Sarah Palin Responds

Prompted by a teleprompter, Sarah Palin “spoke” today about accusations that Americans on the far right, like herself, had poisoned the state of political debate in the U.S. with their divisive and threatening language and actions, and that this contributed to the tragedy that occured in Tuscon on Saturday.

Here’s a link to the video on a Washington Post site that addresses issues of faith, where the commentator and others dissect the fundamentalist rhetoric that Palin employs in her “speech” to paint herself as the victim.

Author: Gregory Beatty

Greg Beatty is a crime-fighting shapeshifter who hatched from a mutagenic egg many decades ago. He likes sunny days, puppies and antique shoes. His favourite colour is not visible to your puny human eyes. He refuses to write a bio for this website and if that means Whitworth writes one for him, so be it.

19 thoughts on “Sarah Palin Responds”

  1. I have to co-sign with Sarah on this one. That dude was a straight up lunatic, and he was predisposed to do some slaughtering. I don’t think Sarah’s crosshair map had anything to do with touching it off.

    The Prairie Dog has some pretty inflammatory rhetoric coursing through it’s pages too. Especially, when it comes to climate change skeptics and Christians. Would anyone in your office take responsiblity for a psycho shooting up a local church, with a P.Dog in his clutch?

  2. Seanbot: One of the many responses to the violent rhetoric that’s currently under the microscope has always been, “Maybe you don’t really mean it, but if you keep talking like that, some nutjob is going to get ideas in his head.”

    Well, surprise, some nutjob got ideas in his head. I think it’s entirely appropriate to lay some measure of blame at the feet of those who’ve dragged America’s political discourse into the realm of metaphorical “gunnings for” and “take downs.”

    I don’t think it matters if this particular nutjob was inspired in whole or in part by Palin’s cross hairs ad. But the ad is symbolic and symptomatic of the kind of violent rhetoric that Palin and her confederates in the tea party movement have been happy to throw around rather cavalierly (until now). As a public figure who seems to have some aspirations of returning to public office, she should be called out for this.

    As for your comments about inflammatory rhetoric in the prairie dog…. you’re kidding right?

    Yes, we (I) have called climate science skeptics morons. We (I) have also called them buffoons, corporate shills and capering twits. (Well, to be fair, not the last one but that’s only because I haven’t yet made it to the Ts in my thesaurus.)

    There’s a huge difference between insulting someone’s intelligence when they support a scientifically indefensible position and calling, metaphorically, for someone to be shot. I find it worrying that you can’t see the difference.

    Last, as for this charge about our inflammatory rhetoric against christians…. Whitworth has asked for this repeatedly, I’ll ask again now: Where???? Please, provide examples!

    Yes, we’ve said some nasty things about, say, the pope or some specific religious organizations. But calling the pope a creep because of his stance on birthcontrol or calling the Mormon church jerks because of their position on Proposition 8 is not inflammatory rhetoric aimed at christians. Those are (admittedly puerile, but we hope occasionally funny) jabs at/critiques of public figures and organizations. Last I checked, that’s what alt newspapers do in Canada.

    I won’t speak for anyone else here, but for the record (again), there are many christians and christian groups I respect and admire. Examples of the former can be found commenting on the blog. For an example of the latter, check out Geez magazine from Winnipeg. http://www.geezmagazine.org/

  3. You forgot a couple of things, Greg.

    1. Sarah Palin said any journalism linking her inflammatory rhetoric to the massacre was a blood libel.

    2. a Blood Libel is a reference to the beliefs of anti-Semitic Christians who claimed Jews used the blood of murdered Christian children in Jewish religious ceremonies.

    3. The wounded Congresswoman is a Jew.

    I’m just going to sit back and watch Caribou Barbie sink into the quicksand on this …

  4. Re #7: Nuh unh…. It doesn’t matter whose post has the lowest number. I called jinx first. So get me a Warthog, will you? Thanks.

  5. I think we all need to remember one basic fact here: Sarah Palin is like one of those monsters from a children’s movie – the more you pay attention to it, the larger and scarier it becomes.

    I’m sure if we all just turn our backs, she will wither, shrink, and go hide in a mouse hole. There – problem solved *dusting hands off*

  6. On the topic of usage, the phrase “insulting someone’s intelligence” (#3) merits a look. In standard usage, to insult someone’s intelligence is to assume that they’re less clever or less informed than you; e.g. to talk down to someone. What you should have said was “impugning someone’s intelligence”.

    Much argument and controversy both here and elsewhere could be avoided if people chose their words with precision and with an awareness of both denotation and connottation. With that in mind, I suggest that Ms. Palin change her name to “Malaprop” and then shut up.

  7. I just love the ‘blood libel’ phrase so much. Palin’s cluelessness will always guarantee her a base of support, even if greater political power continues to elude her.

  8. @Barb: Poor Greg. Actually, until this week I had no idea how to spell “Tucson” myself. It really should have a silent “P”, like this: “Ptucson”. Amiright?

    @Seanbot3000: I agree with you that Palin’s map, by itself, almost certainly did not inspire the crazy, scary person to commit the massacre. But that’s not the point. It’s become the symbol for the angry far-right political culture that most certainly DID inspire this massacre.

    If the far right hadn’t called Democrats and liberals liars, thieves, traitors, communists, non-citizens, terrorists and death-panellers day in and day out for the last couple of years, no one would be talking about that stupid map because this massacre wouldn’t have happened. the Tea Partiers created the culture of hate. Palin’s map is just the official poster.

    (And how am I supposed to respond to your “what if a prairie dog reader shoots up a church” comment? Are you comparing us to the Tea Party hatemongers? Yeah, we really stir up the shit. We’re so radical we incite our readers to mail forms to politicians and find typos in our paper. Oooooh!)

  9. Steven, I’m not sure in which issue I read it, (and I wish I would have saved it, just to show you)- someone described christians as “waiting in lines to devour Christ’s dead flesh and blood.” Now what the fuck is this, if not demonization?

    As for the climate skeptics, didn’t you publish their names and personal information and at the same time say they are responsible for the imminent destruction of this planet?

    You guys have a cutesy-poo way about going about it- but make no mistake, you are just as inciteful as the Republicans are.

  10. Hey Seanbot: You’re comparing apples to kangaroos again.

    First off, though, I didn’t write the bit about Christians and as a freelancer and not editor I should probably leave that to someone else to respond to.

    The climate denier thing, though, yeah, I wrote that.

    First off, you misquote. I have always been careful to say that climate science deniers are contributing to the imminent destruction of the planet. Not that they’re responsible for it. A subtle but important difference. That they are contributing to the destruction of the planet, though, is factually accurate so I’ll stand by my statements and sentiments.

    Second, what we published were emails and phone numbers to where these people do their work of misrepresenting science. All of it was taken from the internet and from these people’s own websites or facebook pages. (Usually found with not more than a few minutes googling.) This is information they want you to have. We just put it all together in one convenient location.

    Providing contact information to public figures and urging people to express their opinions to them has long been a social action strategy.

    What I did not do is provide home phone numbers or photos of people’s houses (something certain tea party and ultra-conservative groups has done to the people they’ve targeted). And I’ve never said these people deserve to die. That they deserve to be ignored, ridiculed, debated or, eventually, brought up on charges, yes.

  11. “Waiting in lines to devour Christ’s dead flesh and blood.” Coming from our paper, I would call that snotty and sarcastic and arguably very bad taste but maybe arguably funny.

    If I have a chance, I’ll try to figure out the context, which would help me figure out if we were being evil or just dicks.

Comments are closed.