maddow Crestfallen — Giffords Shooter ID’d as Crazed Conspiracy Theorist and Marx-Reading Progressive Atheist."

Also, "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics," and "Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot by Gunman at Townhall Event in Tucson — Progressives Blame Sarah Palin 'Hit List'."

Rachel Maddow Crestfallen — Giffords Shooter ID'd as Crazed Conspiracy Theorist and Marx-Reading Progressive Atheist

Because, you know, had the guy been a card-carrying militia member or pro-life extremist she'd be all over the airwaves bleating about the neo-Nazi threat to America. But Maddow's tweet is pure disappointment:

And recall that nobody on the progressive left has been more aggressive in portraying conservatism as a violent millenarian movement. Interestingly, not only is the suspect Loughner an atheist with communist leanings, he may be anti-Semitic as well. See, "Congresswoman Giffords Shot by Crazed Conspiracy Theorist and Atheist: Who Will the Media Blame?'":

Perhaps the killer believed the continued conspiracy theories that negatively portray Jews - Gabirelle Giffords celebrated her Jewish identity as the first Jew to represent Arizona in Congress.

Jennifer Rubin nails it:

You can almost hear the disappointment from the left that he was a pothead rather than a Tea Partyer.

And also at The Other McCain, "Arizona Shooter ‘Seems to Be Someone Desperately Needing Mental Health Care’."

And from Aaron Klein, "Assassin's Politics Lean 'Left Wing, Quite Liberal'." And Gateway Pundit, "AZ SHOOTER: Left-Winger JARED LOUGHNER – He Likes Watching US Flags Burn & Favorite Book is Communist Manifesto."

RELATED: Others have are letting loose, nevertheless. See NewsBusters, "AP Determined to Pin Giffords Shooting, Multiple Murders on Right, Ignores Lefist Rage at Her Failure to Back Pelosi."

Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics

At NYT (at Memeorandum):

WASHINGTON — The shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and others at a neighborhood meeting in Arizona on Saturday set off what is likely to be a wrenching debate over anger and violence in American politics.

While the exact motivations of the suspect in the shootings remained unclear, an Internet site tied to the man, Jared Lee Loughner, contained antigovernment ramblings. And regardless of what led to the episode, it quickly focused attention on the degree to which inflammatory language, threats and implicit instigations to violence have become a steady undercurrent in the nation’s political culture.

Clarence W. Dupnik, the Pima County sheriff, seemed to capture the mood of the day at an evening news conference when he said it was time for the country to “do a little soul-searching.”

“It’s not unusual for all public officials to get threats constantly, myself included,” Sheriff Dupnik said. “That’s the sad thing about what’s going on in America: pretty soon we’re not going to be able to find reasonable, decent people willing to subject themselves to serve in public office.”

In the hours immediately after the shooting of Ms. Giffords, a Democrat, and others in a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, members of both parties found rare unity in their sorrow. Top Republicans including Speaker John A. Boehner and Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona quickly condemned the violence.

“An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve,” Mr. Boehner said in a statement. “Acts and threats of violence against public officials have no place in our society.”

President Obama made a brief appearance at the White House, calling the shooting an “unspeakable act” and promising to “get to the bottom of this.”

More at the link.

I think it's fair to say that if a Republican had been shot we'd have likely seen a similar burst of partisan finger-pointing from the right. What's surprising to me is that progressives started laying blame before even a fraction of the facts were known. I covered that in my updates today: "Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords Shot by Gunman at Townhall Event in Tucson — Progressives Blame Sarah Palin 'Hit List'." I didn't cite this previously, but one of the most devious attacks on the right was Andrew Sullivan's, "An Assassination?":

When a congresswoman is shot in the head in the very act of democracy, we should all pause. This is fundamentally not a partisan issue and should not be. Acts of violence against political figures destroy democracy itself, for both parties. We don't know who tried to kill congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (she appears to be still alive) and we should be very cautious in drawing any conclusions yet about why. But we can know that, whoever tried to kill her and for whatever reason, political rhetoric involving words like "target" and "gun-sights" is inherently irresponsible.

For a public figure who has appeared on a national ticket and who commands a cult-like following, the irresponsibility is even more profound. And so one reads the following sentences from the Arizona Wildcat last September with the blood draining from one's face:

Palin Reloads; Aims For Giffords

Earlier this year, Palin drew sharp criticism for featuring a map on her web page riddled with crosshairs targeting Democrats in vulnerable congressional districts. Tucson's Gabrielle Giffords is among the 20 Democratic incumbents whom Palin intends to use for target practice.

Giffords was one of twenty members of Congress placed within metaphorical "gun-sights" in SarahPac's graphic. That is not the same thing as placing a gun-sight over someone's face or person. No one can possibly believe - or should - that Sarah Palin is anything but horrified by what has taken place. But it remains the kind of rhetorical excess which was warned about at the time, and which loners can use to dreadful purposes. It is compounded by the kind of language used by the Arizona Wildcat as well. Maybe "Palin Reloads; Aims For Giffords" is good copy as a headline. But next time, an editor should surely pause before enabling forces whose capacity for violence is real.

Of course, Andrew Sullivan should be the last person to decry "rhetorical excess." But today's been an exceptionally revealing day, a day when the left has exponentially proven itself completely bereft of even a shred of divine grace and decency.

That said, President Obama was very presidential in his statement today, so I'll close with an appreciation for that.

Added: Thoughts from The Rhetorican, "Blood and Tears In Tucson."