-
What can I say sabout the Saturday (January 8) shooting that severely wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords and killed six others--including a Federal Judge, a nine year-old girl and two senior citizens? Really--nothing that hasn't already been said other places (and probably better). Still, a wrinkle in the story has got my back up a bit and inspired me to write. Several month ago Sarah Palin put up an image on her Facebook page showing nine congressional districts (including Giffords') covered with crosshairs. Palin is also famous for her repeated comment "don't retreat--re-load!"
-
In fariness to Sarah Palin--she wasn't the only one to use this imagery and she quickly took the "offending" image down after scathing criticism (even from staunch Republicans). Now the only question that remains--did these images have anything to do with fueling the insanity of Jared Lee Loughner? I haven't heard one way or another but media speculation is running rampant. I do know the Palin camp was quick to announce that the images were in no way intended to inspire violence. So far there has been no indication whether this factored into the decision to shoot the Congresswoman.
-
I do know this thugh: blaming Sarah Palin (for the facts are in) is just plain WRONG! True, she's not one of my favorite Politicians but I have to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one. That being said--providing fuel to crazies (however unintentionally) is NEVER a good idea. There's no beating crazy but, really, there's no benefit in giving them fuel for their crazy fire. Ads featuring violent imagery do nothing to foster civility, reasoned debate and respectful disagreement in our society--qualities that are in short supply these days.
-
Yes, I hear the arguement--most people know the difference between violent images and real violence. Believe me--I get it: I watched my share of Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons back in the day and I don't feel the knew to hand my enemies an exploding carrot or drop an anvil on their head. I KNOW the difference between fantasy and reality. But we're not talking about the reasonable, intelligent folk (like the good people who read my blog) we're talking about nutbags. Don't you think it's better to err on the side of caution? I know I certainly do...
-
Think about it.
4 comments:
I tend to agree with you and am withholding judgement on the crosshairs map issue. But it always makes me smile when Palin comes under attack... Wrong? Maybe. But I still smile.
Frankly I feel that the Palin character is just a bit too aggressive and confrontational. Granted I like the idea of a woman stating how she feels, and not being afraid to pursue a goal. But to run roughshod over the feelings and welfare of those you are supposed to be looking out for...well that is just flat wrong. She has her own agenda and if people do not agree with it, or have a different way of life then they are attacked.
I have a cousin living up in Alaska, and from what they say...Palin has worn out her welcome in that huge state. Which surprised me, since Alaskans are generally laid back and tolerant of differences.
Did that cross hairs routine of Palin's backfire? I can't say one way or another, but I can tell you I felt it was in very poor taste.
Then again I call Palin the "Lying Conniving Bimbette of Alaska."
Jana: when Robyn and I visited Alask this past June more than one native (5 actually) referred to her as SARAH BAILIN'!
Personally, I think Palin is, at very least, disingingenuous. On the one hand she complains about the "lame stream media" but on the other hand she seems to grab the limelight at every opportunity. (Refer "Sarah Palin's Alaska:.) Her ad (and all ads of that ilk) are tacky beyond belief but we need to reserve judgement and condemnation until there is some real EVIDENCE. (As the story goes forward it seems less likely that Palin was responsible.)
Had to look that word up 'disingingenuous' as I had never heard that one before.
*nodding in complete agreement*
I think she should be the poster child for that word!
Post a Comment