What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, "hooray for our side"

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Ah, the rebuttal is exquisite

"… journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." That's a quote from Her Extreme Northernness herself. Or, in other words, "Don't make me angry or I'll target you as well." Or to requote Marvin the Martian, "You're making me angry, very, very angry." And "blood libel"? Okay, I know she really has no concept of what the words she says mean, but blood libel is pretty significant historically.

So, Sarah, since those cross hairs were really "survey marks" and you really don't have anything to be ashamed of for your kind of rhetoric, how come your people felt the need to scrub your site of them? Because maybe, just maybe, you (or probably an advisor of yours) really know what you're saying and you realize that, now that something close to what you advocated for has happened, people might point that out.

As to the heated debate, she replies, "But when was it less heated? Back in those 'calm days' when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?" Really? The last time I knew that happened here in the states it involved Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. And it happened once.

You know, in the olden days when you turned on the light, the cockroaches had the common decency to scurry out of sight. These days, I guess they just complain about the wattage and give the critique that you've obviously been suckered in by getting a CFL.

I'm sure she didn't mean to imply the current political discourse might lead to "pistols at twenty paces." I know she really meant to say that her rhetoric doesn't to rise to the level of "fightin' words." You know, except when she expects her acolytes to go out and "fight to take back the country" and not to "… retreat, but reload."

Then there is the news that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is criticizing Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik of getting too political. Um, Kettle, the Pot is leaving you a voicemail right now.

And note to Sharon Angle, you're the one who talked about "Second Amendment Remedies." Well, maybe next time you'll actually know just what that term means. And criticizing you for your statement isn't infringing on your civil liberties (I know you believe it is as your school marm-ish world view prevents any criticism).


Anonymous said...

Pot...Kettle... ROFL!

By the way, where's the similar condemnation for Daily Kos' map - with crosshairs, now scrubbed from the site?

Anonymous Cassie

Steve Buchheit said...

Cassie, from what I'm told, one diary entry was deleted. . Even the right wing blogs that commented on it have no "map with gunsites" on it, because it didn't exist.

Now what KOS calls "diaries", I'm not entirely sure (because I don't read KOS, except when someone point me there to read something, or I have to research it). Here's a screen capture of the article. As you can see, he's using the phrase, "She's dead to me" as it is used, in that he won't consider working for her, talk to her, be around her, etc.

Now, there is an old DCCC map with bullseyes on it. As I mentioned before, there is a difference between bullseyes and crosshairs. One can be for almost anything from bean bags to missiles, the other is specific to military-type targeting (that is, for targeting a weapon). Bullseyes also worked into the meaning of the post, that the DCCC was "targeting" those districts for wins. Palin's crosshairs, by her own statements at the time, were something more direct. You can see a screen capture here.

Anonymous said...

Seriously? You think the Dems have the moral high ground here because they have little red targets instead of crosshairs on their map?

There's not a shred of evidence that Palin or the Tea Party incited a single thing inside this man's head. Nothing. Every attack on her is made of whole cloth - a series of lies and fabrications that, as far as I've seen, not a single apology has been rendered for.

High moral ground here? You want to claim that?


I'll come back later when I'm done laughing.


Steve Buchheit said...

Cassie, there is a qualitative difference, yes. I'm sorry you don't see it. Plus S. Palin also tied her imagery directly to the use of firearms, and used (and continues to use) such language (including the phrase "take out" the opposition). It's welded into her being and persona. It's the difference between saying "I'm going to beat you in the election," and "I'm going to beat you." One is clear, the other purposefully ambiguous.

I'm not sure if you saw my post explaining my position on this.

Now, if you want to make this a discussion of Sarah Palin's ability of rhetoric, I'm all up for that. Although I'll probably just point you to Eric's blog. He's done a pretty good critique and run down on her rhetoric (and her book). Plus (bringing in Sharon Angle to the conversation), I'll point you to Jim Wright's post "Sunday Morning Come to Jesus Moment."

In the past few days I've also posted links to idiot things Democrats have said as well. Do we progressives have the high moral ground? No. We are, however, not as far into the swamp, at least IMHO. You're free to differ.

Steve Buchheit said...

Cassie, Or how about the Rush Limbaugh poster, sure "straight shooter" can mean he doesn't twist his words, but the addition of the bullet holes makes it mean something else (and it's intentional). Billboard is now coming down.

Or the SC Armory that sold a receiver for the AR-15 with the words, "You Lie" on it (also suspending sales).

And, really, first it's "Blood Libel" and now there's a "pogrom"? Really? Really?!

Sorry, that kind of shit makes me want to say, "Okay, that's what you really want? Let me show you what those words mean, because, obviously, you don't."