Was the shooting of one the Arizona congresswoman linked to Sarah Palin’s facebook post of a US map with targeted Democrat districts highlighted by crosshairs?
Gabrielle Gifford was shot in the head and remains alive in the hospital. Six people were killed too. But it seems she was the main target as she was shot first.
Sarah Palin had posted “Don’t Retreat, Reload” on twitter early last year and then posted the map on her facebook page. I saw on the news that the map was removed.
Is this the end of the gun-toting Tea Party movement?
When I saw the Palin connection on the news I was stunned. Obviously she cannot be blamed for the shooting, but civil disagreement doesn’t seem to be possible. Push the rhetoric, raise the stakes, play on emotion. Forget facts and compromise.
In this article it mentions that Giffords was worried about the map and the crosshairs, that she was worried about the potential for violence in her district.
Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. Remember Palin during the election, with all the people screaming “kill Obama!” at her rallies? Remember how embarrassed McCain was? I remember he stopped a rally cold and told people to knock it off, and defended Obama.
“Targeting” your enemy, telling people to “reload”, holding fundraisers at local gun clubs… Telling people to come shoot an M-16 to help get rid of the Democrats?
Unbelievable! I didn’t know that Palin had a map with cross hairs on it. I’ve always known that Palin is a redneck, but, this is inexcusable. Those poor families!!
Shame on those republican pundits who are now trying to erase the direct link between their rhetoric and the climate of violence that lead to this incident.
[quote=“BigThumb”]One of the most laughable excuse I’ve ever heard: “It’s a surveyor’s symbol,”
[/quote]
From a BBC article.
Ms Palin’s aides rather lamely claimed the illustrations were meant to represent surveyors’ symbols, leading to one blogger talking about that well-known song: “I surveyed the sheriff.” bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/
When Palin says things like "I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems” then she’s clearly referring to using firearms to solve problems. Or as Gruber puts it: Plan A is voting. Plan B is guns.
All that said, Sarah Palin didn’t shoot Gabrielle Gifford.
I can’t believe I’m defending Palin, but she is not the problem - severely impressionable people who are unable or unwilling to think rationally for themselves are the problem.
People keep bringing up the “crosshairs map” as if Palin is complicit in murder - if she is so effective, so persuasive that she has followers that are willing to kill for her, why is she the laughing stock of the Western world, managing to stay in the limelight only through a (now-canceled) reality show? If she could activate gun-toting nutcases at whim, wouldn’t she President by now?
Take the crosshairs map for what it was: a piece of hyperbolic electioneering, and nothing more. Rational thinkers such as ourselves (perhaps I’m being generous now) can see that she meant that those are politicians and electoral districts that are opposing a piece of legislation that she supports, and that resources should be devoted to trying to win back those voters. To suggest otherwise is giving Palin too much credit.
Regarding the shooter, it can go two ways:
Either he is a normal, rational human being that believes so fervently in this cause that he is willing to kill for it, or
He is a loaded gun that was already willing to kill, just looking for an excuse.
I feel like we are trying to shoehorn the situation into a conspiracy theory, having it both ways that the killer was a whacko nutjob (plausible if he was a Palin supporter), and that Sarah Palin herself was singling out targets for murder.
A piece of hyperbolic electioneering for sure. But more as well, if you take her campaign as a whole.
Electioneering with rallies of people chanting “kill Obama” and a smiling Palin. Electioneering with Palin saying that if they didn’t get what they wanted at the polls, they’d be looking for a “2nd amendment solution.”
This is what happens when you preach hate, conspiracy, mistrust of government and civil society, and point out that you can solve problems with guns if you can’t get your way at the polls.
Don’t worry, there are lots of rational and smart people in the US who aren’t batshit crazy. Watching some of the old “kill Obama” videos on youtube last night, I saw the one with McCain at one of the “Kill him! kill him!” rallies, where he stops them, points out that Obama is a smart guy, a patriot, not a terrorist, etc. He gets booed, and I think that’s the point that he realized having Palin as a running mate was a mistake.
“Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.”
Great commentary, go read the rest. Applies to any tragedy.
A piece of hyperbolic electioneering for sure. But more as well, if you take her campaign as a whole.
Electioneering with rallies of people chanting “kill Obama” and a smiling Palin. Electioneering with Palin saying that if they didn’t get what they wanted at the polls, they’d be looking for a “2nd amendment solution.”
This is what happens when you preach hate, conspiracy, mistrust of government and civil society, and point out that you can solve problems with guns if you can’t get your way at the polls.[/quote]
I agree, and I think that the fear- and hate-mongering that is the norm in North American news and politics is terrible, but I feel like we are looking to shift the blame because it suits us, rather than holding the shooter personally responsible.
If Palin’s camp is to blame, it sounds like we are saying that the shooter was just a soldier following orders, and it is the person who issued those orders who should be held accountable.
I don’t think we can have it both ways - either the shooter was a nutcase and acted alone, or he was an instrument of the right-wing hate-machine, not both.
It is easy to point to Palin as complicit as she is truly an empowered dingbat who should have a handler attached to her at all times. The outrage for the most part is deserved as she has promoted bizarre and often violent recourse. What she has done is a mistake, obviously. But here is where the proverbial “rubber meets the road”. What she, and her T Party faithful do from this point onwards will reveal quite a bit. The removal of the offensive target schematic is the right thing to do. Claiming it was something else and we are just misunderstanding all this, is a mistake. Preparing a statement accepting responsibility for her actions, is the right thing to do. Delaying beyond what is reasonable time or denying any connection, or continuing with this rhetoric, is wrong.
A piece of hyperbolic electioneering for sure. But more as well, if you take her campaign as a whole.
Electioneering with rallies of people chanting “kill Obama” and a smiling Palin. Electioneering with Palin saying that if they didn’t get what they wanted at the polls, they’d be looking for a “2nd amendment solution.”
This is what happens when you preach hate, conspiracy, mistrust of government and civil society, and point out that you can solve problems with guns if you can’t get your way at the polls.
I agree, and I think that the fear- and hate-mongering that is the norm in North American news and politics is terrible, but I feel like we are looking to shift the blame because it suits us, rather than holding the shooter personally responsible.
If Palin’s camp is to blame, it sounds like we are saying that the shooter was just a soldier following orders, and it is the person who issued those orders who should be held accountable.
I don’t think we can have it both ways - either the shooter was a nutcase and acted alone, or he was an instrument of the right-wing hate-machine, not both.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone wants to shift the blame, but those making “hate” statements or statements implying violence should be held accountable also. Words can kill.
She’s guilty of creating an atmosphere of hate, intolerance, conspiracy. Did she create Loughner? No. Did she create the legions on Tea-party hate mongers? No. Did she encourage chants of “kill him! kill him!” ? Yes.
Did she encourage thinking about “second amendment solutions?” Absolutely.
But then isn’t that the American way? Isn’t that the reason they have the second amendment in the first place? Isn’t that why the USA is so quick to use violence to solve problems, then freak out when its own citizens use violence to solve their own personal problems? Wasn’t that the irony of Columbine that the US had just ordered the bombing of Serbia that morning?
Next time someone uses the “right to bear arms” argument when talking about Canadian gun control, ask them if they mean they want the ability to shoot democratically-elected politicians they disagree with. That’s what Palin apparently meant by “second amendment remedy.” I’m all for the use of firearms for hunting and sport (hey, I have a whole bunch of 'em, and I loves me a warm gun), but when people start throwing around that kind of argument, then shooting people you disagree with is the extreme conclusion isn’t it?
How should we react to politicians who talk like that? Not vote for them? Fine. But we probably wouldn’t anyway. What else can you do?
[quote=“MiG”]Violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. Remember Palin during the election, with all the people screaming “kill Obama!” at her rallies? Remember how embarrassed McCain was? I remember he stopped a rally cold and told people to knock it off, and defended Obama.
“Targeting” your enemy, telling people to “reload”, holding fundraisers at local gun clubs… Telling people to come shoot an M-16 to help get rid of the Democrats?
I dislike censorship but found this quote on the same thread to be worthy of reflection. I say this as our present federal government seems hell bent on taking our country down the same path of social change as we’ve witnessed in the US over the past two decades. I think as Canadians we need to take a long look at where the US has found itself and ask ourselves is this the model we wish to follow in Canada.
Recommended by:eru, ohcanada, Matt Z
hate speech leads to violence
It should be against the law like it is in Canada.
a little change goes a long way
by missliberties on Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 11:35:31 AM PST