Maybe if that were happening in a vacuum, but it's not. It's happening in an atmosphere of actual death threats, murders & "liberal hunting licenses." That's not really happening with sports gun metaphors, and if someone had made such a slip of the tongue, say after an athlete had received a death threat, there would be apologies all around if not firings.
'Why We Fight'
Natter 67: Overriding Vetoes
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, nail polish, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
I dunno, saying that you're targeting a particular race doesn't seem violent even though targeting is a kind of gun metaphor. Saying you're reloading, in the sense of preparing for a second try at something, doesn't seem especially violent to me even though it comes from the idea of reloading a gun. That one comes up in sports quite a bit, "X's team doesn't rebuild, it reloads".
No, it doesn't. Because Palin stays strictly metaphorical.
She is in the company, however, of many people who do not.
This is all very well crafted. The men who created and fund this little "grass roots" movement are smart and wily as their followers are ignorant and obedient.
I'm taking a PTO day on Friday--yay! That makes it yet another week in which I don't work a full five days; the last time I did that was the week before Thanksgiving week.
I have a good excuse, which is that I have to drop off stuff at the local food pantry, only open 9-4:30 M-F, and I do have to run some other errands, best done during the day, so I'll be busy. But at least I get to sleep in some.
She says right-wing violent rhetoric does not incite people to violence. But accusing someone of inciting violence can incite violence.
Words Sarah Palin does not know:
- repudiate
- blood libel
- rhetoric
Captain logic is not driving her tug boat.
I popped up my Goggle page and on the top of my news widget was the line "Palin Plays the Victim Card." Hey CBS, that's her entire deck, it isn't news.
Oy. There's a guy on a friend's FB link arguing that teachers always teach their beliefs a bit. As an example, he uses teaching To Kill A Mockingbird by saying, "When we teach To Kill a Mockingbird, we talk about how racism is wrong." To which I replied that I thought that wasn't really a belief, racism is just wrong.
He now says I'm quibbling over terms...Dude. I seriously hope he's not really a teacher.
In a way, it doesn't matter what Palin actually intended or what Loughner's motive turns out to be. Palin has used violent imagery. Including a cross-hairs aimed at Giffords (among others). And express firearm metaphors.
Maybe it's a coincidence that Giffords was targeted, maybe it isn't. But until we get clear answers, there's a legitimate question of whether the imagery -- and specifically, the cross-hairs -- influenced Loughner. And the very legitimacy of the question means that Palin has A Problem. Because the cause-and-effect issue is out there. And it'll be a long, hard road (if it's even possible) to put that issue back in.
And what's even more frightening is that Palin isn't the worst offender in terms of audience plus extremity of violent imagery. ("Tiller the Baby Killer" comes to mind.)
And in further symbolism, I'm listening to a (recorded) radio program featuring soul hits of 1968, a tense year in U.S. history if there ever was one. Playing -- "Little Green Apples." As gentle (albeit sexist, in its way) a love song as you could want.
To which I replied that I thought that wasn't really a belief, racism is just wrong.
Not to a racist.
Oy. There's a guy on a friend's FB link arguing that teachers always teach their beliefs a bit. As an example, he uses teaching To Kill A Mockingbird by saying, "When we teach To Kill a Mockingbird, we talk about how racism is wrong." To which I replied that I thought that wasn't really a belief, racism is just wrong.
It's a bad example, but I agree with what he is saying. History is not an objective set of facts. It's a story told with facts. There is always some level interpretation, even if its what you choose to emphasize given your research and what you leave out. Same thing with teaching. You can't teach everything, you have to filter. Ideally, you try to be as objective as possible, but, especially with literature, everything is open to interpretation.