President Obama's Speech

President Obama delivered a fine speech in response to the Arizona shootings. Unlike much of the left-wing base, he did not attempt to politicize the shootings or smear his opponents on the right. In fact, he even addressed that issue to some extent.

what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

Although I've been a severe critic of the president on many issues, I have to applaud his response as encapsulated by this speech. I think he struck exactly the right notes and said the sorts of things most Americans expect to hear from their president after a horrible tragedy. Good job President Obama.

An Excellent Example of Leftist Irrationality

I believe that most on the left pushing their current meme about the Arizona shooting -- that it was somehow inspired by violent right wing rhetoric and the political climate -- are intellectually dishonest and deliberate engaging in a big lie tactic. But it appears that some are actually dumb enough to believe their own propaganda -- either that or the echo chamber they inhabit makes them oblivious to to their own biased assumptions. I came across this post at the White Coat Underground, which is written by a doctor. From the links it appears that the blogger is a skeptic and possibly an atheist. So I wasn't expecting such a high level of irrationality. Let's consider it point by point.

Sarah Palin jumped the bigotry shark today, and bloggers are trying to explain just how offensive her comments really are.

Others have already explained why Palin's use of "blood libel" was legitimate. It isn't exclusively tied to anti-semitism. But of course this blogger is too clueless and lazy to check his preconceived notions. Smearing political opponents as bigots without evidence is common leftist tactic.

the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords and 19 others happened in a particular time and place, and history will look back at this context in trying to understand the event. What Sarah Palin and others in the New Right are arguing is that context is meaningless

I'm not sure what the "New Right" is supposed to be, but no one is arguing that context is meaningless. What people are arguing is that the leftist spin on events is a smear, given that there isn't the slightest shred of evidence connecting anyone on the right to that shooting.

that their inflammatory, violent rhetoric is irrelevant

The things that have been cited as violent and inflammatory are neither violent nor inflammatory, but simple, commonly-used metaphors and symbols. And they are irrelevant because they have no connection whatsoever to this particular case.

and that the left is just as bad, which is patently absurd—we hate guns, remember?

The left isn't just as bad, it is worse. As many have already pointed out, there is at least as much violent rhetoric and use of symbols on the left.

Right wing reactionaries use gun rhetoric and Christian imagery and language to speak to their base, including such statements as “don’t retreat, reload”, and posting pictures of “targeted” districts like Rep. Giffords’ with gun sights on them.

Everyone uses those types of metaphors and symbols in political campaigns. This clown has apparently never heard of "targeting" someone for defeat. The idea that saying "reload" is somehow violent when you understand the context is laughable.

Giffords is gunned down by a presumed nut-job who easily purchased a firearm and ammunition, a “right” favored by the New Right.

Owning a firearm is a right favored by the constitution, something not exactly held in much regard on the left. It's also supported by a strong majority of America, something you might not know if you live only on the left-wing fringe.

He drew and fired on her point blank range, rendering idiotic any claims that being personally armed could have helped her.

This guy is on a roll for clueless assertions. There have been numerous times when someone faced an attacker already pointing a gun at them who successfully drew and used his own weapon in self-defense.

He then continues with his false assertions about the term blood libel, which is not just used with regard to the Jews.

Palin, who favors eliminationist rhetoric directed at, in this case, a liberal Jewish Congresswoma

No, actually she doesn't. This is a flat-out lie. She called for her defeat, not her "elimination." It sounds like this guy has been reading too much of Paul Krugman's crazed ranting.

absolves herself of any responsibility for the violence

Maybe because she has absolutely no responsibility for the actions of some lunatic who had nothing to do with her.

for the violence just happens to bear close resemblance to her rhetoric.

Maybe in left wing world where Sarah Palin-hatred dominates over rational thought. In the real world, the violence bears no relationship to anything Palin said. And even if it did, there's no evidence Loughner ever read a single thing by Sarah Palin. But let's just ignore that and smear her anyway.

Part of her reasoning is that it’s just rhetoric, and the guy was a nut.

Because the guy was a nut.

She then claims harm from the rhetoric leveled against her.

Really? I wonder why? Why would someone claim harm from being smeared in connection with violence she had nothing to do with? That's just too difficult for this logically-challenged blogger to understand.

I’m not one to see an anti-Semite behind every door, but this is blatantly anti-Semetic rhetoric, giving a whole new appearance to the attack.

He's not one to see an anti-Semite under ever door but he'll accuse someone of being an anti-Semite based on a supposed misuse of the term blood libel.

The majority of atheists are on the political left, and for many of them, their normal reliance on logic and evidence disappears when it comes to political issues, where they swallow leftist propaganda as if it were revealed truth. One of the main reasons I started this blog was to make it clear that not all atheists willing to speak out on political issues are on the left. When you see the kind of garbage that passes for political analysis at the White Coat Underground, you can understand that while I identify as an atheist and a skeptic, why I don't want to be associated with the left.

HOT5 Daily 1/12/2010

1. "The rarity of American political violence" Something worth pointing out.

Representative Sample: There's going to be a rollicking debate about whether political vitriol contributes to political violence. Fine. But let's put things in perspective -- extremist rhetoric or not, this kind of thing is blessedly rare in the American polity.

2. "The Extreme Rhetoric about Extreme Rhetoric (With Bonus Fake Sinclair Lewis Fascism Quote!)" An excellent take-down of the current smears and demagoguery.

Representative Sample: Crawling out from under an avalanche of doltish tragedy blogging and tweeting, there isn’t much more one can say about the shootings in Tucson that hasn’t already been said by the few sensible pundits left in the United States. But it is perhaps worth pointing out that many of those denouncing rhetorical extremism are themselves in danger of drifting into similar territory (I won’t say "extremist" because dumb political rhetoric isn’t always "extreme").

3. "Game Changer?" A balanced assessment of the new Chinese fighter and its possible impact.

Representative Sample: From Beijing's perspective, there is an on-going shift of military power in the Far East, symbolized by the J-20. No wonder the jet's late December roll-out was accompanied by quickly-leaked photos of the aircraft. While the J-20 won't be operational for another 7-8 years, it represents a potential game-changer in the region, since Beijing will (likely) produce scores of the new aircraft--far more than the 187 F-22s in the USAF inventory--and possibly export the new stealth jet as well.

4. "Gun control is going nowhere" Hopefully he's correct.

Representative Sample: All the PSH from the antigunners over the Arizona massacre is not going to amount to anything. There is simply no public or political support for more gun control.

5. "Beware Warmonger Imperialist Space Aliens!?" Interesting reading with many other good links.

Representative Sample: Cthulhu and quite a few of the Dreaded Old Ones weren't so much opposed to humanity, as indifferent. Which was still bad for humanity. It's like when a squirrel wanders into a transformer. The utility company isn't engaged in a pogrom against squirrels: the incinerated critter just made a wrong turn.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

Knee-Jerk Feel-Good Legislation

According to the Huffington Post, Representative Peter King (R - NY), will sponsor new legislation involving guns. The proposed law would

make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official ... It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King's legislation to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary, would offer government officials the same protection.

It's disappointing that such a typical knee-jerk reaction comes from a member of the GOP. No doubt Peter King and others who support such a law are well-aware that it does nothing to prevent the type of incident that occurred in Arizona. Lunatics who stalk and gun down their targets, along with various bystanders, are not exactly noted for obeying laws of any kind. I'm sure if this law had been in place the Arizona killer would have stopped and thought, hey, wait a minute. I can't go shoot Congresswoman Giffords. I'm not allowed to bring a gun within a thousand feet of her. Oh well, I guess I'll have to leave her alone.

This is yet another standard example of a politician responding to the idea that we have to do something, anything, no matter how pointless it might be. If he gets a new law passed he can pretend to have addressed the problem, claim credit for being tough on crime against government officials, and add another talking point to his campaign advertising.

If Some Lunatic Shoots Sarah Palin, Should We Blame Andrew Sullivan?

Of all the Palin-haters on the internet, there's probably no one with a higher profile than Andrew Sullivan. I doubt there is anyone who has done more to demonize Palin. Oh there are plenty of people who spew hatred of Palin, but Sullivan does it from a heavily-trafficked blog at The Atlantic. And unlike most of those on the left, who are easily recognizable as fringe loons, Sullivan is not only highly prolific, but an excellent writer who comments on all sorts of subjects. On the rare occasion he even offers a reasonable analysis. Casual readers not familiar with him and his obsession with Sarah Palin might be inclined to take him seriously.

Let's suppose someone shows up at a Sarah Palin speech and shoots her along with various bystanders. The shooter is clearly disturbed, has no clear political ideology, and harbors a grudge against Palin. There's no evidence he's ever read anything by Andrew Sullivan, and to all appearances he acted based on his own unbalanced mental condition. Would it be reasonable to blame Andrew Sullivan for the shooting, or even to suggest that he's created the climate that made such a shooting likely? Should we comb through his writings to see if he ever used any sort of violent imagery in any way, no matter how routine or innocuous, with reference to Palin? Despite the fact that Sullivan has never advocated violence against Palin, would he still bear some responsibility for the shooting? In my opinion the answer is no, and that answer should be blatantly obvious. I'm sure Sullivan himself would be appalled at the notion that he might bear some blame for the actions of a deranged individual. But of course, like the intellectually dishonest, logically-challenged individual that he is, he has no problem trying to tie Palin to the Arizona incident despite the fact that she had nothing to do with it.

It shouldn't even need to be pointed out, but there is absolutely no evidence at all that the current state of political discourse, the political climate, or whatever else people are calling it had anything at all to do with this shooting. No one knows for sure what drives this type of killer to commit his actions. But people don't like to admit that they just have no idea what causes such shootings. They prefer to look for something or someone to blame. And who better to blame than political opponents?

HOT5 Daily 1/11/2011

1. "The Hateful Left" A good analysis.

Representative Sample: while little useful can be said about the murders themselves, the rush to narrative of our dishonest and increasingly desperate leftist media does have to be addressed. The Left—which has been unable to discover any common feature uniting acts of Islamist violence worldwide—nonetheless instantly noticed a bridge between the Tucson shooting and its own political opponents.

2. "Inflamed, Honest Rhetoric vs. Calm, Civil Smears: Which Is Preferable?" Exactly. The hypocrisy of people talking about "civility" while smearing political opponents as complicit in murder is staggering.

Representative Sample: Conservatives who have watched liberals blame them for an awful shooting understand exactly what I mean when I say this: that issuing a brutally ugly and false accusation, while wearing a mask of smiles and civility, is not civil. It is ugly and partisan and disgusting — far more so than any inflamed rhetoric, as long as that rhetoric is honest — and free from actual threats of violence.

3. "India Keen Not To Come Second To China In Africa" Economic competition.

Representative Sample: The Indian government is raising its diplomatic profile in Africa, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his cabinet leading several business delegations in recent years. Indian companies want to keep up with China’s business profile in Africa, taking advantage of historical ties with the continent.

4. "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents" People with no religion at all number 3?

Representative Sample: It's a chart.

5. "Political opportunism never lets a crisis go to waste" Especially if it can be used to smear the right.

Representative Sample: all of this angst over political rhetoric is so overwrought and overblown as to be laughable. There has never been a time in the history of this land that the language hasn’t been rough or partisan. Never. Pretending this is the worst it has ever been is simply historically inaccurate.

To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.

Amazing Stupidity and Intellectual Dishonesty

I know I shouldn't be surprised that a shooting incident has brought forth such an outpouring of stupidity and intellectual dishonesty, but it is surprising in its intensity. Here's what we know so far, from what I've read. The shooter was an unstable individual with a penchant for conspiracy theories, and a specific grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. That's really all we know for sure. But that hasn't stopped an amazing eruption of complete nonsense, mostly from the left and its enablers in the media. The ridiculous speculation that violent political imagery -- which is nothing new and no more intense than it has been in the past -- is somehow responsible for this incident, is actually being seriously discussed, instead of receiving the derisive laughter it deserves. People seething with intense hatred for Sarah Palin, who know full-well she had no connection whatsoever to this incident, have shamelessly tried to smear her with responsibility. Then there are the usual idiots who pretend that if we just passed another gun law, somehow these incidents could be avoided.

Unless some sort of multi-person conspiracy is unearthed, or a clear motivating ideology, as in the case of radical Islamists, this incident can be best explained by the same explanation that applies to most such one-person shooting sprees: nuts do crazy things. When you have someone whose outlook on life and reality is so out of whack that he's willing to kill a bunch of random people just to get someone he's formed a grudge against, there's no telling what might set him off. The idea, in the absence of any evidence, that he was somehow motivated by a politician or media figure you don't particularly like, even though those figures aren't actually calling for any violence, is utterly ludicrous. I believe most of the people pushing such theories know that, and are just behaving like the intellectually-dishonest hacks they are.