Politically Charged Violence - Who's Responsible?

[Ryobi]

This is a quote from Sarah Palin's video she put out on facebook today,

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Her own spin on "falsely accuse". (and rep. Gifford is Jewish I believe. Slap in the face much?) And I see she learned Chaney doubletalk very well.

Her words, a lot of times, give me the feeling of "I wanna choke a bitch", feeling felt for her, and I'm sane. I can see how things she says can give the wrong impression to some one who is not sane, or on the border of.

I don't believe that Palin and her buddies are contacting people and telling them to do things like killing others. But, they are very readily twisting words and meanings. There is a lot of mind fucking involved in terrorism. I personally don't think her and said pals are too far from it.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Ryobi

This is a quote from Sarah Palin's video she put out on facebook today,

In a nearly eight-minute long message, Palin said that “journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn.”

Her own spin on "falsely accuse". (and rep. Gifford is Jewish I believe. Slap in the face much?) And I see she learned Chaney doubletalk very well.

Her words, a lot of times, give me the feeling of "I wanna choke a bitch", feeling felt for her, and I'm sane. I can see how things she says can give the wrong impression to some one who is not sane, or on the border of.

I don't believe that Palin and her buddies are contacting people and telling them to do things like killing others. But, they are very readily twisting words and meanings. There is a lot of mind fucking involved in terrorism. I personally don't think her and said pals are too far from it.

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all. What they HAVE done is this:

"We are in a battle for America. One side, the one that represents Real America(tm), believes in God, holds Faith, Family and Country as sacred, and believes in responsibility and free markets. The other side, the one that represents Liberal Elites, hates God, wants to make you abandon your faith, is anti-family, and believes that the terrorists of Al Qaeda should defeat America. These people WANT more 9/11-type attacks. They WANT you and your family to have to pay for illegal aliens who may be terrorists! They are terrorists in our midsts. Now I'm not saying you should take the law into your own hands. I'd never say that. But if the terrorist/Democrat is elected then we, the Real Americans, may have to be ready to take up our guns in one hand and the Good Book in the other and TAKE OUR NATION BACK!"

Over the top? Not at all. There is nothing I have said in that fake speech that you cannot hear from the mouth of Michael Savage, or Laura Ingram, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck or Sarah Palin or Pat Buchanan.

Cheers
Aj

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all. What they HAVE done is this:

"We are in a battle for America. One side, the one that represents Real America(tm), believes in God, holds Faith, Family and Country as sacred, and believes in responsibility and free markets. The other side, the one that represents Liberal Elites, hates God, wants to make you abandon your faith, is anti-family, and believes that the terrorists of Al Qaeda should defeat America. These people WANT more 9/11-type attacks. They WANT you and your family to have to pay for illegal aliens who may be terrorists! They are terrorists in our midsts. Now I'm not saying you should take the law into your own hands. I'd never say that. But if the terrorist/Democrat is elected then we, the Real Americans, may have to be ready to take up our guns in one hand and the Good Book in the other and TAKE OUR NATION BACK!"

Over the top? Not at all. There is nothing I have said in that fake speech that you cannot hear from the mouth of Michael Savage, or Laura Ingram, or Rush Limbaugh, or Glen Beck or Sarah Palin or Pat Buchanan.

Cheers
Aj

Thank you for more examples of "readily twisting words and meanings". And please be careful, one of those whack jobs are going to contact you to be their speech writer. lol.

[Medusa]

Sarah Palin has yet again demonstrated why she would be ultra-scary as President.

From the first time she set foot into the public eye, Palin has failed to take responsibility for one. single. thing. that she has said or done that was unwise, ill thought out, or a plain mistake. It's always "someone else's" fault or an attack by the media, or someone who is "unAmerican" attacking poor widdle Palin.

I am not personally asking her to take responsibility for the shooting in Arizona but the way she is shucking off her responsibility in helping create a chaotic, hyper-aggressive political environment (one where it's ok to put crosshairs on a map? REALLY?) is pretty gross and alarming.

If she just went on the news and said "Hey, I've thought about it and I dont think Im responsible for anything that happened in Arizona but I do realize that my "target" map wasnt a good idea and Im sorry" I would be able to see her as some modicum of intelligent or empathetic or sensitive. The fact that she is making her target map out to be one of "surveryors" marks and all of the sudden manufacturing "stalkers" so she is more sympathetic tells me that this person is not only arrogant but apparently thinks that the rest of the American public are idiots as well.

I smell a sociopath.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Sarah Palin has yet again demonstrated why she would be ultra-scary as President.

From the first time she set foot into the public eye, Palin has failed to take responsibility for one. single. thing. that she has said or done that was unwise, ill thought out, or a plain mistake. It's always "someone else's" fault or an attack by the media, or someone who is "unAmerican" attacking poor widdle Palin.

I am not personally asking her to take responsibility for the shooting in Arizona but the way she is shucking off her responsibility in helping create a chaotic, hyper-aggressive political environment (one where it's ok to put crosshairs on a map? REALLY?) is pretty gross and alarming.

If she just went on the news and said "Hey, I've thought about it and I dont think Im responsible for anything that happened in Arizona but I do realize that my "target" map wasnt a good idea and Im sorry" I would be able to see her as some modicum of intelligent or empathetic or sensitive. The fact that she is making her target map out to be one of "surveryors" marks and all of the sudden manufacturing "stalkers" so she is more sympathetic tells me that this person is not only arrogant but apparently thinks that the rest of the American public are idiots as well.

I smell a sociopath.

I would say something else is going on. Ms Palin, like a lot of Americans, has learned a lesson that has been hammered home for as long as I have been an adult and, perhaps, a little bit longer. If you are *oppressed* then you are not *responsible*. So the keys-to-the-kingdom are to claim oppression of some sort or another. That way, you are let off the hook--sort of.

We do it (and by 'we', I am talking about my fellow Leftists here). You can see it in almost any discussion of global feminism. If a white Christian man gets up in a pulpit and claims that the Christian Bible teaches that women should dress modestly and if she doesn't and is raped, that man will rightly be condemned as the apologist for sexism that he clearly is. Let the same words drip from the mouth of a Muslim imam in, say, Karachi or Tehran, and suddenly we, as Western feminists, are exhorted to 'understand' the culture or are told that different people have different standards or something else to say that we are wrong in the name of anti-imperialism. After three decades (perhaps more) of watching this play out in the real world, the American Right got the message and are now using it masterfully.

That is why theocratic Christians try to portray opposition to their anti-gay agenda and rhetoric as 'persecution'. Astoundingly, a nation where fully four in every ten Americans consider themselves a 'Bible-believing, evangelical, Christian' these very same people speak of themselves as a beleaguered minority. Companies acknowledging that there are OTHER holidays in December than Christmas is now a 'war on Christmas' and a 'war against Christians'. Why? Because it makes them appear to be victims and then anything they do is, ipso facto, morally pure.

There is more going on than that, though. Despite all the talk of 'freedom', American conservatism has taken a very authoritarian turn (and it was never particularly far removed from authoritarianism in the first place). Word goes from God to the pastor to the person in the pews. Sure, someone will make the passing verbal genuflection toward "look it up yourself" but the average authority in conservative circles--be they political or religious--knows for a certainty that the overwhelming majority of their listeners aren't going to look it up. Argument by fiat is enough. The pastor has a 'calling', he's 'anointed' and therefore he is right. The politician is a 'prayer warrior' and is also 'anointed' and so she is right. The one thing that can NEVER be done is admit to a mistake. They aren't made.

So Katie Couric asking Ms Palin "what newspapers or magazines do you read to keep informed" is suddenly a 'gotcha' question even though that is such a slow ball question that turtles zoom past it. Seriously, right now, see if you can come up with the names of three newspapers and three magazines you *might* want to read if you wanted to stay informed. You have, say, 30 seconds.

Chances are you came up with:

1) Your local paper
2) The New York Times
3) The Washington Post

For magazines you might have come up with:

1) Newsweek
2) Time
3) US News and World Report

Now, you may be thinking "well, I don't read any of those" and that might be true as far as it goes. But no one here had aspirations to be one 70+ year old heartbeat away from the Presidency. If you have aspirations to high political office, I don't think it unreasonable to expect you to read widely and to be able to name some things you've read.

Yet, Ms Palin portrayed herself as the *victim* of Couric and the mythology on the right is that this question was so out of bounds. Why? So she didn't have to admit that she was caught being a lightweight.


Cheers
Aj

[katsarecool]

Story on Facebook is Karl Rove wrote the speech and set her up! Use of the word punndants rather than pundits tipped off a FB member who has met Rove and knows the man well. Not likes him just knows his style personally. Hmmm.

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by katsarecool

Story on Facebook is Karl Rove wrote the speech and set her up! Use of the word punndants rather than pundits tipped off a FB member who has met Rove and knows the man well. Not likes him just knows his style personally. Hmmm.

Does that mean she doesn't read things before she goes public with it. If so, she's even less bright than I first thought.

[Chancie]

Originally Posted by katsarecool

Story on Facebook is Karl Rove wrote the speech and set her up! Use of the word punndants rather than pundits tipped off a FB member who has met Rove and knows the man well. Not likes him just knows his style personally. Hmmm.

I heard part of her speech this am, and I thought, Hmm, this doesn't sound like Sarah Palin. I did wonder if she had practiced reading the speech with conviction. I mean, even politicos with whom I agree use speechwriters. But, I guess we assume that a speechwriter represents the speaker's own style of discourse and political beliefs. I thought I heard her stumble over pundits, and I thought, Well, anyone can make a mistake off a teleprompter. But, we have a right to expect that our powerful elected officials and candidates can speak extemporaneously.

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

*snip*


That is why theocratic Christians try to portray opposition to their anti-gay agenda and rhetoric as 'persecution'. Astoundingly, a nation where fully four in every ten Americans consider themselves a 'Bible-believing, evangelical, Christian' these very same people speak of themselves as a beleaguered minority. Companies acknowledging that there are OTHER holidays in December than Christmas is now a 'war on Christmas' and a 'war against Christians'. Why? Because it makes them appear to be victims and then anything they do is, ipso facto, morally pure.

There is more going on than that, though. Despite all the talk of 'freedom', American conservatism has taken a very authoritarian turn (and it was never particularly far removed from authoritarianism in the first place). Word goes from God to the pastor to the person in the pews. Sure, someone will make the passing verbal genuflection toward "look it up yourself" but the average authority in conservative circles--be they political or religious--knows for a certainty that the overwhelming majority of their listeners aren't going to look it up. Argument by fiat is enough. The pastor has a 'calling', he's 'anointed' and therefore he is right. The politician is a 'prayer warrior' and is also 'anointed' and so she is right. The one thing that can NEVER be done is admit to a mistake. They aren't made.

Cheers
Aj

*snip*

This brings up another bothersome thought for me. It seems the people that scream the loudest for less gov't, less gov't, keep the government out of my business, are the same ones that continue to demonstrate what looks like a lack of understanding or flat out refusal to enforce an understanding of the term "separation of church and state".

[Hack]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Sarah Palin has yet again demonstrated why she would be ultra-scary as President.

From the first time she set foot into the public eye, Palin has failed to take responsibility for one. single. thing. that she has said or done that was unwise, ill thought out, or a plain mistake. It's always "someone else's" fault or an attack by the media, or someone who is "unAmerican" attacking poor widdle Palin.

I am not personally asking her to take responsibility for the shooting in Arizona but the way she is shucking off her responsibility in helping create a chaotic, hyper-aggressive political environment (one where it's ok to put crosshairs on a map? REALLY?) is pretty gross and alarming.

If she just went on the news and said "Hey, I've thought about it and I dont think Im responsible for anything that happened in Arizona but I do realize that my "target" map wasnt a good idea and Im sorry" I would be able to see her as some modicum of intelligent or empathetic or sensitive. The fact that she is making her target map out to be one of "surveryors" marks and all of the sudden manufacturing "stalkers" so she is more sympathetic tells me that this person is not only arrogant but apparently thinks that the rest of the American public are idiots as well.

I smell a sociopath.

What Palin's video said to me today was total lack of leadership and insight. Compare what she said to the amazing speech Obama gave tonight (hey, there's the guy I voted for! Nice to have him back.). Obama is in another galaxy compared to where she is on the simple issue of leadership.

Jake

[Hack]

This is back from 2008, right after the Republican convention when Palin accepted the VP nomination. I love Matt Taibbi.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...palin-20100405

I love the part about what the images of Palin and Obama stand for. Honestly, when is the Democratic Party going to stand up and say, "Hey, you know what? Intelligence isn't just for the elite. It's for everyone. It should be a value we strive for here in America." God, why does the party let the Republicans use intelligence as a way to insult Obama? I don't get that.

[Just_G]

I was listening to what MSNBC was saying after the memorial, and when they discussed Palin's 8 minute "me" moment, they compared her to an iceburg that is slowly melting and getting smaller and smaller, and that today a big chunk slid off of that iceburg.

I have always said she would dig her own grave...won't be much longer. People are getting more and more sick of her, her mispronunciations, her over use of big words, and her "it's all about me" attitude.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

What bothers me is precisely what you illustrate. Has ANY conservative or right-wing commentator said "someone should shoot Gabrielle Giffords"? No, not at all.
<snip>

Wait. I thought Palin's "bullseye" map had "targetted" Giffords? And since you so eloquently pointed Palin is also the mother of "Don't retreat; reload!". Seems to me that would suggest to "shoot" Giffords or am I stretching here?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

Wait. I thought Palin's "bullseye" map had "targetted" Giffords? And since you so eloquently pointed Palin is also the mother of "Don't retreat; reload!". Seems to me that would suggest to "shoot" Giffords or am I stretching here?

Linus:

Yes, her map did have a target on Giffords' district. At the time, I wondered what would be her reaction if anyone on that list was actually shot at. Now we know (FWIW, her reaction is about what I expected it to be). It is interesting that on her FB page (now scrubbed) she boasted about the map and how 18 of 20 the Democrats targeted (her words) were defeated. One of the two who weren't is now in an Arizona hospital.

She will continue to say "I never said go shoot someone" and she will continue to be right. She never said those words. It doesn't change the fact that she has said (not implied but said) that the American government in its current incarnation is tyrannical and she has applauded (and mindlessly aped) the Jefferson quote that the 'tree of liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of tyrants'. Now, is she responsible? No. But she should tone down her rhetoric.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) ran through a litany of violent rhetoric used by prominent American conservatives in just the last year:

Quoting Sharron Angle: "People are looking towards the second amendment remedies and saying my goodness, what can we do to turn our country around."

Angle again: "The first thing we need to do is take out blank." The exact quote: "The first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Quoting Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): "I want people in blank armed and dangerous on this issue [of the energy tax] because we need to fight back."

Quoting Glenn Beck: "I want to kill blank with a shovel." The exact quote: "I want to kill Charlie Rangel with a shovel."

Beck again: "Every night I get down on my knees and pray blank will burst into flames." The exact quote: "Every night I get down on my knees and pray Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames."

Quoting Texas GOP candidate Stephen Broden: ''Our nation was founded on violence. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.' ' The exact quote: ''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms.' '

Quoting Sarah Palin: "Don't retreat, reload."

Now, if I or one of you reading this posts any of these statements on our blog it may be in bad taste, it may be hyperbolic but it isn't dangerous. I'm not a national figure and chances are, you aren't either. If, on the other hand, you are a figure of national prominence and YOU say something like this that is a completely different matter altogether. Imagine, if you will, Dennis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer saying "if ballots don't work, bullets will". Congress could be out of session, everyone gone back home for some recess or another, and the Republican leadership and every single Washington pundit to the right of Rachel Maddow would be calling for Congress to rush back to D.C., reconvene *immediately* and have the offenders tried for treason.

If you are in or aspire to be in high political office then you should be held to a higher standard.

Full article and video here:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg



Cheers
Aj

[Kobi]

This is a fascinating discussion.

But, I am wondering about the PROCESS we the people are being subjected to.

Think about it.....a relatively inconsequential politician gets shot. Her relatively inconsequential attacker, who bears an uncanny resemblence to Uncle Fester, has himself representation by the unabomber lawyer in less than 24 hours.

We are being drawn into a bunch of self serving rhetoric about gun control, political words influencing irrational behavior, and a host of other stuff.

Is anyone, besides me, wondering exactly how all these seemingly convenient coincidences are beginning to smell a little funny? Like this is another ploy to distract people from something important "they" dont want us to focus on? Or that "they" feeling the threat to their power and control have carefully orchestrated another campaign of fear to sway public opinion?

I'm strictly talking PROCESS, not content.

Anyone else wondering?

[Chancie]

Kobi, you are mistaken. The elected official who was likely the target of the shootings was a progressive in a conservative state. She represents a diametrically different political stance than does the governor of that state.

And I am sure the father of the little girl who was murdered doesn't think her life was inconsequential.

[Gayla]

What I'm wondering is how anyone can see the violent murder of 6 people, including a chief judge and a 9 year old girl, as "inconsequential".

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

She will continue to say "I never said go shoot someone" and she will continue to be right. She never said those words.

Yes, exactly. She is right in the same way that Christine O'Donnell was right when she said that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution.

I mean SURE that exact phrase isn't in there, but, well.

It's all bullshit and semantics.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by betenoire

Yes, exactly. She is right in the same way that Christine O'Donnell was right when she said that "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution.

I mean SURE that exact phrase isn't in there, but, well.

It's all bullshit and semantics.

Yes, precisely. Agree with the agenda or not (and it's no secret I disagree with it), one can only marvel at the slick propaganda machine that is the modern American conservative movement. It is a marvel to behold if one has any appreciation for the Machiavellian. That dark part of me has an appreciation for well-executed memetic manipulation. What is even more fantastic, and the part that I think both the American media and ordinary citizens should expect to be judged rather harshly on this score, is that they have gotten away with it. Christine O'Donnell is a perfect example.

As you point out, she's technically correct the words 'separation of Church and State' do not appear in the First Amendment. However, any ordinary understanding of the amendment--certainly in common parlance--understands that the language does, in fact, separate the authority of the State and the wishes of the Church and vice versa. If anyone harps on it, Ms O'Donnell can then go on FOX News and run the "liberal elites think they know better than the American people". If it's dropped, she looks like she won. Like I said above, masterful stuff. Now, did Ms O'Donnell come up with this strategy? Not hardly! This has an old provenance on both the Right and the Left because it works. At present it is the Right that has mastered the game.

Remember Ms O'Donnell is a product of the movement that gave us this:

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
(Anonymous aide to George W. Bush* as quoted by Ron Suskind in The New Yorker--2004)

Cheers
Aj