Obama and the left: Two different responses to the shootings

NY Times doesn’t read its own findings

It seems that Jared Loughner did not even like or watch TV or the news, according to his friends:

He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.

The friends went on to describe deep seated rage: "Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, "'HE WAS SHOOTING AT THE WORLD.'"


This would MAKE HIM TYPICAL OF OTHER MASS SHOOTERS according to a study 0f 102 rampage killers done by the New York Times:


The Times found, however, that the debate may have largely overlooked a critical issue: AT LEAST HALF OF THE KILLERS SHOWED SIGNS OF SERIOUS MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS. ...


It seems that A NUMBER OF THE TIMES'S COLUMNISTS OVERLOOKED THE PAPER'S OWN FINDINGS on rampage killings when first discussing the Arizona shooting. Do they even bother doing any research? For example, KRUGMAN BLAMED TALK RADIO, THE CULTURE OF RIGHT LEANING HATE AND RUSH LIMBAUGH. A NYT'S EDITORIAL MADE THE SAME POINTS. Maybe if someone there had taken the time to reflect on their own study, they would have reached a different and more even-handed conclusion.

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2011/01/osler-says-his-friend-wasnt-shooting-at.html


The lack of facts and a propensity not to actually check to see if there are any facts seems to be a hallmark of the left.



What if Jared Loughner had be Muslim?

Shamefully and sadly, the media would have covered his horrific assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz) and slaying and maiming of innocent Arizonans in a more responsible manner. THEY WOULD HAVE CALLED FOR RESTRAINT AND NOT VIOLATED THE JOURNALISTIC TENET OF NOT ASSUMING ANYTHING, a tenet they purportedly (and often facetiously sanctimoniously) claim to hold dear.

But because Loughner was not a member of one of the mainstream media’s protected classes, they used Loughner’s heinous act to go on liberal crusades against conservatives and Tea Partiers, to promote gun control, amnesty, and rail against those who may oppose ethnic study programs that erroneously teach students that the Southwestern part of the United States is a part of Mexico.

Immediately after this senseless tragedy, The New York Times opined that “it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge…..

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41136


This is an interesting piece speculating on how the left wouldn’t be speculating about the right. What we’ve seen is not journalism but political opportunism played out on a national scale by the left.



What the left did wrong

By Jennifer Rubin

Why were the last four days a mini-disaster for the swampland of the left? It boils down to: facts, response and time.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/what_the_left_did_wrong.html


This is a very worthwhile read. I found this to be very insightful, “The final lesson for the left is this: for the sake of a second term, the president is willing to throw liberals under the bus.”




Why the Left Lost It

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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576076373704758778.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion

If you know history, you know before 1928 (read that the Great Depression), the Republicans had been the dominate party since 1860. The massive movement to the Republicans does and should concern the Democrats.

World Freest Economy

HONG KONG WAS RATED THE WORLD'S FREEST ECONOMY FOR A 17TH STRAIGHT YEAR in a ranking by the U.S.-based Heritage Foundation, above rivals Singapore and Australia for the title.


HONG KONG, WITH A SCORE OF 89.7, IS WELL ABOVE THE WORLD AVERAGE OF 59.7, the Washington-based Heritage Foundation said in its 2011 Index of Economic Freedom report released on Wednesday.


The study assesses 183 economies, out of which mainland China ranks 135th.


"Hong Kong, one of the world's most competitive financial and business centers, demonstrated a high degree of resilience during the global financial crisis," the report said.

Freedom in trade and finance was the biggest boost to Hong Kong's ranking, while investment freedom and property rights, business and monetary freedom all scored highly.

THE UNITED STATES FELL TO THE 9TH FREEST FROM 8TH LAST YEAR and United Kingdom slipped to 16 place from 11 in 2010 due to more policy responses to the global economic turmoil, it added.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Hong+Kong+reigns+world+freest+economy+17th+straight+year/4097106/story.html#ixzz1Av4p5fJP



Arizona: Let’s start thinking about locking up lunatics

In my Washington Examiner column “Systematic assassinations not part of our politics,” I wrote of the Arizona murders:

IF ANY BLAME ATTACHES TO OTHERS, IT IS TO AUTHORITIES WHO HAD NOTICE OF HIS MADNESS AND DID NOT DO ENOUGH TO CONFINE HIM OR PREVENT HIM FROM BUYING A GUN. The Pima County sheriff, who was quick to suggest the attack was among the "consequences" of Republican rhetoric, also reported that the shooter's bizarre behavior was brought to the attention of authorities.

Arizona reportedly gives authorities more leeway than most states to put such an individual under restraint or at least prevent him from buying a gun. Perhaps there is some good reason this was not done; but at least there are questions that need to be asked.

Or to put it more bluntly, SHOULDN’T THIS GUY HAVE BEEN LOCKED UP? I am pleased to see that William Galston, writing in his New Republic blog, has the same idea, and calls for a reconsideration of the laws that have reduced the possibility of involuntary commitment. Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey, writing in the Wall Street Journal, makes the same case and adds interesting detail. Jennifer Rubin, on her new Right Turn blog at the Washington Post notices that, as her headline reads, “Left gives up on guns, moves on to mental health,” and applauds the move.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/arizona-let-s-start-thinking-about-locking-lunatics#ixzz1AvFicr7D


While Michael Barone zeros in on the failure here, the anti-gun cabal is acting like a teacher who punishes the entire class for the disruption of one student. To them the answer is to deny everyone the “Legal” right to own a gun. Even Dupnik wouldn’t go along with that idea as he encouraged everyone to buy a gun as his deputies couldn’t keep them from harm.



Autism Fraud

The report that first triggered scares that a vaccine to prevent measles, mumps and rubella might cause autism in children has received another devastating blow to its credibility. The BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL HAS DECLARED THAT THE RESEARCH WAS NOT SIMPLY BAD SCIENCE, AS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR YEARS, BUT A DELIBERATE FRAUD….

Some parents still consider Dr. Wakefield a hero, and others have moved on to other theories, equally unsupported by scientific evidence, as to how vaccines might cause autism.


THEY NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT FAILURE TO VACCINATE THEIR CHILDREN LEAVES THEM TRULY VULNERABLE TO DISEASES THAT CAN CAUSE ENORMOUS HARM.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13thu2.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211



Surely criminal action should be taken against Dr. Wakefield. He was a pied piper who led parents to put their children at terrible risk.



Obama does well—his audience, not so much

Never before in the annals of national moments of mourning have the words spoken been so wildly mismatched by the spirit in which they were received.

THE SENTENCES AND PARAGRAPHS OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SPEECH LAST NIGHT WERE BEAUTIFUL AND MOVING AND POWERFUL. But for the most part they didn't quite transcend THE WILDLY INAPPROPRIATE SETTING IN WHICH HE DELIVERED THEM.

There was something about the choice of place, a college arena with the appropriate name of the McKale Memorial Center, that made the event turn literally sophomoric.

If there is one thing we expect from occasions of national mourning, it is, at the very least, A MODICUM OF GRAVITY. That gravity was present in the president's speech from first to last -- especially in the pitch-perfect response to the disgusting national political debate

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/prez_perfect_but_the_crowd_was_appalling_j08cf0Fajllkht0yZ4W7GM#ixzz1AvIQZIQq


Obama did make a good speech. Wild cheers from the crowd reminded me of the Paul Wellstone memorial service. Let’s give credit where it is due (President Obama) and hope that the left learns the proper way to mourn.


A Tawdry Start to the 2012 Election Campaign

Four years of a Democratically-controlled Congress, coupled with two years of the Obama administration, gave the American progressive movement more power than it had ever achieved before. Not Democrats, progressives. Democrats have had control of the White House and substantial majorities in both houses of Congress prior to 2008, but NEVER WITH A PARTY COMPRISED OF PEOPLE TILTED SO FAR TO THE PROGRESSIVE side of the ledger. Thinking they had achieved what political strategist James Carville referred to as the beginning of a “40 YEAR ASCENDANCY,” THEY BEGAN IMPLEMENTING THEIR AGENDA WITH LITTLE REGARD FOR PUBLIC CONCERN. ON NOVEMBER 2ND, A CONCERNED PUBLIC THOROUGHLY REJECTED THEM.

So what do far-left ideologues do when they have recently endured a clear-cut rejection of their ideology? Apparently A GOOD NUMBER OF THEM TAKE TO THE AIRWAVES AND TELL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC–WITH SMUG CERTAINTY, NO LESS–WHAT MOTIVATES A MADMAN. Facts, as demonstrated by progressives who have sought to tie the tragedy in Arizona to anything and everything conservative absent a shred of evidence, do not matter. Alleged shooter Jared Loughner has become the “vehicle du jour” for a progressive movement in utter denial of reality. IT IS A DENIAL SO PROFOUND that they would rather believe what happened on election day was a spasm of national insanity

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/13/a-tawdry-start-to-the-2012-election-campaign/


Are the Progressives crazy or just kidding themselves? Do they really think that their charges against the right will sway the public?



The Golden No-Vitriol Age Wasn’t So Golden

Denunciations of media vitriol in the wake of the Tucson shootings look back to an age of civil media discourse. That golden age existed in living memory: the 1960s and 1970s, when the mainstream media almost universally hewed to a belief in professional, objective, neutral journalism. The news industry could enforce this line, since it was more oligopolistic than at any time before or since. MOST CITIES HAD ONLY A FEW DOMINANT NEWSPAPERS. Television penetrated about 90 percent of American homes by the late 1950s, and the classic era of network television news began in September 1963, when the Huntley-Brinkley Report on NBC and the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite expanded from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. THESE NEWSCASTS RAPIDLY BECAME THE PRIMARY NEWS SOURCE FOR MOST AMERICANS. NO CABLE NEWS, NO INTERNET.

The result? TWO DECADES OF ASSASSINATIONS AND ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS against major political figures, starting with JFK ….

You could even argue that the golden-age mainstream media made violence more likely by shutting out marginal voices; but IT’S MORE LIKELY THAT THE TONE OF THE MEDIA HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH THE VIOLENT ACTIONS OF RADICALS AND CRAZIES.

http://blog.american.com/?p=24876


Well said and something to think about.




A Rising Star: Chris Christie

I happened to see this NJ Gov. Christie appearance on Morning Joe (MSNBC) yesterday morning and I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT TAKE TEN MINUTES TO SEE HOW A POLITICIAN SHOULD BOTH SEEM AND BE, how he should think aloud, how he should talk. Very impressive, and very disarming. You can tell how his interlocutors--even those who want to disagree with him--are disarmed, even persuaded. HIS CHARACTER AND PERSONALITY FOR A POLITICIAN ARE NEARLY PERFECT, in my opinion. You cannot help liking him. HONEST, CLEAR, AMUSING, LUCID--notice that there is no "uhming and ahing" at any time, no hesitation--clearly deeply thoughtful and knowledgeable, he speaks with an authority that is rare. Very persuasive. Also, he's fat, lards the lean earth as he walks along, he's thrice wider than other men. therefore worthy of our entire trust. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THIS MAN WILL NOT RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2011/01/chris-christie.php


I’m keeping an eye on him. He is impressive.