Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

TO OUR READERS:  Please click on Urgent Agenda several times during the day.  We hope, in 2011, depending on the news, to put up at least one post during the afternoon hours, so there'll always be something new to read.  So visit us regularly.

I appeared on Silvio Canto Jr.'s excellent talk show from Dallas yesterday morning.  The link is here:

JANUARY 11,  2011

IS HE STILL AROUND? – AT 8:39 P.M. ET:  Lincoln Chafee was once a Republican senator from Rhode Island, sliding into office on the back of his father, John Chafee, who'd been a senator from the same state.

Chafee's time in the Senate consisted mostly of trying to prove that he really wasn't a Republican after all.  When he was defeated for reelection he left the Republican Party.

Now, incredibly, Chafee has reinvented himself and has been elected governor of Rhode Island.  When will they ever learn?  And Chafee's brilliant, deeply thought-out reaction to the Arizona killings?  Here is a great mind at work:

PROVIDENCE — No one is likely to confuse new Governor Chafee with his Republican predecessor, Donald L. Carcieri, and now here’s another way to tell them apart:

Chafee doesn’t plan to spend his own time on talk radio, and he intends to ban state employees from spending their state work time talking on talk radio, which was Carcieri’s favorite medium and an integral part of his communications operation.

Spokesman Michael Trainor said a directive will go out over the next day or so that reflects that new policy.

He said the policy emanates from a belief that talk radio is essentially “ratings-driven, for-profit programming,” and “we don’t think it is appropriate to use taxpayer resources” in the form of state employee work time to “support for-profit, ratings-driven programming.”

Trainor said the new governor will continue to talk to the news reporters for the local radio stations, and the nonprofit local NPR affiliate.

Reached Monday night, WHJJ’s program director, Bill George, said he was curious about the explanation for Chafee’s singling out talk shows since “most media outlets, whether news or opinion, are profit-making entities.”

He said he hopes to have a conversation with Chafee in the next few days in the hope that he can change the governor’s mind.

COMMENT:  The idea that the governor has a mind is itself questionable.  This is one of those knee-jerk reactions to all the hysteria about talk radio causing the Arizona shootings.  The governor should cancel the directive and let each state executive decide for himself or herself which news outlet is worthy of an appearance.

January 11, 2011      Permalink

THE BACKLASH – AT 7:29 P.M. ET:  The backlash is building against the outrageous, obscene attempts to blame conservatives for the Arizona shooting.  Even though some commentators and politicians won't grow up, others are speaking out against the modern McCarthyism we've seen in the last few days.

Even Jon Stewart, the liberal host of The Daily Show, has ridiculed the idea that fiery political rhetoric had anything to do with this.

And a psychologist appearing on CNN today made clear that, from his viewpoint, the alleged shooter did not have either right-wing or left-wing views.  He had, this man said, serious mental illnesses.

And the Arizona Republic, the state's leading newspaper, has now reprimanded the rogue sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, who's been running around to various TV outlets announcing his profound political views:

Enough attacks, sheriff. Enough vitriol. It is well past time for the sheriff of Pima County to get a grip on his emotions and remember his duty.

With each passing hour, we learn more about the 22-year-old suspect. And everything we learn adds to the profile of a deeply troubled young man detached from reality. There is nothing to date that suggests any partisan motivation for his crimes, whether right-wing or left.

Dupnik needs to recall that he is elected to be a lawman. With each additional comment, the Democratic sheriff of Pima County is revealing his agenda as partisan, and, as such, every bit as recklessly antagonistic as the talk-show hosts and politicians he chooses to decry.

COMMENT:  Right on.  Indeed, one of the issues we've raised here is the possibility that these venomous voices of the left are placing conservative political figures in physical danger with their wild attacks. 

We need more newspapers and broadcasters to speak out before some real damage is done.

January 11, 2011      Permalink

AMERICANS GET IT – AT 4:47 P.M. ET:  Americans, as usual, are showing themselves a lot smarter than the geniuses in the painstream media.  From London's Daily Mail:

A new poll has revealed that the majority of Americans do not believe frenzied political rhetoric was to blame for the Arizona massacre.

In the CBS survey, 57 per cent of people said they did not believe political vitriol was responsible for Jared Lee Loughner, 22, going on a shooting spree in Tuscon on Saturday.

Just 32 per cent of those questioned agreed there was a connection between the violence and the heated political tone.

And...

In the poll there was a definite split in opinion depending on which party the respondents supported.

Republicans were more likely to disagree that rhetoric was involved with 69 per cent of respondents saying political vitriol was not to blame while 19 per cent said it did play a role.

Whereas, Democrats were more undecided on the subject with 49 per cent responding that political rhetoric did not play a part while 42 per cent were convinced there was a connection.

COMMENT:  The breakdown by party isn't surprising.  Today's Democrats are taught to believe that it's always someone else's fault.  If someone commits a crime, it's society's fault.  If he uses a gun, blame the gun manufacturers.  If a kid fails in school, it's the school's fault. (If he didn't study, the school didn't make the subject interesting enough, or ethnically relevant.) 

President Obama has an opportunity here to rise above politics and make it clear that the blame lies squarely with the person pulling the trigger.  There is a legitimate question to be asked also about why the alleged assailant's mental-health record was not in the federal database.  If it had been there, he would have been prevented from buying the pistol he used to shoot on Saturday.

January 11, 2011       Permalink

BACK TO REALITY – AT 9:56 A.M. ET:  Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is one of the grown-ups in the Obama administration.   He warns us about North Korea, a subject most Americans don't think about when they go to bed at night, but should:

BEIJING — In a major new assessment of North Korea, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Tuesday that the country is becoming a direct threat to the United States and was within five years of developing a missile with the potential of hitting Alaska or the West Coast. 

A critically important point.  We're used to the media describing countries like North Korea and Iran as threats to their neighbors, which tends to diminish our concern here.  But modern technology makes them threats to us as well, and very direct threats. 

Mr. Gates said that although he expected North Korea’s ability to be limited, he anticipated the country would still develop within that time frame a small number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that could at least potentially deliver nuclear warheads. “I don’t think it’s an immediate threat, but on the other hand I don’t think it’s a five-year threat,” Mr. Gates said.

Mr. Gates made his comments during a visit to Beijing on the same day that China, in a show of force for the United States, apparently conducted the first test flight of its new stealth fighter jet. The 15-minute flight occurred just hours before Mr. Gates met with President Hu Jintao to talk about improving relations between the Chinese and American militaries and ways to reduce tensions during a nascent arms buildup between the two countries.

COMMENT:  The Chinese fighter comes at a time when we've eliminated production of our F-22 stealth fighter. 

The White House has ordered the Defense Department to cut its budget.  While there are probably some savings to be had, we should take a warning from history and not place ourselves in a position where we are unprepared.  North Korea, though a poor country, still has a devastating military force.  It starves its people to devote resources to its forces, as did the Soviet Union.

China is becoming a major military threat, and it's barely discussed in the United States.

Both China and North Korea see a weakening United States, and they are responding accordingly.

January 11, 2011      Permalink

THE EXEMPTION – AT 9:13 A.M. ET:   I find it fascinating, in the wake of all the chatter following the Arizona shooting, that one institution in American life gets off without so much as a mention – the American university. 

And yet, our colleges and universities have too often been centers of extremism, extremist thought, and social policies that are a danger to democracy.

The journalists who have fouled the landscape in recent days were trained in colleges and universities, yet the kind of training they received is never mentioned.  Universities have a kind of exemption.

About six years ago a distinguished civil-liberties lawyer told me how worried he was by what was being taught in colleges.  Those students will be our leaders in 20 years, he said.  He was referring to the contempt for democracy displayed by practices like "speech codes," still in place in many institutions, despite court challenges.  Speech codes are presumably installed in colleges and universities to prevent "hate" speech, but the definition of "hate" speech often turns out to be highly selective and politicized.  You can't "hate" one group, but another is an entirely appropriate target, depending on this year's trends on the political left.

Fast forward to Arizona.  Already there are calls to moderate our political discourse, but the calls are directed almost exclusively at the right.  It's kind of a repeat of the "speech code" experience many journalists had at college.   

And what are we to make of universities in Illinois who will hire a Bill Ayers, friend of Barack Obama?  Ayers wrote a book dedicated to the murderer of Robert Kennedy, Sirhan Sirhan.  What are students to draw from that?

Journalists, and political leaders, do not drop out of the sky.  They come from somewhere.  They have backgrounds.  And those backgrounds often include instruction by highly partisan professors of the left, and indoctrination in a world view that students bring into journalism or politics.  When a budding journalist is taught that there's no such thing as "truth," that truth is just a "cultural construct," what kind of journalist will he or she become? 

We are often reminded of the story of Pauline Kael, the distinguished New York film critic, who, after the 1972 presidential election, exclaimed that she was surprised that Richard Nixon had won because she didn't know anyone who voted for him.  Her background, her culture, did not permit her to understand or even recognize anyone who disagreed with her.

Maybe we should start a national discussion about higher education, what it's for, and what it actually provides.  But don't hold your breath.  There are too many honorary degrees and commencement-speech invitations out there for journalists to stick their necks out and ask questions.  

Someone better start asking, for the future of this country may depend on the answers.

January 11, 2011      Permalink 

WHAT WILL SARAH DO? – AT 8:26 A.M. ET:  In a fair report in the Washington Post, Dan Balz wonders how Sarah Palin will respond to attempts by the reckless left and the equally reckless media to link her to the Arizona tragedy:

In her more than two years on the national stage, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has proven to be a master of attention-grabbing quotes and vivid images. As a result, she finds herself at the center of a political and media controversy - unfairly in the estimation of her allies - after Saturday's shootings in Tucson.

The controversy, which may have caught the Republican by surprise, is the kind of test candidates commonly face in a presidential campaign. How she navigates it, several Republican strategists said Monday, could be a defining moment for her politically.

What makes her challenge unique is that it comes as a result of a national tragedy in which there is no known connection between anything Palin said or did and the alleged actions of Jared Loughner, who is accused of fatally shooting six and severely wounding Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 13 others.

COMMENT:  Speak, Sarah, speak.  This is a defining moment for Sarah Palin, whether she wants it to be or not.  As readers know, we've been skeptical about her here.  We love her as a person, but have wondered whether she has the seriousness or discipline required for national candidacy. 

This is the moment for to prove that she does.

Sarah should hold a press conference to defend herself – you must always defend yourself in politics – and to indict the wild-eyed fools who have acted so recklessly in the last few days.  She should name names, give details, and yet do so in a stateswomanlike style, modulating her voice and speaking somberly.  She should call for reflection by everyone, including the members of the media.  Mention The New York Times by name, MSNBC, and the fool sheriff from Arizona who has politicized the event and weakened his office. 

Palin should make it clear that disagreeing with Obamacare is not extremism, and that running against Barack Obama is not racism.  And she should finally declare that the person responsible for the shootings in Tucson is the man who pulled the trigger.

She could, of course, thoughtfully ask for a probe into why the background-check system, employed when someone tries to buy a gun, did not work in this case.  It did not work because data about the shooter's psychological past was not, under law, eligible to be entered into the federal database, and so did not come up when he bought his Glock semi-automatic pistol.  Sarah can demonstrate that she is a responsible gun owner, not a "gun nut."

Sarah Palin owes it to herself and the nation to speak out responsibly.  She has the capacity.  She now must have the will.

January 11, 2011      Permalink 

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 8:13 A.M. ET:  We have not been great fans of David Brooks of The New York Times, whose mushy conservatism on the paper's op-ed page can often be more maddening than enlightening.  But today Brooks performs brilliantly, lashing out at his fellow journalists, including, presumably, those on The Times, who have sought to politicize the Arizona tragedy:

We have a news media that is psychologically ill informed but politically inflamed, so it naturally leans toward political explanations. We have a news media with a strong distaste for Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement, and this seemed like a golden opportunity to tarnish them. We have a segmented news media, so there is nobody in most newsrooms to stand apart from the prevailing assumptions. We have a news media market in which the rewards go to anybody who can stroke the audience’s pleasure buttons.

I have no love for Sarah Palin, and I like to think I’m committed to civil discourse. But the political opportunism occasioned by this tragedy has ranged from the completely irrelevant to the shamelessly irresponsible.

The good news is that there were a few skeptics, even during the height of the mania: Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast, James Fallows of The Atlantic and Jonathan Chait of The New Republic. The other good news is that the mainstream media usually recovers from its hysterias and tries belatedly to get the story right.

COMMENT:  Well said.  We are hoping that there'll be a backlash against the mainstream media, a demand for an accounting for its irresponsible behavior.

That backlash could be part of the silent revulsion against the media that has seen its credibility ratings drop in recent years, and has seen millions of readers and viewers simply look elsewhere.

The New York Times needs a good buyout, and may get one, which would lead to the departure of its hippie publisher, a most welcome development.

January 11, 2011     Permalink

JANUARY 10,  2011

FIGHTING THE LUNACY – AT 11:10 P.M. ET:  I monitored some of the news networks tonight, knowing that, on this first weeknight after the Arizona shooting, they'd be reacting to the event.

Bill O'Reilly at Fox News showed why he's so successful – launching a stunning, take-no-prisoners attack on the vile individuals and institutions of the left who have tried to turn the Arizona shootings to their own advantage.  O'Reilly went after The New York Times, Times columnist Paul Krugman, assorted politicos, and MSNBC.  O'Reilly has never been better, and it's this kind of fight back that we need to counter the bullies. 

More and more is coming out about the accused shooter, none of it linking him with any political movement.  The leftist propagandists have tried to blame the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, but there has not surfaced any connection whatever between the accused perpetrator and either the Tea Party or Governor Palin.  The linkage is outrageous, a classic example, as Bill Kristol has said, of old-style McCarthyism.

Meanwhile, Anderson Cooper at CNN treated us to an interview with that profound philosopher and public intellectual, Bill Maher.  The once-funny comedian, now just a comedian, informed us that people who call for smaller government will produce a society with less mental-health care, but one in which lunatics can buy guns.  I was moved by the power of Maher's logic.  Maher also suggested that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated because of angry rhetoric against him during the Civil War.  I've no doubt that Maher had Fox News in mind. 

Oh, to top off his commentary, Maher said that the gun lobby should be called the assassins' lobby.  I'm sure the new signs will go up tomorrow.

Of course, Anderson Cooper gave Maher the full respect accorded to a sane person.  Anderson Cooper has always struck me as a nice guy, probably decent, but whose journalistic skills would qualify for Junior Scholastic.

It's the fight back that was the key item in tonight's coverage.  We have to make sure it continues.

January 10, 2011      Permalink

GOOD NEWS FOR A CHANGE – AT 5:59 P.M. ET:  We've been following this.  It appears, based on a number of recent reports, to be accurate, and is good news for the good guys.  From superlative reporter Eli Lake, in The Washington Times:

Israel and the United States recently revised their estimates of when Iran will field a nuclear weapon, reflecting difficulties inside Tehran's program of building large numbers of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Israel's former civilian intelligence chief, Meir Dagan, told Israeli newspapers last weekend that he thought Iran will not be able to produce an atomic bomb until 2015. The interview is significant in part because Mr. Dagan, who recently left the post, has made Iran a major focus for the Mossad intelligence service since he took over in 2002.

Mr. Dagan's estimates also coincide with recent U.S. intelligence community analysis that states Iran has run into difficulties in acquiring the refined equipment it needs to produce more centrifuges and to run the machines properly.

A new U.S. national intelligence estimate for Iran has been stalled for nearly a year, but U.S. officials familiar with the estimate say they expect a new classified estimate to be released as soon as this month.

Iran's difficulties also are likely to be the result of a covert Israeli program of sabotage and U.S. efforts against the country's nuclear program.

COMMENT:  This doesn't let us out of the woods yet, and Iran can solve these problems faster than intelligence agencies might expect.  But it is becoming clear that some actions against the Iranian program are having an effect. 

But...Iran will eventually have the bomb, and will have it, if he is reelected, during Obama's second term (choke).  So we may have some breathing time, but that's all.

January 10, 2011        Permalink

SO SAD – AT 4:58 P.M. ET:  Tom DeLay, once one of the most powerful men in Washington, will be going to prison.  From Fox:

AUSTIN, Texas -- A judge has ordered U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to serve three years in prison for his role in a scheme to illegally funnel corporate money to Texas candidates in 2002.

The sentence comes after a jury in November convicted DeLay on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. DeLay was once one of the most powerful men in U.S. politics, ascending to the No. 2 job in the House of Representatives.

The former Houston-area congressman had faced up to life in prison. His attorneys asked for probation.

COMMENT:  A fair sentence, I think.  And it shows that no man is, or should be, above the law.  Tom DeLay did some fine things as majority leader, but he, like some other Republicans, including Vietnam air hero Duke Cunningham, also made some serious mistakes.

We hope he serves his term without incident and tries to rebuild his life in an honorable manner.

January 10, 2011       Permalink

IT'S ALL THE SAME, IT'S ALL THE SAME – AT 11:29 A.M. ET:   We tend to give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt here because she's one of the more moderate, relatively speaking, voices in the Obama internship program.  But occasionally, and especially recently, she's gone into high grovel and has started to sound ridiculous.  From CBS News:

In a town hall meeting in Abu Dhabi on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decried the man who shot Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords as an "extremist" - and urged the audience not to judge his actions as representative of American ideologies.

When asked by a student why many in the United States target the entire Arab world in reference to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Clinton condemned "extremists and their voices," and said both countries had to work to overcome the strong influence of those voices, according to the Associated Press.

"We have extremists in my country. A wonderful, incredibly brave young woman Congress member, Congresswoman Gifford[s], was just shot by an extremist in our country," Clinton said.

"The extremists and their voices, the crazy voices that sometimes get on the TV, that's not who we are, that's not who you are, and what we have to do is get through that and make it clear that that doesn't represent either American or Arab ideas or opinions," Clinton continued.

Right.  They're all the same, don't you understand?  The guys who pulled off 9-11, which left 3,000 dead, are no different from the guy who shot that gun on Saturday in Arizona. All the same, all the same.

I guess that's what you have to say in the Arab world, but the net effect is to prolong Arab delusions.

As far as the shooter being an extremist, we actually don't know what exactly he believed.  "Mentally ill" would appear, to this layman, to be a more accurate label.  Oh, by the way, when did the Obama administration ever refer to Major Hasan, the Fort Hood mass murderer, as an extremist?  I don't recall the time.

January 10, 2011      Permalink

SNIPPET OF THE DAY – AT 10:05 A.M. ET:

Dick Winters, a decorated Army officer whose World War II service was recounted in the best-selling book and HBO mini-series "Band of Brothers," died Jan. 2. News reports listed his age at 92.  Based on the 1992 book by historian Stephen E. Ambrose, the HBO mini-series came out in 2001 and was produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg.  The story follows the tragedies and triumphs of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 2nd Battalion, E Company.  To Mr. Winters, these citizen-soldiers came to be known as the men of Easy Company -- paratroopers who jumped into combat on June 6, 1944 above Normandy, France.

Day by day, we lose the best.  Compare please to the behavior of some Americans in the last few days.

January 10, 2011      Permalink

FOX NEWS UNDER ATTACK – AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Part of the fallout from Arizona is a new round of attacks on Fox News.

Fox News is, by far, the most popular of the cable news systems.  Even so, its viewership is tiny in a nation of 310 million people.  In its most watched hours, Fox may be seen by maybe one percent of the American population. 

And yet, journalists are obsessed with Fox and its presumed influence.  In the aftermath of Arizona, a seemingly endless stream of critics point the collective finger at Fox, sometimes by name, sometimes by implication, as having helped create the "atmosphere" that made the shootings possible.

I've watched Fox News from the start.  I like some things, and dislike others.  The straight news shows on Fox, often hosted by Shep Smith (a liberal, by the way) are as good as the straight news shows of any outlet I can think of, and often better.  Fox has fine reporters.  And, if a mistake is made, it's corrected quickly.  Fox news shows include points of view often slighted by other networks, especially conservative views.  But the news reports are balanced.

The commentary shows, by Sean Hannity in particular, tilt to the right, although it's hard to find much bias in Greta Van Susteren's 10 p.m. program.  Glenn Beck clearly tilts to the right, but it's commentary.

I've probably seen more interviews with liberals on Fox than on any other network, but Fox never gets the credit for including them. 

Many in journalism hate Fox because it's so successful, and success breeds resentment and envy, rarely admiration.  Many hate it because it does permit conservative views a full airing.  In the mentality of some journalists, that's just not acceptable.  These critics are in journalism "to make a difference."  The difference they make is entirely on the left.  They had it pounded into their heads in the fourth-rate colleges they attended that the left is the only acceptable narrative, the only acceptable "truth."  The god of the modern left, Herbert Marcuse, said in the 1960s that the truth is what supported progressive causes.  In other words, if it helps a "progressive" cause, it's the truth. 

In all my years of watching Fox, I've heard very few things that are over any reasonable line.  Whenever commentary is permitted, you're going to find a few bad moments.  But there are no more, or fewer, at Fox than there are anywhere else.  The smears against the network are false and inflammatory.

Some Democrats want members of their party to refuse to appear on Fox.  That is adolescent and amateurish.  I don't know of any Democrat who's ever claimed he's been ill-treated in a Fox interview.  Indeed, Bill O'Reilly will interview President Obama before the Super Bowl game. 

The demonization of Fox brings discredit to those who attempt it.  I'm relieved that the attacks do not appear to be stopping Fox's meteoric growth.

January 10, 2011       Permalink 

THE DANGER – AT 8:41 A.M. ET:   I am reluctant to bring this up, but feel a responsibility to do so.

Amidst the wild charges by the political left and its interns in the media in the aftermath of the Arizona shootings, something terribly important is being forgotten.  Names are being used.  The leftist establishment is targeting, specifically, Sarah Palin, a woman who has never advocated violence against anyone.  She is being made into a pariah, no doubt to diminish her standing as a presidential candidate.

But this kind of hate speech against Sarah Palin can have horrible consequences, because it puts Sarah and her family at physical risk.

The same crackpots the left claims are out there on the right, are out there on the left.  Witness Lee Harvey Oswald.  Witness Sirhan Sirhan.  Does the left have no concern that its wild-eyed loathing of Sarah Palin might provoke some nut on the left to seek "revenge"?  I doubt if the leftists have even thought of it.

David Gergen, a sane voice on CNN, last night cautioned that this hot rhetoric directed at conservatives, especially Sarah Palin, is making matters worse.  He is correct.  A few sane people, like historian Douglas Brinkley, are echoing that cautionary note. 

But I worry about Sarah Palin.  It is actually rare for a political figure to be targeted, by name, in such a violent manner.  I hope my worries prove wrong.

January 10, 2011     Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY – AT 7:44 A.M. ET:  There appears to be no limit to the vulgarity of the left, as it tries to exploit the tragic shootings in Tucscon.  No comment is too wild, no charge too extreme.   The New York Times, displaying for all to see its deterioration as a newspaper, runs an editorial that should embarrass anyone who recalls The Times when it still had some standards.  Consider this quote:

It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But 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.

This of course is a thinly veiled attack on Fox News.  But notice that no names are used, no evidence presented.  On the left, evidence is not considered necessary, as the truth is obvious.

Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats.

Note the absence of the word "illegal" before immigrants.  And when was the last time "the right" demonized welfare recipients?  And bureaucrats?  Apparently, it's no longer legitimate, in the eyes of The Times, to criticize the actions of governments, or to point out that government workers often received higher salaries than their equivalents in the private sector.  The Times rant seems to suggest that government should be the master of the people, and not the other way around.

They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

No examples provided.  Not one.  Many conservatives, Ronald Reagan included, have said that government is often part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.  That is a far cry from charging that government is the enemy.

That whirlwind has touched down most forcefully in Arizona, which Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik described after the shooting as the capital of “the anger, the hatred and the bigotry that goes on in this country.”

This disgusting individual is an old Democratic Party hack.  But his political affiliation and history can be found almost nowhere.  His behavior at the now-famous press conference where he delivered his broadside was grossly unprofessional, for a supposed law-enforcement officer.  He couldn't even remember the name of the FBI official whom he was about to introduce but he had no hesitation about delivering a political speech.

Anti-immigrant sentiment in the state, firmly opposed by Ms. Giffords, has reached the point where Latino studies programs that advocate ethnic solidarity have actually been made illegal.

An awful and deceptive statement.  No description of the programs is given.  The programs involved are extreme, and have no place in public schools.  This is really a cheap shot.

Its gun laws are among the most lenient, allowing even a disturbed man like Mr. Loughner to buy a pistol and carry it concealed without a special permit. That was before the Tucson rampage. Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments.

The usual, standard leftist demand for new gun laws, without making any specific suggestions that might actually work.  It is certainly true that the Arizona shooter should not have been allowed to buy a pistol, given his mental history.  But the problem lies in the fact that no part of that mental history was entered into the database that the FBI uses in its instant background check.  A thoughtful discussion on this is perfectly appropriate.  The Times gives us a rant.

By the way, Chicago has among the strictest gun-control laws in the country, and Chicago is a shooting gallery.  I do not join those who rigidly oppose all gun-management laws.  It would be nice, though, if someone checked to see what works in expanding public safety, and what doesn't.  But on today's feel-good left, where the highest priority is feeling good about oneself, facts have little use. 

The Times embarrasses its name.  But it has done so many, many times in recent years.  The Times editorial adds nothing to the public discussion.  The editorial writers are, no doubt, content.

January 10, 2011      Permalink