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

[JustJo]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Part of the problem that I, as a liberal, have is that I try to hew pretty close to the facts. I don't think that my opinions are the same thing as the facts which, I hope, are the basis of my opinions. How does one effectively fight the good fight if, for instance, the other side conflates opinion (e.g. the HCR bill has language that after 70, a 'death panel' determines whether you can live another year) and fact (the HCR bill has end-of-life counseling coverage so that people can get help creating a durable power of attorney)? Cheers
Aj

And, not to derail....but the company I work for does that end-of-life counseling (among a whole host of health and wellness work). I cannot tell you how frequently seniors have thanked us for providing this service to them. Many tell us that their doctors cannot or will not have these conversations with them. They want the facts. They want to make their own decisions. They want to plan ahead. And they struggle to find those who will do that with them.

Providing this service, and making sure it's covered by health insurance, is compassionate, important and respectful - and the furtherst thing from a "death panel" that you can imagine.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

While I think it's important to realize that extremist have been around forever, their methods of disseminating propaganda has changed dramatically.

Instead of radical newspapers, subversive flyers, whispered recruiting and basement meetings, these people have 24 hour podiums on multiple tv and radio stations.

That sort of bombardment is HIGHLY effective and I believe it has contributed to the volatile tone of politics today, and helps these psychos hone their hatred and justify their actions.

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"

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.

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

[Ryobi]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"



Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

Actually, the accusation was, Jews used the blood of Christian children to paint the doorways to their homes at passover. That is the first I've heard the matzoh bread example. (used for symbolism of beliefs, not nourishment.) (not jumping on DC, I think she knows.)

I'm not so sure about the dog whistle either. Anyone can "hear" the bullshit 24/7.

Thanks DC!

[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 dark_crystal

Mark Morford

http://www.sfgate.com/

"Look, this is America: While you are halfheartedly allowed to be as optimistic, spiritually awake, book-learned, calm and reasonable as you wish, you are aggressively encouraged to be as suspicious, xenophobic, poorly informed, well-armed, God-fearing and insular as you possibly can"

I love me some Mark Morford. I don't always agree with him but he always makes me laugh.

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

[/QUOTE]

Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics. Ms Palin is obviously trying to paint herself as the victim and is going out of her way to portray perfectly reasonable expressions of concern about political rhetoric in spurious stories that people are 'blaming Sarah Palin for the Tucson shooting'. Except that isn't what is happening. What's happening is that people are saying, rightly, that if you are trying to see if your gas tank is empty by lighting a match, you shouldn't be terribly surprised when your car explodes. Did you *intend* for the car to explode? No. But it blew up nevertheless.

I'm going to risk a "Godwin's Law" violation and point something out:

In the 20s and early 30s, before Hitler came to power, a similar cheeky game was played in Germany and the Nazis worked the refs (i.e. the press) in much the same way. Some Nazi would give a real red-meat, barn-burner of a speech and then some SA thugs would, on their way to the nearest pub, beat up the first Jew or Communist they happened across. Predictable denunciations would follow and the Nazis would claim that no one in the party advocated violence. Then it would happen again. And again. And again. Even as late as the fall of 1938, the Nazis were claiming that no linkage could be made between the anti-Semtic language in the Völkischer Beobachter (Racial Observer) or Der Stuermer (The Stormer or The Attacker) and the violent actions.

Now, I want to be clear that I am NOT---absolutely NOT--comparing the modern American Right with the Nazis. That is not my point here. My point is that the game that is being played has a long provenance. The Nazis used it. American segregationists used the same tactic--they would print or speak the most vile slanders against blacks and then, when someone took them at their word and actually DID something there were, as we are seeing now, the denials that the words of violence had anything to do with violent acts.

Cheers
Aj

[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 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".

[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.

[little man]

Originally Posted by Ryobi

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.

i suspect she may read it, but her comprhension level doesn't seem so high to me.

[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.

[MsDemeanor]

Switzerland has a high number of gun owners because they practice universal conscription. Every male between the age of 20 and 30-34 (depending on rank) is required to keep a service weapon in his home as part of his military obligation. Once they pass conscription age, they have the option of keeping their weapon.

So, let's set Switzerland aside. The Small Arms Survey of 2007 shows 90 gun per 100 Americans. The next countries on the list are Yemen with 61 per 100, Iraq at 39 per 100, and Serbia at 37.5 per 100. France, Finland, Greece, Canada, Sweden, Austria, and Germany all have 30-32 per 100.

[MsDemeanor]

Her PR machine was on fire with the timing of this statement. The President is going to Tucson, there's a Congressional memorial in DC, and a huge memorial in Tucson. Today is the day all Americans should be focused on the shooting and the victims and the survivors. Is anyone talking about any of this? No, they are talking about SarahP.

Brilliant.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Was Sarah Palin's 'Blood Libel' Comment a 'Dog Whistle?'

"As Tom Diemer and David Gibson noted, the term " 'Blood libel' is an extraordinarily loaded phrase because it recalls the false accusation by Christians against Jews that was used for centuries as an excuse for anti-Semitic persecution. The libel generally refers to the charge that Jews required human blood, and in particular the blood of Christian children, to bake matzoh bread."

Some believe this could be an example of "dog whistle" politics. I'm not so sure. A cipher works when the only people who hear the "dog whistle" are your complicit allies. That is clearly not the case in this instance. And so if others can immediately decode it, is it a dog whistle?"

Like you and Ryobi, I'm unsure that this was 'dog-whistle' politics. [/QUOTE]

oh i didn't make it clear that was quoted from the linked story...i DO think this is Dog whistle politics. As soon as i heard about her statement i thought about GWB and how he'd mention the Dred Scott case to cue the religious right. I think Palin's use of the term blood libel associated with the media is meant to play on very ugly sentiments that associate the media with jews and Srah with Jesus.

it's too obscure a term to have been chosen at random, and too sloppy a fit to really be meant for the context in which it appears to appear

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Her PR machine was on fire with the timing of this statement. The President is going to Tucson, there's a Congressional memorial in DC, and a huge memorial in Tucson. Today is the day all Americans should be focused on the shooting and the victims and the survivors. Is anyone talking about any of this? No, they are talking about SarahP.

Brilliant.

MsD:

Never let it be said that she doesn’t know how to play the media the way that Irving Berlin could play the violin. She is, without a doubt, the best I've ever seen.

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

[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?