Indeed, why not; Sarah Palin does. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 18/01/2011 07:00:38 PM
Not because I'm a liberal, though I am, and not because Loughner's a conservative (his own friends say he was neither right nor left, and Ayn Rand and Mein Kampf are strange favorites for liberals). It's because of one of the best examples of what Ms. Palin and others call "blood libel":
Care to take a wild "shot" at the speaker?
US Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) ten months before Jared Loughner shot her in the head.
And there is actual evidence that he had a thing for Giffords, IIRC. I think he harassed her or stalked her or something prior to this. If we are going to blame anyone else for inspiring Loughner's actions, why not look at the person we know he actually paid attention to? So far as I know, there is no evidence that he paid any attention to Sarah Palin or knew about her crosshairs map from his own interest. What if it was the object of his attention sniveling about how the mean lady with no actual power was scaring her that got Loughner thinking "If she wants to be afraid, I'll give her something to be scared of!"We're in Sarah Palin's 'targeted' list, but the thing is that the way she has it depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action.
Care to take a wild "shot" at the speaker?
US Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) ten months before Jared Loughner shot her in the head.
She already had something to be scared of; the militia leaders call to tear up peoples offices got her office torn up, and when responding to that she noted that Palins imagery engendered other concerns. If that's blood libel after someone tries to kill her it was blood libel then, yes; I'm glad SOMEONE finally got my point. Maybe when Palin goes to Giffords' hospital bed to make the accusation to her face ya'll can split a cab.
Why, if I were Sarah Palin I'd fly to that hospital and tell her to watch her mouth! Though she's still unable to speak; maybe the "blood libel" has solved itself: YOU'RE safe now, Sarah! How tragic that nearly being murdered has blinded Rep. Giffords to the REAL victim: Sarah Palin. :vomits:
So she's just supposed to roll over and accept the blame for something she had absolutely nothing to do with? Not to mention the kind of crap that's been dumped on her all out of proportion to her actual importance or transgressions has probably made lashing back a defensive reflex by now. When thousands of people are accusing of complicity in a mass murder, sensitivity should not be a requirement in your defense. How tragic that nearly being murdered has blinded Rep. Giffords to the REAL victim: Sarah Palin. :vomits:No, she shouldn't accept all or anywhere near most of the blame, Loughner was a nut who decided to shoot someone and that's his responsibility first and foremost. HOWEVER, it seems absurd to say the climate of militant hatred Palin and others have stirred up since Obamas election doesn't encourage such behavior, or that this guy was so disconnected from the rest of the world that he was unaware of it. That doesn't make Palin or anyone else who provides triggers for this kind of behavior perpetrators of it, but it doesn't leave them blameless either.
It was logical for the media to connect Palins imagery with the attack, since Rep. Gifford did, too,a year before it happened. If someone had been running all over Britain yelling, "Blast Parliament!" in the summer of 1605, most people would probably have thought Guy Fawkes had them in mind that November.
And if Gifford had been VOTED OUT OF OFFICE as Palin was encouraging, then you could assing a share of the "blame" to Palin. Your disingenuous comparison does not change the fact that the and concepts of "target" and "aim" and other shooting imagery are routinely used without the slightest violent intention or connotation.They are, but to use so many of them so casually is irresponsible and asking for trouble, and if that makes me guilty of blood libel it makes Giffords no less so. Maybe we should wait until she's walking and talking again before we punish her great crime though, eh? And while I don't visit Kos and haven't seen them using bullseyes in the same way, I did notice references by others to the same kind of irresponsible behavior there and condemn it equally (irresponsibile inflammatory language isn't exactly surprising from Kos, but that makes it worse, not better).
It was irresponsible not to wait for all the facts before publicizing those suspicions, true; on the other hand, Ms. Palin is in no position to lecture anyone on careless language. I don't believe for a moment she intended or expected this to happen, but she SHOULD'VE expected that in a nation of 300 million there was a good chance some nut would take her literally, and if she didn't I don't want her running the local quickie mart. Yeah, a lot of liberals were too quick to shout, "J'ACCUSE!" but Palin in particular was far too eager to wash her hands of it, and the only reason she didn't do it quicker is probably because she spent the first couple days making calls to see if she'd gotten six people killed and injured thirteen more. She knows it, I know it and the American people ought to know it.
Sorry, I REALLY didn't want to examine the potential political relevance to this horrible tragedy, and I really don't think the connection with Palin is more than eerie coincidence. We don't know; Loughner's saying nothing. However, it very easily COULD'VE been connected, so easily that the first victim EXPECTED something like this based solely on Palins comments and imagery, and calling that "blood libel" is quite literally blaming the victim. Whatever happened to "personal accountability"? Were those just more words we shouldn't take seriously...?
You dare to invoke those words while attempting to foist off ANY of the blame for a single individual's actions on a complete stranger based on images there is no proof he saw? Jodie Foster has more guilt for the shooting of James Brady than Palin (or Beck or Limbaugh or whoever the left's bete noir of the day happens to be) bears for this.Sorry, I REALLY didn't want to examine the potential political relevance to this horrible tragedy, and I really don't think the connection with Palin is more than eerie coincidence. We don't know; Loughner's saying nothing. However, it very easily COULD'VE been connected, so easily that the first victim EXPECTED something like this based solely on Palins comments and imagery, and calling that "blood libel" is quite literally blaming the victim. Whatever happened to "personal accountability"? Were those just more words we shouldn't take seriously...?
Six people are dead and thirteen others injured but Palin's playing the victim and talking about blood libel; you really wanna talk about who "dares to invoke" what words? You wanna invoke Brady? After Brady we passed a law requiring background checks prior to gun purchases so nuts like John Hinckley Jr. couldn't get them two days after leaving the psych ward, but thanks to all the people like Palin and Loughner who thought that somehow infringed on their rights, that law sailed off into the sunset six years ago, and "John Hinckley III" had no trouble getting a gun two weeks ago. He had SOME trouble getting ammo; the first Wal$Mart he visited thought he was too freaky and wouldn't sell it to him--so he went to another one and they were happy to sell it to him. So let's be consistent; if we're gonna blame it all on the victims, it's Brady and Giffords' fault and Loughner and Hinckleys hands are as clean as Palins.
When people use inflammatory violent language against their political opponents they shouldn't be shocked if those opponents feel threatened, nor accuse them of libel for stating those fears--especially when literal ensuing violence puts them and a dozen others in the hospital while six people lie dead.