Sarah Palin knows angry speech isn't a call to violence, unless it's angry speech directed at Sarah Palin, in which, it is a call to violence. (Her Logic Went Rogue) And, I want to congratulate, briefly, Governor Palin, for doing her part to not tone down the rhetoric, by using the historical term "blood libel", which traditionally refers to the accusation that Jews use Christian baby blood in their rituals. For the record, Jews don't use the blood of Christian babies. Obamacare does.
The point is, however you feel about Palin's map, there is zero evidence that this mentally ill shooter was influenced by it or any other heated political rhetoric, left or right. So if there's no evidence that incendiary rhetoric has any connection to this unspeakable horror, it logically follows that it must be good. (For Ratings)
Video and transcript below the fold.
Nation, we're all still saddened and disturbed by the tragic shooting in Tucson last Saturday. Unfortunately, there are some who are cynically exploiting this event by suggesting this might possibly be an opportunity to explore perhaps discussing eventually toning down our angry political rhetoric.
SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-IL (1/9/2011): Those of us in public life and the journalists who cover us should be thoughtful in response to this, and try to bring down the rhetoric.
EX-REP. JIM KOLBE, R-AZ (1/10/2011): What we should be doing is having leaders on both sides lowering the level of the rhetoric.
MARA LIASSON (1/9/2011): I think it would be better for political discourse if people didn't call each other fascists and socialists and Nazis and Hitler.
An eloquent plea. But you know who else was eloquent? Hitler. Luckily, I am not the only one defending our right to rage. And that brings us to tonight's Wørd: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Angriness.
Folks, the forgotten victim in all of this is Sarah Palin. Just because last March she put out a map of what looked like gun sight cross-hairs over 20 congressional districts, including Giffords'.
But graphics are not cause to action. If they were, I'd stop when I saw one of these things.
It's just a metaphor. Besides, according to Palin's aide Rebecca Mansour, those weren't even gun sight cross-hairs.
REBECCA MANSOUR: We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you'd see on maps.
TAMMY BRUCE: Well, it's a surveyor's... it's a surveyor's symbol.
REBECCA MANSOUR: It was surveyors' symbols.
TAMMY BRUCE: Yeah.
Yes, they were surveyors' symbols. Which explains why this map covered with surveyors' symbols was immediately taken down from the Palin website. Because Sarah Palin knows that now is not the time to determine ground elevation. (Might Lead to High Road) Well, the former Governor responded to critics today in her annual State of My Living Room Address.
SARAH PALIN (1/12/2011): There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. ... Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn.
Sarah Palin knows angry speech isn't a call to violence, unless it's angry speech directed at Sarah Palin, in which, it is a call to violence. (Her Logic Went Rogue) And, I want to congratulate, briefly, Governor Palin, for doing her part to not tone down the rhetoric, by using the historical term "blood libel", which traditionally refers to the accusation that Jews use Christian baby blood in their rituals. For the record, Jews don't use the blood of Christian babies. Obamacare does.
The point is, however you feel about Palin's map, there is zero evidence that this mentally ill shooter was influenced by it or any other heated political rhetoric, left or right. So if there's no evidence that incendiary rhetoric has any connection to this unspeakable horror, it logically follows that it must be good. (For Ratings) After all, there is no telling how many lives I've saved by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. (Especially If Theater Was for Spider-Man Musical) And, I am not the only person who knows the value of upsetting people. So does Glenn Beck.
GLENN BECK (1/11/2011): A husband, who has an unhappy wife, because the sister-in-law is talking to the unhappy wife. ... You find out he's got a hot mistress on the side.
You see? Congress (points at husband) doing something to piss off us (points at wife). And us (points at sister-in-law) in talk radio and Fox News were just telling you, the American people, they got a hot mistress.
I'm gonna let that one sink in. Scholars are going to parse that thing for centuries. The important takeaway is that when the sister-in-law tells the wife about the cheating, she has to do it as loudly and as viciously as possible, with the sole intent of destroying the marriage. (Neither Side Wants Custody of Beck) What I especially like about Glenn's metaphor, is that when someone finds out their spouse is cheating on them, it never ends violently. (In France, You're Elected President) Besides, speaking to each other in more measured tones would violate our rights.
NEAL BOORTZ (1/9/2011): I tell people, you know, we have every right to be angry at what's happening to the government of our country. We have every right to voice that anger. We have every right to be partisan in one direction or another.
STUART VARNEY (1/11/2011): It's an attempt to rein in the speech of conservatives and Republicans and anyone who disagrees with the left. I think we should go on the attack against the left for what they're doing to us.
SARAH PALIN (1/12/2011): No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent. And we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good.
Are you listening, tone it down crowd? We must not embrace evil and call it good. We must embrace the good of calling you evil. (If You Can't Say Something Nice, Don't Say Something Nice) And folks, I say if heated rhetoric is good, more of it is better. So rather than lowering the rhetorical temperature, we need to add fuel to the fire and constantly demonize each other. And if there does come a day when the rhetoric gets so intense and so specifically threatening that someone takes it literally, and commits a terrible act that is clearly based on that rhetoric, then and only then, partisans on both sides can dial it back one notch. (Too Literal, Too Late) But until that day, ladies and gentlemen, my right to be angry is more important than anyone else's right to not live in fear. (Freedom of Screech) And that's the Wørd. We'll be right back.