I previously explained why Palin's use of the term was consistent with modern usage, and how the criticism of her use of the term was purely political.
I also should point out, as others have, that there is rank hypocrisy on the issue. Jim Geraghty did us all a favor by accumulating examples of people on both the left and right using the term in a context other than the historical meaning. (Added: More examples here.)
Culling through the hyperbole and hypocrisy, the Official Award for most hypocritical criticism of Palin's use of the term "blood libel" goes to Andrew Cohen:
"Andrew Cohen is a Murrow Award–winning legal analyst and commentator. He covers legal events and issues for CBS Radio News and its hundreds of affiliates around the country and is a frequent contributor to the op-ed pages of the nation's leading newspapers and online sites. From 2000-2009, Andrew served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and contributed to the network's coverage of the Supreme Court, the war on terrorism, and every high-profile civil or criminal trial of the decade. He is also an avid horseman, a Standardbred owner and breeder, and the winner of the 2007 John Hervey Award for distinguished commentary about harness horse racing."Writing recently in The Atlantic, Cohen took Palin to task for using the term:
"Sarah Palin may or may not be the victim of unwarranted criticism in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree in Tucson last Saturday. As far as I'm concerned, that is a non-justiciable "political question"-- as federal judges get to say -- and one that I will gladly leave to the legions of inspired commentators who have been gnawing on that particular bone for the past few days.Cohen then goes on to cite the historical meaning of a "blood libel" and finds that Palin did not use the term correctly:
But whatever Palin is, or is not, neither she (nor anyone else) is the victim here of a "blood libel," as she claimed Wednesday in responding to the tragedy in Arizona and the way she perceives it was handled by the media."
"If Palin did not know what a "blood libel" means she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. And if she did understand its dark significance she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. Either way, It was inappropriate and insensitive."Cohen, though, recognizes that many people, including Cohen himself, have used the term other than in the historical context, so Cohen was sure to include a mea culpa:
Nor is it a viable defense to a politician's sloppy use of the phrase that others -- on the left or on the right -- have loosely used the phrase before or that most Americans don't understand its tragic import anyway. Two or more wrongs don't make a right, right?Cohen's confession hardly lessened his point; after all, Ward Churchill having accused the victims of 911 of being Little Eichmanns was a pretty egregious example. If Cohen went a little off course in calling Ward Churchill's accusation a "blood libel," well who could really blame Cohen for a little linguistic license.
Trust me, I know. I have loosely used the phrase before, at least once, and I cannot even claim as a defense any ignorance of its terrible meaning. In 2005, I used it to describe the work of Ward Churchill, the professor who once called the victims of the World Trade Center attack "Little Eichmanns" and complicit in their own deaths..."
Having confessed to an inaccurate use of the term once in his career, Cohen concluded that Palin was wrong to use the term as to the Tucson shooting accusations against her:
"The blood libel is one of the most pernicious and deadly lies in human history. For the sake of the Tucson victims, if not our own, we should all agree to leave it there."But Cohen neglects to mention that Ward Churchill was not the only person towards whom Cohen had used the term "blood libel."
In May 2008, Cohen accused then presidential nominee John McCain of engaging in a "blood libel" not because McCain accused someone of complicity in murder, but because McCain criticized "activist judges" (emphasis mine):
"In a campaign speech Tuesday outlining his judicial philosophy, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain offered his supporters - and/or the conservative wing of his party - only more of the same tired and empty rhetoric that has come over the past few decades to mark the mindless partisanship over the appointment of federal judges. It was as though he had been given a list of misguided clichés about the judiciary and its role in constitutional theory and dared by his handlers to read them all in a single speech on a single stump.Surely Cohen knows his own history of columns. He was aware enough to point out his use of the term "blood libel" as to Ward Churchill in 2005.
Did McCain repeat the Shibboleth about “activist judges” and how they are ruining the meaning of the law? You bet he did. Of “activist lawyers and activist judges” McCain said: “They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes and all of that. They don't seek to win debates on the merits of their argument; they seek to shut down debates by order of the court. And even in courtrooms, they apply a double standard. Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned.”
I wonder if the Arizona senator and his speech writers know that the late, great conservative polestar, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and perhaps the most popular Supreme Court Justice of all time, Republican-nominee Sandra Day O’Connor, both expressed disdain for the threat of the “activist judge” charge. After all, a judge acts anytime he or she does or does not make a ruling, whether the ultimate result is considered “liberal” or “conservative” or something in between. So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat."
Did Cohen not remember that Cohen accused John McCain, the Republican nominee for President, of a blood libel for having criticized "activist judges"?
If Cohen so casually threw around the term "blood libel" in the heat of a presidential election, who is Cohen now to attack Sarah Palin for using the term as to false accusations that she caused the murder of several people in Tucson?
For such rank hypocrisy, Andrew Cohen is the Official Award winner.
Cohen also is an early front runner for the Worst Tweet of the Year Award, for this tweet:
Related Posts:
Hijacking A Massacre
Death Wishes Like It's Party Time
Person Tweeting Death Wish For Palin Now Wants Privacy
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Attacking Palin's language is just a way of distracting from her point. It's always been just a red herring.
ReplyDeleteGreat point! Genius even!
ReplyDeleteThe Christian lady points out how the Jewish congresswoman wants to institude Death Panels. The Christian lady then makes a map with crosshairs, targeting the Jewish congresswoman (who is now supporting Death Panels, Socialism, and Communism). Jewish congresswoman goes on TV, asks Christian lady to stop. She doesn't.
Jewish congresswoamn then gunned down by madman worried about the government mind control and the obvious conclusion?
Christian lady is a victim of 'blood libel'.
Makes perfect sense.
You seem to have a problem with U.S. ... How DOES that work with a "clinical associate" in law in this country?
ReplyDelete"Holier Than Thou" Compensation Syndrome in effect... Dominionist, eh?
Oh, man, we all love you, Professor Jacobson!! Excellent research and summation, moral genius. Thank you for making the muddle of political lie and illogic (such as Robot Pirate Ninja's and mommadona's scary/ nasty rejoinders) a little less dispiriting for the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteConnecting the dots is easy, but aren't we supposed to distinguish which dots and best sequence for the most realistically accurate and principled construct? Too many people seem to be inking their own splotches and scribbling between them as it suits.
You know you're right when crazy ad hominem gets scrawled all over the page to obscure a picture.
I find it amusing that Andrew Cohen's Twitter ID includes the letters "PDS." Too appropriate.
ReplyDeleteWhat was with all the criticism from conservatives who have written about Sarah Palin's fidelity to the Jewish people and lauded her in the past for this?
ReplyDeleteI was particularly taken aback from this part of a post in Contentions:
"So in the sense that the words “blood” and “libel” in sequence are to be taken solely as referring to this anti-Semitic slander, Palin’s appropriation of it was vulgar and insensitive. I guess. The problem is that I doubt Sarah Palin knew this history, because most people don’t know this history,"
Palin and the Blood Libel – John Podhoretz; Contentions Blog in Commentary
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/jpodhoretz/386302
Vintage Palin – Jennifer Rubin; Right Turn in Washington Post
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/01/vintage_palin.html#more
I see your leftist trolls are here, too. You are greatly feared by the left, indeed.
ReplyDeleteKeep it up, Professor!! Make their heads explode (in a PURELY civil, and metaphorical way, of course)!!
As I remarked to Kathleen the other day, IMO there is way too much hyperbole nowadays in political discourse among people who are smart enough to know better.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't know how to comment on the latest Noonan column without spluttering hyperbole.
So I'll just leave the link.
The difference is... Cohen is a man. So anything he says is OK. And implicitly correct in it's usage.
ReplyDeletePalin lacks the necessary anatomy to make such statements. And, worse than that... she cannot possibly even understand the implications of the Arizona shootings. Ask James Clyburn. (Let me interpret Mr. Clyburn for you: "Palin is a dumb white broad." That is what he meant.)
The Dem party is getting jsut what they want out of this. And it makes me sick. Because now the GOP is also turning on Sarah.
Robot Pirate Ninja: You are a good purveyor of leftist propaganda, using innuendo and putting 2+2 together to get 5. Here's another scenario: Giffords helps spread the false meme that Palin's map of targeted districts is somehow a call to violence; Loughner sees the MSNBC program and gets the idea from Giffords herself that she is a "target" of rifle scopes. He takes the suggestion to heart and acts on it.
ReplyDeleteThe leftist lie has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Democrat propaganda has backfired in a major way.
Now Robot, aren't you ashamed of yourself for causing the Tucson tragedy? You should really make a public apology.
Limbaugh spent some time today talking about how the Tucson tragedy being used by the MSM to bury the story of rising food and fuel costs. Both are proving devastating as gas and fuel oil head towards $4 a gallon causing fuel poverty. The Obama administration and the left are fighting to shut down drilling off shore and on shore in the US. Some of the causes of this steep rise in prices are the Fed's QE2 with excess liquidity creating upward pressure on commodities, rising fuel costs increasing transportation and agricultural input expenses. QE2 also firing inflation in emerging economies. Add policies like government water restrictions in California's agricultural central valley and crop damage caused by cold weather, not warming weather, in places like India and Florida.
ReplyDeleteThis will be a difficult story to suppress. For example, the government of Tunsia fell a few hours ago in a coup caused by food riots.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tunisia-president-2011-1
"Higher food and energy prices helped propel the Producer Price Index (PPI) up by 1.1 percent in December, the Labor Department reported Thursday. This is the biggest monthly change in the past year."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0113/Inflation-rate-headed-up-The-impact-of-higher-food-energy-prices
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/13/video-federal-policies-failing-the-central-valley/
"Earlier this week, we pointed out the food riots that we're sweeping the world. Tunisia was there, but so where Algeria, India, and China. The latter two governments are struggling to fight inflation, by increasing tightening measures. But they're big economies and unless things get completely out of control they're likely to be fine. Algeria may not be so lucky, as inflation continues to spur citizens to the streets. Concerns may also rise in Morocco, where protests occurred in late 2010. Pakistan may be another country to watch, with its already unstable political situation, and soaring inflation, with consumer prices rising 14.56% year-over-year.
UPDATE 2:21 PM ET: Over at The Guardian's live blog, their pointing out how Egypt is another good example of a country primed for a similar Tunisian-style scenario. Certainly, with similar inflation issues there and a weak government headed by a dictatorial leader, it fits.
Already Al Qaeda is pushing for Algerians and Tunisians to overthrow their governments. Populism, spurred on by hunger, could pose a big threat to already teetering weak regimes in 2011.
http://www.businessinsider.com/food-price-revolutions-2011-1
"Giffords helps spread the false meme that Palin's map of targeted districts is somehow a call to violence; Loughner sees the MSNBC program and gets the idea from Giffords herself that she is a "target" of rifle scopes. He takes the suggestion to heart and acts on it."
ReplyDeleteGotcha. So you've gone from Palin's invective had absolutely nothing to do with this, to blaming Maddow and Giffords for pointing out Palin's invectice.
Do you make pretzels for a living, because you probably have a knack for it.
"Now Robot, aren't you ashamed of yourself for causing the Tucson tragedy? You should really make a public apology"
Good point. I'll refrain in the future from tageting political opponents with gunsights (sorry, surveyor's marks) in the future.
SINCE WE ALL KNOW WHERE THAT LEADS....Sarah Palin being viciously attacked.
Bravo, Professor. Hats off to you.
ReplyDeleteGiffords is Jewish? Never knew that. Not that it matters.
ReplyDeleteRobot Pirate Ninja: "Gotcha. So you've gone from Palin's invective had absolutely nothing to do with this, to blaming Maddow and Giffords for pointing out Palin's invectice."
ReplyDeleteUh... he was kidding. He was saying your scenario is no more credible than the one he's presenting. I guess he should have used the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.
"Uh... he was kidding. He was saying your scenario is no more credible than the one he's presenting"
ReplyDeleteWhen people play that stupid, it's usually best to go along with them, just so they can figure out that playing stupid isn't a good debate tactic.
"When people play that stupid, it's usually best to go along with them, just so they can figure out that playing stupid isn't a good debate tactic."
ReplyDeleteOkay. In that case, I guess I should just go along with you.
JorgXMcKie,
ReplyDeleteNice one! Ohh, serious burn.
Anything to add to the content of the discussion? Any counterargument to what I've put here? Going to join the others and go straight to ad hominem? Cool.
You have a good one. (<--- copy stuff like that, it works wonders!)
Okay. In that case, I guess I should just go along with you.
ReplyDeleteHe's not just playing "stupid" ... and he's also not jus t playing "contemptible." He's living them!
Another well-researched and concise piece, Professor.
ReplyDeleteAs we can plainly see the left's meme has worked. No matter how many times it's reported that the nutbag shooter did not pay attention to the news, the left is convinced that it's all the fault of Palin, Limbaugh and Beck.
ReplyDeleteTruth doesn't matter, the only thing that counts is The Narrative. It doesn't matter that almost every time political violence has been used recently, it's been the left. To the true believers of the left, it's still the right wingers that are oh so dangerous.
The funny thing is, if I were so damned dangerous RPN would not dare utter a word where I might see it. Kind of like how the left treats the Muslim nutjobs.
There is something about Palin that drives the Left nuts, especially educated but obviously weak men of the sort that are uncomfortable in the company of normal men. There is a huge, unattractive psycho-sexual component lurking beneath the surface here.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't even a shred of proof that Loughner knew who Palin even was, let alone that he was ever influenced by gun sight graphics.
ReplyDeleteBut when did the Left ever need evidence? Oh. Right. THAT strict standard is only needed to restrict policy they oppose (WMD in Iraq)
Robert Pinhead Nincomcoop has to be a nearly-paranoid anti-semite to even think of Congresswoman Giffords as Jewish and that somehow Palin knew that.
ReplyDeleteGifford is a Scottish name. Ironically, it means One who gives generously or has a liberal disposition. From the Germanic given name Gebhardt, made up of the elements geb, meaning "gift" and hard, meaning "brave or hardy." 2) One who came from Gifford, Scotland, from "gaf," a Celtic root meaing "hook, a bend, or ford." 3) The Giffard variant of this surname likely comes from the Old French giffard, meaning "chubby-cheeked, bloated."
Surname Origin: English, Scottish
http://genealogy.about.com/library/surnames/g/bl_name-GIFFORD.htm
Definitely Parrot, get some medication, you are heading down Taxi Driver territory.
Robert Pinhead Nincompoop says that Palin 'targeted' Gifford because she was Jewish. You have to be a borderline anti-semitic to find 'Jewishness' in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteGifford is a Scotish name. Ironically it means
One who gives generously or has a liberal disposition. From the Germanic given name Gebhardt, made up of the elements geb, meaning "gift" and hard, meaning "brave or hardy." 2) One who came from Gifford, Scotland, from "gaf," a Celtic root meaing "hook, a bend, or ford." 3) The Giffard variant of this surname likely comes from the Old French giffard, meaning "chubby-cheeked, bloated."
Surname Origin: English, Scottish
So someone as busy as Palin, who is engaged full time in driving lefties nuts, (except when she is making her television show and enjoying her handsome family) is supposed to web search and find out that Giffords is Jewish not Scottish? And then select that particular Congresswoman as the sole author of the Death Panels provision? And cleverly marks that Scotish-Jewish female Congressman with Powerpoint symbols on a map, which she then sends by mind control to Jared Loughner?
Really? Are you on the same 'mental frequency as Jared? Wow, the moonbats are out in force tonight
"Any counterargument to what I've put here?"
ReplyDeleteWhat you've put here is a pure hypothetical built on massive hyperbole, outright invention and willful disregard of politically inconvenient facts (e.g., that "targeting" and other military-derived terms are and have been in universal usage as political metaphors for centuries).
What you've put here is fundamentally unserious. Hyperpartisan trolling should not be accorded the dignity of an argument; there is no "counterargument" to be made when no "argument" has been presented.
So Robot whatever. . . What about the Tageting of Giffords by Kos on DailyKos? He made her a Target because she is just not liberal enough and she needed to be taken down. Any response there?
ReplyDeleteYou've accused Palin by your attacks of causing the deaths of innocents (just what Blood Libel means btw... blaming Jews or others of causing the deaths of or of murdering the innocent. as even among Jews I have gotten two differing version of it's origins one that states it predates pogroms and the sermons, and it was used to describe what was done to the Templars as well) and even as more and more evidence comes in (the shooter was likely obsessed with Giffords before Palin even came on to the scene...has more beliefs in common with the left than the right, and lists as a favorite the Communist Manifesto, and those conservatives and TEA party types I know who have managed to actually read through it do not claim it as a favorite, and, well, most political violence is from the left to begin with) you willfully ignore the exact same tactic that specifically named Giffords and TARGETED her, By Name as well, not her district on a map, and yet it must still be the fault of Palin and the right. Nevermind the President told supporters that they need to Pull A Gun if the right pulled a knife. Nevermind the Kos Blogger who said of Giffords "She is Dead to me".
Unless you have some links you can provide showing you've attacked Kos for having used the said same tactics you accuse Palin of causing this attack with, (and btw, it would seem that those attacks of Kos would hold just as little merit as those against Palin do...The Nutball was rather Apolitical even though he had many leftist traits...Pro-abortion Thruthers who hate monetary based (gold backed or otherwise) world economies and think the gov't is controlling minds by ruining grammar are not found in the TEA party or Palins followers) You are simply showing that you are both hypocritical and well, likely an outright liar, doing so for political expediency.
No matter what Palin had said or released, the same characters in the media and on the left would have found a way to smear her.
ReplyDeleteI found it highly amusing that the media and left consider her a lightweight, stupid, moronic, with no chance of going anywhere else in elected politics, yet, they obsess on her in the next breath. Just goes to show how much her influence scares the crap out them.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote a thoughtful piece in today's Wall Street Journal defending Sarah Palin's use of the term blood libel, stating that "[t]he expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder".
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point is when he says, "The abominable element of the blood libel is not that it was used to accuse Jews, but that it was used to accuse innocent Jews - their innocence, rather than their Jewishness, being the operative point. Had the Jews been guilty of any of these heinous acts, the charge would not have been a libel."
This well-written piece can be read in its entirety here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703583404576079823067585318.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
Palin is gradually emerging as the ablest political tactician of the day. She manages to dominate the political scene without even leaving her chair. The American left, realizing that it has nobody of commensurate ability, can only react by trying to bury her under mounds of hysterical rubbish in the desperate hope that something will finally stick. Feeble though that strategy may be, it's the only one they have, so don't expect it to go away anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteStill another scenario- a good socialist-in-training goes to a Giffords rally and gets a letter from her thanking him for attending. With his schizo tendencies being exacerbated by his dope-smoking, he starts obsessing that Giffords is watching him. Then he watches Giffords vote against Queen Rubberface, and the voice in his head (which sounds like the oracle Olbermann) says, "She betrayed the Queen, off with her head!" He hears all about how reading the Constitution is a "fetish," and that such "hate speech" must be restricted. Then, lo and behold, there she is on TV, READING THE FIRST AMENDMENT! The voices in his head are all shouting now, that Julian Assange is really a victim of player-rage, or is it a CIA honey-trap, like in that movie, Rendition, or was is Syriana? So he decides to hit the 'shrooms to calm himself down, and watch a little of his favorite fetish, Angelina, and lo and behold, she is shooting people in the head. In fact she shoots like 10 guys and herself in the head WITH ONE BULLET! Just like the good guys do in Grand Theft Auto- and she looks so good doing it, he can't stop looking! And she IS a good guy! She adopts little babies from China or Africa or someplace better than the evil United States, and he LOVES her and her stick figure arms as she kills all the hate-speakers! Maybe, if he kills the evil Giffords, who betrayed the Queen, that Angelina will be his queen!!!!
ReplyDeleteThen again, it probably was the crosshairs on Palin's website. Yes, that was it.
No wait, it was the VOICES! 50 Cent and Rachel Maddow and Clarence the Cock-eyed Sheriff! They told him that evil conservatives were going to starve the undocumented immigrant babies from Africa and take away his dope and his video games! Like Fiddy says, they are all b****es and hoes, so take them out! Shoot them in the head, just like his video game where you follow the bullet going through a brain- man is that cool or what?!!! Yes, Fiddy, she is a b**** and a hoe, cuz she turned against the Queen! The Queen who is trying to help us all by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, like, you know, Robin Hood!!! Of course she has to die!!!! And I can bend the bullets with my mind!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteBut, naaaah, couldn't have been any of that. No, it was that map. With the crosshairs. On Sarah Palin's website. Yeah, that's what did it.
@Harmon . . . heh. Two very good explications of the left-wing political version of Occam's Razor, as understood in its "proper" political context by folks like @Robot Pirate Ninja, et al., and the denizens of the left.
ReplyDeleteIt seems, as you have noted, they have simply chosen a competing hypothesis that is dependent upon the fewest new assumptions.
And what are their assumptions? They all "know," for example, that the Palin map was not a metaphor, but that it was instead some kind of secret hint, or call to action! Hey, pssst . . . Jared . . .
And, in line with their new "KISS" mentality, none of them (including @Robot Pirate Ninja) give a hoot about other facts, ones that might muddle up their simple list of "proper" assumptions.
Consider, for example, the fact that Markos Moulitsas first openly suggested putting a "bulls eye" on Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, along with a whole slew of other Democrat members of Congress, because (in his words) they "sold out the Constitution" by voting for this . . . HR 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, on June 20, 2008.
After having bolded her name on his little list of Democrat "sell-outs," Markos added with specificity:
"Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. "
That "bulls eye" talk is off their list of potential assumptions, apparently because . . . well, it was just words!
Words, according to @Robot Pirate Ninja, et al., can never suffice to constitute a provocation to mass murder. Only maps with symbols can. But there is one corrollary, according to @Robot Pirate Ninja, et al., to wit: Sarah Palin's words can bolster the intent of a map!
Nor, by the way, does the fact that a long-time Democrat consultant (and current TV opinionator) named Bob Beckel, who boasts of having invented and promoted the widespread use of such bulls eye target maps way back in the 1970s, figure in any way into their list of assumptions for consideration in laying the blame for this mass murder carried out by Jared Loughner.
You see, that was then, and this is now. End of story!
Now, I know that some of this all may seem very confusing to a number of people.
But I think you got it, @Harmon, with your incisive explanation, above.
It fits very neatly in the context of the larboard-leaners political version of Occam's Razor.
Assumption control is all!
Harmon:
ReplyDeleteNot just "crosshairs on Palin's website," but crosshairs from about a year ago! Crosshairs that somehow implanted themselves in his porous, suggestible brain (due in no small part to copious amounts of medical ganja, and organic tofu) working their magic like a slow virus, resulting in a shooting months, and months, and months, and months after everyone else had forgotten about the stupid crosshairs.
Oh, and btw, if Palin wields this kind of mind-warping power, tell me again why we don't want her as our dear leader?? She could have Putin blowing away A'madinnerjacket before the Inauguration
Speech was over!
RPN. . . .
ReplyDeleteTO present a 'COunter" argument you have to have HAD an argument to counter to begin with - instead of a house of cards of unsupported wild conjecture and baseless accusations.
Trochilus: "Assumption control is all"- well put. Isn't it frustrating to watch as the left-wing pivots, now that it is clear that this madman is more one of their own than not, going to the generic "can't we all just get along?" Which, of course, continues the same narrative in a more subtle form, now left unchallenged by conservatives who believe that this particular skirmish is won. If, as the Annointed One has pronounced, the "heated rhetoric" is not the cause of this tragedy, why are the liberals still focused on it rather than any number of far more topical issues, such as the link between marijuana and schizophrenia, or a mental heath system that has been gutted by the out-of-control "patient's rights" movement. Too eager as we are to accept the kumbaya moment, we accept their fall-back, moral-equivalence premise.
ReplyDelete"There is something about Palin that drives the Left nuts, especially educated but obviously weak men of the sort that are uncomfortable in the company of normal men."
ReplyDeleteI'll save you some time, it's her complete lack of knowlege of the real world outside of talking points, and, well, the thinly veiled calls for violence. Some people don't like those, others, like y'all seem to love them.
"There is a huge, unattractive psycho-sexual component lurking beneath the surface here. "
Indeed, and it completely and totally explains Palin's popularity amoung a group composed mostly of old, white, men.
"There isn't even a shred of proof that Loughner knew who Palin even was, let alone that he was ever influenced by gun sight graphics."
Curious. I would think that someone who had gone all the way to ask a question of a Congresswoman in public in 2007, would have some idea of the political landscape in 2011, including when that Congresswoman mentioned the heated rhetoric on national TV. Assuming that someone who was involved in politics is completey ignorant of politics is veyr silly.
"Robert Pinhead Nincompoop says that Palin 'targeted' Gifford because she was Jewish."
Not sure who are referencing here, but it isn't me. I'm poing out that Palin is a huge hypocrite for calling herself a victim of blood libel, after her own rhetoric attacks and a real world violent assualt on a Jewish woman targeted with Palin's rhetoric.
It's not that hard to understand, unless you try really hard not to.
"What about the Tageting of Giffords by Kos on DailyKos?"
The one where she is "Bolded" in a huge list of other Dems in text on a web site, versus literally targeted with gunsights in campaign material and then tweeted to "Reload". And did Markos get picked on the Republican ticket as the VP nominee? Are you really holding Palin to that standard? Could it be lower?
"Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote a thoughtful piece in today's Wall Street Journal defending Sarah Palin's use of the term blood libel, stating that "[t]he expression may be used whenever an amorphous mass is collectively accused of being murderers or accessories to murder"."
A WSJ piece defending the rhetoric of their high-profile employee? You don't say?
The funny thing is, you all seem to have forgotten Palin's "Death Panel" foolishness, which is something right out of Loughner's crazy mind, and something Giffords voted for.
Or are you all finally admitting that HCR doesn't include a government panel that decides who lives and dies?
"TO present a 'COunter" argument you have to have HAD an argument to counter to begin with - instead of a house of cards of unsupported wild conjecture and baseless accusations. "
Overheated political rhetoric, filled with lies about Government power and control, leads to physical violence against government employees.
Sorry you couldn't parse that out. Perhaps you were spending too much time picketing the "Ground Zero" Mosque?