Sarah Palin criticism "Blood Libel"

[Scarbonac]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/palin-calls-criticism-blood-libel/


Palin Calls Criticism ‘Blood Libel’
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

1:13 p.m. | Updated Sarah Palin, who had been silent for days, issued a forceful denunciation of her critics on Wednesday in a video statement that accused pundits and journalists of “blood libel” in what she called their rush to blame heated political rhetoric for the shootings in Arizona.

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own,” Ms. Palin said in a seven-and-a-half minute video posted to her Facebook page. “Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”

Ms. Palin’s use last year of a map with cross hairs hovering over a number of swing districts, including that of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, has become a symbol of that overheated rhetoric. In an interview with The Caucus on Monday, Tim Pawlenty, a potential 2012 rival for the Republican presidential nomination and the former governor of Minnesota, said he would not have produced such a map.

In the video, Ms. Palin rejected criticism of the map, and sought to cast that criticism as a broader indictment of the basic rights to free speech exercised by people of all political persuasions.

She said that acts like the shootings in Arizona “begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state.”

“Not with those who listen to talk radio,” said Ms. Palin, who is also a Fox News contributor. “Not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle. Not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies. Not with those who proudly voted in the last election.”

The term blood libel is generally used to mean the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. That false claim was circulated for centuries to incite anti-Semitism and justify violent pogroms against Jews. Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make it rapidly go viral, is itself attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.

There's more at the link.

[Cat's Paw Nebula]

Because the accusation that one's violent retoric may have actually incited violence is exactly like the accusation that one murders children for blood (which is literally very un-kosher).

Right.

This woman may not have a goddamn thing to do with why Giffords got shot, but she still makes me ill.

[shiningbrow]

This is the ultimate in cowardice and hypocrisy. If she wants to post cross hairs on people and not take any responsibility for the atmosphere that creates, why back pedal and have spokes people issue lame excuses such as that fantastic business about geographic graphical symbols.

I can't imagine a more morally bankrupt individual. Talk about private vice leading to public morality, this babe takes the biscuit.

[Aloysius]

A game : look for the contradiction.


1) What I said can't cause any problem.
2) What I said is protected by free speech.
3) Peoples who criticize me are badwrongfun irresponsibles, and are akin to tsarist anti-semitists, trying to cause pogroms.

[Northcott]

This woman may not have a goddamn thing to do with why Giffords got shot, but she still makes me ill.

That sums it up nicely.

[Old Fart]

Did Palin just publicly Godwin the discussion?

[Name Lips]

Ms. Palin’s use of the phrase in her video, which helped make it rapidly go viral, is itself attracting criticism, not least because Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.
FAIL.

[Utrecht]

This is the ultimate in cowardice and hypocrisy. If she wants to post cross hairs on people and not take any responsibility for the atmosphere that creates, why back pedal and have spokes people issue lame excuses such as that fantastic business about geographic graphical symbols.

I can't imagine a more morally bankrupt individual. Talk about private vice leading to public morality, this babe takes the biscuit.

Here is the issue - people are calling out HER specificially - while ignoring THE EXACT SAME THING done by the Democratoc Leadership Councel, the DCCC and numerous OFFICE HOLDING Democrats. Hell - not like anyone from the right ever made a "documentary" about assasinating a sitting president.

I would be pissed. Further, the iconography and wording that she has used has been accepted in American politics for decades......

So suddenly a local sherrif spouts off the cuff without any evidence that "Teh right and Palin caused it" backed up immediately by Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE - sounds pretty damn close to libel.... and she is supposed to think "oh well, all is fair"

Bull fucking shit. You may not like her - but fair is fair - and her opponets are dealing from the bottom of the deck (hell straight out of the sewer) on this one.

[shiningbrow]

Excuse me for perhaps not being as widely read as you are, Utrecht, but can you present some examples of Democratic officials or former legislators (Palin equivalents) who have used graphic or verbal means to call for the violent elimination of political rivals? I've heard Keith Olberman cite an example that he had voiced once and he apologized for it. But that's as far as my knowledge of this goes. The international media, who do not have a dog in this fight, have pretty much universally placed the blame for this kind of heated rhetoric with the radical right. I await enlightenment.

[Cat's Paw Nebula]

Further, the iconography and wording that she has used has been accepted in American politics for decades......

I actually agree with you on this part, and would say that it goes back as far as American politics does and was handed down from the nasty political circles that existed in Europe at the time of the founding of the country.

Except where I find it absolutely reprehensible on ANYONE'S part, regardless of party. Damn, didn't all our mothers tell us that we shouldn't jump off bridges because other people were doing it?

[Utrecht]

Excuse me for perhaps not being as widely read as you are, Utrecht, but can you present some examples of Democratic officials or former legislators (Palin equivalents) who have used graphic or verbal means to call for the violent elimination of political rivals? I've heard Keith Olberman cite an example that he had voiced once and he apologized for it. But that's as far as my knowledge of this goes. The international media, who do not have a dog in this fight, have pretty much universally placed the blame for this kind of heated rhetoric with the radical right. I await enlightenment.

More than fair request - here is a blog on the Democratic Leadership Council and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee using the same/equivelent imagry as Palin

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647

Additionally the Daily KOS put Giffords in targeted crosshairs as well (they pulled it just like Palin did)

Here are some Obama Quotes:

Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
Obama on ACORN: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
Obama on a Campaign stop: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
"Republicans are our enemies"--Obama

Now for the record I have no issues with anything - but to imagine that Dem leaders say nothing confrontational is garbage.

The VP is not immune:

I am going to strangle all Republicans who don’t agree with me politically”
– Biden

or former Democratic Nominees

Maher : You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry : Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone .

......

[Utrecht]

Good column by Charles Krouthammer

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."

His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."


Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.

Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.

When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.

Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.

The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?

[Hatter]

So Sarah Palin feels she's being unfairly blamed for the actions of an extremist. Maybe she can ask Muslims for advice on how to deal with that.

--quotation spikey

[TiQuinn]

Palin's been playing a game for awhile now.

I'm not a politician.
I'm a concerned citizen just like you.
I may be running for President (or mayyyyybe not....:dr evil smirk:)
I'm a maverick.
I'm a reality TV star!
In short, I'm wherever the situation needs me to be and wherever the media spotlight is shining.

Right now, she's dealing with the downside of bad timing...when political rhetoric suddenly is not in touch with current events. In short, I agree with Utrecht. She's not done anything that others haven't done from both sides of the aisle.

Problem is, she's the political media whore, and she's catching the blowback now. She is a walking disaster.

[Hatter]

Don't worry, the Democrats will foolishly turn this into a debate on gun control and lose big on it. I've heard so much derp in the past 4 days that I just question whether our society is capable of dealing with tragedy without trying to make it into political hay.

[Name Lips]

Don't worry, the Democrats will foolishly turn this into a debate on gun control and lose big on it.

:(


You're absolutely right, of course.

[shiningbrow]

Utrecht, thanks for the list, but a little more context would be useful. Seriously, I know when I see those gun sights on the map on Palin's FB page, exactly what they mean. This looks like some conservative's random list copied from a website some where. You seem like a guy who reads a good bit so you should be able to offer a select example or two fleshed out so the full meaning is clear. I don't need much. But honestly, I can't think of Joe Biden exhorting us to go shoot George Bush or something like that. I can remember Jesse Helms commenting that President Clinton's life would be in danger if he came to North Carolina.

I saw a snippet of Palin's self righteous indignation today on the News Hour (PBS). She used the word, "reprehensible" to refer to journalists who had the nerve to draw attention to the fact that she'd posted gun sights over Congressional seats on her Facebook page. It's obvious, that despite having been a former beauty queen, she's never taken a good long look at herself in a mirror. She has to be one of the most unreflective people I've ever seen.

Krautheimer's historical overview ignores the fact that today, the technology of violence is far more easily obtained than in the past. In contrast to the 19th century, when the populace was routinely armed (I'm thinking of the Lincoln assasination) now guns are even easier to obtain, both in terms of price and accessibility via retail outlets.

He also ignores that impact that mass media and new media have on public perceptions of politics and of other people. As most of you are all very aware, there's a vast fantasy realm available in CGI based games allowing for the average kid to enact murder and mayhem without real life consequences. For the chance ill-balanced individual, there's such an opportunity for an easy cross over. How the ready availability of extremist talk radio, websites that advocate violence, and other channels add to this mix is a subject that would probably keep several Communication Ph.D.s busy for years.

That Krautheimer puts this big picture/simplified view of violent political discourse without accounting for more recent developments seems consistent with his selective and conservative views.

[Utrecht]

Shiningbow - not sure how much context is actually needed - on both sides (you can google the Obama quotes to get the exact specifics). Almost all of the Obama ones came from campaign rallies/speeches. For example the "they bring a knife, we bring a gun" was for a rally for healthcare (and is a quote from the movie Untouchables).

Let me be clear - I have no issues with the language used by Obama or Biden - even Kerry's discussion with Maher was tounge in cheek and had no real zest behind it.

As Krauthammer mentions - martial talk has been part of political speech forever. Words like campaign, targeted, rally the troops all come from military backgrounds - and are accepted. Further, the idea of using bullseyes/crosshairs/targets has been going on forever.

I will certainly agree that there are individuals who do cross the line - and for me, that is calling out for someone's death with more than tounge in cheek. Political commentators are of course the worst for this (accross the spectrums - and a simple google search can turn up plenty of examples of people (sometimes elected officials) calling for an elected officials/public figures death.

As for Palin specifically - I agree with her - it IS reprehensible to call her out for using crosshairs on specific districts when they don't call out others. I am sorry, I just dont see the hand waving distinction people use to defend the DLC's use of bullseyes on states - there was a clear target in mind for each and it is intellectual dishonesty to think otherwise. That is not even getting into the DCCC actual use of crosshairs on districts (which I am noticing you not mentioning)

Now, she should have not used the term blood libel (suspect that she had no idea of its.....colured past) but looking at things objectively, she has a legitimate case of libel/slander against multiple fronts.

As far as Krauthammer - I think that you miss his points

1) This type of language has been going on for quite some time
2) Crazies are out there
3) The predomitately left leaning organizations that immediately assosciated this with the right should be ashamed (hell we had posters on this very board make that conjecture WITHOUT PROOF)

sure he is going to look at things through his conservative lens- but I hardly seem them as selective here - sorry.

[Enk]

...Seriously, I know when I see those gun sights on the map on Palin's FB page, exactly what they mean...

Can you elaborate?

[Varaj]

Can you elaborate?
;)

That we need to focus our attention to those areas.
These are target areas for our operations.
We need laser tight attention here, here and here.
Set our sights on these regions.


Hell I hear that talk in simple business meetings.

[shiningbrow]

Utrecht, all I asked for was one or two examples of Democratic politicians making statements equivalent to the one I cited by Jesse Helms. I don't want a list that requires I troll the web looking up the context for each example. I've got enough homework to do as it is.

As for discerning the meaning of the gun sights on Palin's chart, it seems pretty obvious that those districts are/were being targeted for elimination as sites of Democratic party representation. OK, but using a gun metaphor is a deliberate choice and it obviously has multiple meanings.

Palin had a choice to make in putting up such a chart: she could use gun sights or she could have used simple dots. She chose the former. One has meanings that are (pardon the pun) rather loaded and the other doesn't.

To insist that we are all completely clear about Palin's intended meaning (and that requires us to be not just politically saavy, but mind readers) seems sort of optimistic at best. And to require that, having divined this intended meaning, we isolate that ONE meaning from the other nuanced connotations is just asking too much.

[Varaj]

Krautheimer's historical overview ignores the fact that today, the technology of violence is far more easily obtained than in the past. In contrast to the 19th century, when the populace was routinely armed (I'm thinking of the Lincoln assasination) now guns are even easier to obtain, both in terms of price and accessibility via retail outlets.

My understanding is that guns per capita is down from what it was in the 19th century, it dropped late 19th century and increased again mid 20th century.

[Varaj]

Utrecht, all I asked for was one or two examples of Democratic politicians making statements equivalent to the one I cited by Jesse Helms. I don't want a list that requires I troll the web looking up the context for each example. I've got enough homework to do as it is.

As for discerning the meaning of the gun sights on Palin's chart, it seems pretty obvious that those districts are/were being targeted for elimination as sites of Democratic party representation. OK, but using a gun metaphor is a deliberate choice and it obviously has multiple meanings.

Palin had a choice to make in putting up such a chart: she could use gun sights or she could have used simple dots. She chose the former. One has meanings that are (pardon the pun) rather loaded and the other doesn't.

To insist that we are all completely clear about Palin's intended meaning (and that requires us to be not just politically saavy, but mind readers) seems sort of optimistic at best. And to require that, having divined this intended meaning, we isolate that ONE meaning from the other nuanced connotations is just asking too much.
http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=529805&articleId=1063759&func=6&channel=Member+Guided+News&filterRead=false&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false


http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2010/03/DCCC-targeted-republican.jpg

[Varaj]

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2010/12/claire-mccaskill-promotes-violence-if-dems-dont-get-their-historic-tax-hikes-it-really-is-time-for-americans-to-take-up-pitchforks-video/

[Harry]

Oh come on, Utrecht. There is no one, absolutely no one, on the mainstream left promoting "Second Amendment Solutions" and such. And surely you must remember people being encouraged to bring and show their guns at Democratic rallies and speeches this last election cycle.

I'm including three cartoons. Guess which one lampoons Democrats.

[Utrecht]

Utrecht, all I asked for was one or two examples of Democratic politicians making statements equivalent to the one I cited by Jesse Helms. I don't want a list that requires I troll the web looking up the context for each example. I've got enough homework to do as it is.

As for discerning the meaning of the gun sights on Palin's chart, it seems pretty obvious that those districts are/were being targeted for elimination as sites of Democratic party representation. OK, but using a gun metaphor is a deliberate choice and it obviously has multiple meanings.

Palin had a choice to make in putting up such a chart: she could use gun sights or she could have used simple dots. She chose the former. One has meanings that are (pardon the pun) rather loaded and the other doesn't.

To insist that we are all completely clear about Palin's intended meaning (and that requires us to be not just politically saavy, but mind readers) seems sort of optimistic at best. And to require that, having divined this intended meaning, we isolate that ONE meaning from the other nuanced connotations is just asking too much.

Shining - you are burying your head in the sand here - I provided you several links showing examples of what the DLC and DCCC did (and Varaj nicely showed below) WHICH ARE THE SAME AS WHAT PALIN did.

My issue with the whole thing here is not what Palin did or what the DCCC or DLC did - that has been going on for quite some time and for the record (again) I have no issues with it - but that Palin and the right wing only have been called out - which is hypocrytical (fuck, DailyKOS had put out a map with Giffords distric in crosshairs too because she voted against Pelosi)

If there is going to be a standard - apply it evenly.


Oh come on, Utrecht. There is no one, absolutely no one, on the mainstream left promoting "Second Amendment Solutions" and such. And surely you must remember people being encouraged to bring and show their guns at Democratic rallies and speeches this last election cycle.

I'm including three cartoons. Guess which one lampoons Democrats.

Two things:

First: Your memory must be getting pretty damn fuzzy because you are forgetting the threats/assasination talk around Bush. I again point you to the fact that mainstream left promoted a movie about the assasination of Bush.

The reason you are seeing more of it from the right this cycle (and you did from the left last cycle) is that they are out of power - pure and simple.

Second: You are not looking very hard then (and to consider Sharon Angle as part of the mainstream right is disinginuous). The left uses (and used) similar language (as demonstrated above).

[shiningbrow]

Utrecht, unless I'm going blind, I saw only one link on the posting you gave with the list. A link to Truth Serum (Verum Serum), a conservative blog that likes to commit violence against treasured works of western art. All I asked you for is one or two examples, not an incoherent out of context list.

Surely, if the sins are so many, they should rain easily from your forehead. One or two, in context please. My head is and remains sand free.

[Utrecht]

Utrecht, unless I'm going blind, I saw only one link on the posting you gave with the list. A link to Truth Serum (Verum Serum), a conservative blog that likes to commit violence against treasured works of western art. All I asked you for is one or two examples, not an incoherent out of context list.


*sigh*

Have you looked at the blog post on Verum Serum? Ignore the messenger for a bit and look at the message.

Did you see the image from the Democratic Leadership Committee?
Did you see the image from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee?


Surely, if the sins are so many, they should rain easily from your forehead. One or two, in context please. My head is and remains sand free.

Your head is certainly covered in the sand - you are chosing to employ a double standard here. You point to Sarah Palin's actions without context and then demand complete contextual framing for any opposing views.

Further, I am not sure exactly what you are looking for as far as example (beyond the DCCC and DLC - two very specific examples). Are you wanting more clarification on what Obama said? and why he said it?

[shiningbrow]

I prefer my news unfiltered. So if you can give me some links to some Democratic websites that advocate violence against Republicans I'll be happy to read them. What you recommended was a site that came with an endorsement by Glenn Beck of all people. It's a right wing blog with a real bias against reporting news in a distanced and professional way. If I can't get away with shit like that in my writing, I think it's not unreasonable to demand a similar level of rigor in others' work.

[Utrecht]

I prefer my news unfiltered.


HAH - good luck with that!!!!


So if you can give me some links to some Democratic websites that advocate violence against Republicans I'll be happy to read them. What you recommended was a site that came with an endorsement by Glenn Beck of all people. It's a right wing blog with a real bias against reporting news in a distanced and professional way. If I can't get away with shit like that in my writing, I think it's not unreasonable to demand a similar level of rigor in others' work.

OK, so we are in the close our eyes and plug our ears mode..... Thanks for clarifying.

And for the record - the DCCC and DLC pulled the web pages (just like Palin)

[shiningbrow]

Now, you are just being silly. I'm totally willing to entertain the prospect of examples of heated Democratic rhetoric. All I am asking you for is an example of it drawn from the original source or from one that is not on its face patently biased (like Verum Serum). I'd even take a citation from the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. That does not seem like it should be either difficult or unreasonable.

[cnath.rm]

I prefer my news unfiltered. So if you can give me some links to some Democratic websites that advocate violence against Republicans I'll be happy to read them. What you recommended was a site that came with an endorsement by Glenn Beck of all people. It's a right wing blog with a real bias against reporting news in a distanced and professional way. If I can't get away with shit like that in my writing, I think it's not unreasonable to demand a similar level of rigor in others' work.Heres one with targets in the graphic, and it's from the original source. http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253055&kaid=127&subid=171

[shiningbrow]

Thank you, cnath. I think that's an unfortunate use of graphics and hopefully the posters will take it down. I repudiate any graphical representation that carries even a smattering of a suggestion of violence.

The only observation I can make in this instance is that the chart at least is not a gun sight, but a target like one finds in archery. Arrows can be as dangerous as bullets but there is a little more ambiguity. I think toning down the use of "targeting" for a while would be advisable for both sides. I do remember having the golf pro explain to me that golf is a target based game, and even though I suck really hard at it, I do know that targeting something does not necessarily imply killing it, even target shooting with guns isn't lethal, but putting a graphic of a target over a human being just should not be done. When I was a child we were scolded if we even pointed toy guns at one another. There should be more of that kind of caution in our political discourse.

I might like to see Sarah Palin hit in the face with a cream pie or otherwise ridiculed, but I'd be horrified to see her hurt.

[Scarbonac]

Bullseyes and crosshairs mean different things. Implying that they're the same is some serious false equivalency going on here.

[Harry]

Two things:

First: Your memory must be getting pretty damn fuzzy because you are forgetting the threats/assasination talk around Bush. I again point you to the fact that mainstream left promoted a movie about the assasination of Bush.

The reason you are seeing more of it from the right this cycle (and you did from the left last cycle) is that they are out of power - pure and simple.

Second: You are not looking very hard then (and to consider Sharon Angle as part of the mainstream right is disinginuous). The left uses (and used) similar language (as demonstrated above).

No. For one thing, the movie was not an American made movie, and it was not widely shown in America. It was also widely denounced by the left, including the ultimate liberal Democrat, Hillary Clinton. It was barely even shown in the US because no distributor would touch it. It's only purpose, in todays world, is to be constantly brought up time and time again by FOX News as evidence that American Democrats are eviller and more vile that the right, even though hardly anyone supported the film or saw it.

And yeah, it was art, and meant as an artistic statement. It was not a political statement or any sort of "call to action". It was as real as Mars Attacks.

You are parroting the lines set out by FOX in the last few days. Saying that someone is a target is a fairly common use of common English, but FOX seems to see something dastardly in it. Saying:

"I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

...that right there is a crime.

[cnath.rm]

And yeah, it was art, and meant as an artistic statement. It was not a political statement or any sort of "call to action". It was as real as Mars Attacks.If I made a film like that, but where the president was black, (even if I didn't make it Obama) I somehow doubt that it would be considered to be "art" instead of a political statement. That's regardless of which party did or didn't endorse it.

[Harry]

But, much like the original film, no one would see it. How is it a fictional film with an audience numbering in the hundreds several years ago somehow equates current nationwide media mavens with audiences in the millions daily, who suggest violence as a solution almost daily?

[cnath.rm]

But, much like the original film, no one would see it. How is it a fictional film with an audience numbering in the hundreds several years ago somehow equates current nationwide media mavens with audiences in the millions daily, who suggest violence as a solution almost daily?Oh I'm not saying that the original film hasn't been getting a shit ton more press then would be called for if things were reasonable. I was just making a statement regarding calling it an artistic statement as opposed to a political one. I don't think that argument would have the proverbial ice cubes chance in hell of working if such a film were made.



On a side note, I was mildly amused by Mars Attacks when I was younger, but feel no need to watch it again.

[Enk]

I prefer my news unfiltered...

Are you saying that those pics are photoshopped?

[shiningbrow]

Definitely. Why does everyone always pick on Rafael? Leave the "School of Athens" in the Stanza della Segnatura where it belongs. Keep it out of American politics. The selective appropriation of those figures by "Verum Serum" (another sick linguistic hybrid) on its home page is enough to make one want to convert to Catholicism and join a religious order. It may be a corrupt, dying regime, but at least it keeps its artwork intact. Follow the link for more, related kitsch.

http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/david-switch-plate-cover

[The Winslow]

What is this movie you're talking about? It doesn't ring a bell and I wonder if I've even ever heard of it.