Wednesday, January 12, 2011
I said what I had to say on Sunday.
Krauthammer has the must-read to start the day today: Massacre, followed by libel. It includes the quote of the month: "The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?"
Sarah Palin's video responding to the slanders:
Of course, as is to be expected, there are people for whom nothing is good enough (as though reason matters to most of these same when it comes to Palin), and now her use of the term "blood libel" is the latest excuse for venom. Remember, most of these are people who thought nothing of falsely assigning blame for bloody murder on her, now posing with indignation (h/t to Legal Insurrection for the thought).
For the record, I have seen the term used far too casually and often inappropriately by plenty of people, including many of my pro-Israel Jewish friends. At worst it's a chance for discussion, not yet another reason to bash Sarah Palin. The ADL did what I would expect the ADL to do (and I meant that seriously). It's their turf and I expect them to defend the seriousness of the term. They do so in an appropriately measured way, here. Alan Dershowitz, no Palin fan, defends her on this, here, as does lefty Jonathan Chait, as quoted in William Jacobson's excellent post, here. A snip (Jacobson here):
Palin was not just "criticized on television," she was accused of inciting murder even though there was and is no actual evidence that the electoral target map played any role in the Tucson shooting. The connection of Palin to the shooting was a smear by people who did not care about the truth.
Similarly, the smear has made Palin a target for hatred and violence, including widespread death wishes and threats:
Continuing on, O'Reilly was quite good the other night:
Roger L. Simon states what should be the obvious: The Sixties Were Violent, Not Today