Defending Sarah Palin's Blood Libel Comment

There are a ton of left-wing bloggers, vloggers, so-called journalists, and media moguls that are trying to call Sarah Palin stupid because she used the term “blood libel” in a video she recently posted to the web. The video was done in response to a cry from the media to respond to criticism that she was somehow connected to the events of the recent shootings in Tucson, Arizona.

The accusations were that the cross-hair symbols that used to appear on her website, “targeting” Democrat political leaders that she, and the Tea Party movement considered to be bad leaders they wanted to replace through the election cycle, were directly or indirectly responsible for pushing Jared Loughner into a shooting frenzy, killing a Federal Judge and a 9-year old girl, among others, as well wounding more than a dozen people including Representative Gabrielle Giffords (a Decmocrat). Such pundits have gone on, sometimes back-peddling and sometimes not, to include other right-wing celebrities as part of a “group of terrorists” that, these left-wing pundits claim, are spewing hate speech and inciting riots and violence.

Of course, the Democrats and the rest of the “left” never do that.

This is all nonsense, of course. Let's review some of the facts surrounding these accusations, even though the term “facts” may turn off a few liberal-leaning people in America these days.

• Jared Loughner, the man accused in the shooting, is a registered Independent, not a Republican.
• His own political leanings aligned more with the Zeitgeist movement than the Tea Party movement.
• Jared Loughner's problems with Representative Giffords started as early, or earlier, than 2007, before the Tea Party movement, shortly after Sarah Palin became the governor of Alaska and before she became prominent in the national political scene.
• It is likely that he suffered from schizophrenia and possibly paranoid psychosis.
• His friends say he did not watch television, listen to the radio, or take sides with any major political party.

How in heaven's name does an otherwise rational person get a picture of a guy who's gone off the deep end because of Sarah Palin and right-wing talk show hosts from that? It's ludicrous.

Now let's look that the timeline involved in the shootings, and Palin's response:

January 8: A tragic shooting in Tuscon takes place. Within minutes, some people in the media begin blaming Sarah Palin and demanding she respond.

January 9: Evidence about Jared Loughner begins to be revealed, showing that he had nothing to do with Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement. The media continues to demand a response from her.

January 10: More evidence about the shooter is revealed, showing him to be mentally ill. The media continues to cry for a response from Palin.

January 11: Evidence comes out to show that the shooter didn't care about politics. The media continues to call for a response from Palin.

January 12: Sarah Palin responds via video posted at YouTube and her Facebook page. NBC Nightly News pulls out her “target map,” ties it to Gifford, and then focuses on two words of her response video, “blood libel,” and then accuses her of being anti-Semitic because of it. The rest of the media, and the blogosphere, go wild with continuing accusations and nonsense.

What kind of story is the media trying to create? Note that I said CREATE, not REPORT. There are no facts here linking any of Palin's activities to Loughner.

In other words, in order to attack Palin and the Tea Party movement, they're making shit up.

Are you still with me? Here's the part of Palin's response so many seem to have trouble with:

“But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Blood libel (also called blood accusation) refers to a false accusation or claim that religious minorities, usually Jews, murder children to use their blood in religious rituals and holidays.

In other words, in order to attack Jews and other religious/cultural groups, they're making shit up.

Her analogy is spot on. In this case, it's not an unfounded attack on a religion. It's an unfounded attack on a political ideology.

How many of you recognized the next step, already being taken by at least one government official, attacking free speech and the first amendment?

In the words of Arsenio Hall, “Just something to make you go, Hmmm ...”

The Oath Movie - Documentary of a Terrorist

Yesterday, I watched an astonishing film on POV, a PBS series of independent documentaries, called The Oath. It chronicles the rise of a “reformed” Al Qaeda operative Abu Jandal a.k.a. Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard. After leaving bin Laden's service, he was captured at the Pakistani border and became a prisoner at Guantánamo Bay facing war crimes charges. It's a little hard to follow, because it's not presented in exactly chronological order, but it ultimately leads to Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, and even the US Constitution.

Although the filmmaker was trying to show why American foreign policy creates hatred and uprisings in the middle east, and gain sympathy for them, she was much better at painting an accurate picture of why we need to take so-called “Islamic Extremists” seriously. She reveals what their thinking is, the lies they are told, and how they have no regard for anyone who doesn't think, live or believe as they do. There are also sections showing some of Al Qaeda's recruiting practices, and communications tactics.

What is most telling is the conversations Hamdan has with young militant Muslims. He acts like a mentor, or minor Imam, subtly giving them a philosophy of hatred for “infidels” and a mindset of action, all the while denying that he has ever asked them to kill Americans. What is most interesting is when he tells them to be careful, or cuts them off when they start asking questions that may be “too sensitive” and reveal these young men's connections, or aspirations, to terrorism.

While some who have seen the movie focus on the side of the story trying to humanize Salim Hamdan, and thus dismiss the film, they shouldn't. This is likely the most terrifying, and brutally truthful, look inside Al Qaeda I have ever seen. It reveals the actual war we are waging with them and other related militant groups. They see themselves as freedom fighters, as Holy Warriors. Make no mistake, there sole mission is to kill us. If the events portrayed, and the conversations recorded in this documentary doesn't wake you up to the real danger we are facing as a country, nothing will.

US to Give $50 Million for Cookstoves

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the US is poised to donate $50 million to the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves. They area non-profit group dedicated to clean-burning cookstoves to under-developed countries that currently use open fires within their homes.
Such cooking practices create large amounts of carbon monoxide and black carbon soot that can significantly compromise a person's health. As a “foodie” and home cook, this problem is of great concern to me. What I'm confused about is why the U.S. Should be donating such a large amount of money in this down economy.

I'm also concerned about why we are donating to this specific organization in this way. It turns out that there are already many US government agencies and private companies that support this group. Why are we giving $50 million in addition to the money US taxpayers and corporations are already giving them? Other countries have pledged much less.

According to the New York Times:

Reid Detchon, vice president for energy and climate at the United Nations Foundation, one of the founding partners of the alliance, said that the plan was not simply to use donations to buy millions of new stoves and ship them out to the developing world.

Rather, he said, the group hopes to create an entrepreneurial model in which small companies manufacture or buy the stoves close to their markets, taking into account local fuel choices, food consumption patterns and methods of cooking.

There's a problem with this ideal. It turns out that one of the major manufacturers of these stoves is China. How is large scale manufacturing groups in China, who shamelessly belch out tons of greenhouse gasses, a small company model, in practice?

It also turns out that this “solution” has a built it replacement date. It's actually designed to be cheap, and break down, so it has to be replaced every few years:

“The idea is how to create a thriving global industry in cookstoves, driven by consumers’ desire to have these products at a price they can afford,” Mr. Detchon said.

“These stoves don’t have a long lifetime,” he said. “To produce low cost and high volume, you’ll have to replace them relatively frequently, perhaps every two, three or five years. You’ll need a supply chain and business model that delivers them, not on a one-time basis, but as a continuing enterprise.”

How is selling sub-standard equipment to a developing nation a good idea? This group positions itself as highly moral, wanting to help poor people. This sounds like they're taking advantage of them.

The solutions to carbon smoke and soot in the house was fixed hundreds of years ago with much simply, and in some cases less expensive, technologies and practices. While this may be a worthy cause, there are other things that can be done and many of them don't require any money at all.

Move the Stove Outside. An open flam in a closed space not only creates breathing problems, it's a major fire hazard.

Use a Chimney. Even a simple hole in the roof can help direct smoke upwards, and out of the home.

Use a Solar Oven. You can build an effective solar oven for next to nothing. Sure, there are fancy models that cost hundreds of dollars, but you can actually buy/build a cheap, but very effective ovens for much less. Solar ovens have a zero-carbon footprint, where the other cookers do not. Here's the other kicker – Secretary Clinton has known about it, and supported them, for over a year. Why change gears, now?

Photo by Sunil Lal

Friday is Constitution Day! Just Don't Try to Celebrate in Ohio

This Friday, September 17, is the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. That's quite a reason to celebrate, if you ask me.  According to this news article, you better not try doing it in Andover, Ohio.

Members of the recently formed Andover Tea Party had petitioned the city to allow them to hold a rally commemorating the signing of the Constitution. They were denied due to, get this, their group's political affiliation. The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, a nonpartisan law center in Ohio, has filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of the Tea Party group, claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Apparently, the Andover City Council is citing a local resolution that prohibits any for-profit advertising or political signs on the Andover Square.  The problem, it seems, is that the trustees believe celebrating the signing of the Constitution is a political event.

Okay. I can buy that. Under that standard, though, so is celebrating Memorial Day, Veteran's Day, and Independence Day, all of which have had events cleared by the Andover City Council. There's supposed to be a ruling on a restraining order against the Council before Friday.

File this under, “More Evidence that the World has Turned Upside Down.”

Photo from the National Archives.