This blog features observations from Randy Turner, a former teacher, newspaper reporter and editor. Send news items or comments to rturner229@hotmail.com
I, too, reviewed Mrs. Palin's video. I, like many people I have talked to, agree with her viewpoint.
The media is talking to and about Mrs. Palin while we are bantering here in the Ozarks about this issue. What is she supposed to do? I believe her course of action was proper and needed.
I believe the record will show that Palin issued an early statement about the tradedy, and then, she was attacked by those among us who do not like her.
By Chris Ariens on January 12, 2011 10:53 AM This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.
Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.
He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.
There is a reason that many immediately blamed Palin and the other right-wing reactionaries for the Tuscon shooting, long before any facts were known, and it has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It has everything to do with being civilized and wanting to live in a country that follows the rule of law and not a country that lives in anarchy, as many right-wing supporters advocated with their support of Second Amendment solutions over ballot box solutions.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech and in this case the consequence was an instant conviction of Sarah Palin and the mouthpieces in the court of public opinion. As she has so ably demonstrated in her attacks over the years, the facts don't matter now.
Once again she has demonstrated that she is an amateur.
Not to worry, the left will not have to do anything to rid all of us of Ms. Palin, the right will cannibalize her soon. The 2012 campaign is about to start and her own party will forever tie her, her cross hairs, and her aggressive and violent behavior to the events this weekend in Tuscon.
Was it really a good idea to put those cross hairs on these candidates districts?
Say what you want sister Sarah, it's over for you girl. No respectable Republican would want your toxic-ness near their campaign. Reload all you want.
Mr. Turner you and many other Palin haters didn't listen very well to the former Governor.
She spoke of the accusations against ALL political rhetoric and discourse. She defended the right for EVERY conservative and liberal to discuss their dissatisfaction with the current direction of public policy. She rarely mentioned anything specific about her, and then only has an example of what some of the rhetoric has been.
Her "blood libel" was not in regards to her specifically or her alone, but to point out the error of punidts, people and reporters that were attempting to hijack this tragedy by fostering more hate and anger toward--who?--conservative rhetoric. You admit that Palin and others were wrongly maligned. Yet, you demand she not speak out?
This propaganda against Talk Radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party was designed to foster an atmosphere of hate and disgust against these important elements of our society's political education and discourse. These accussastions were aimed at stifling debate and the political process by generating fear and ferocity toward one political spectrum.
Just as "blood libel" against Jews was intended to prepare a country's heart with hate to rationalize the coming Holocaust, this attempt by some was to stir the population to hate one half of the political pendulum.
Palin could've have taken a different approach. She could have followed the example of Thomas Jefferson, who never sought to defend himself from libel or slanderous remarks in the press and in public. Of course, today people still believe and spread false information about Jefferson's supposed relations with Sally Hemings and others. Some have tried to distort the history of his religion and his view on the religous freedoms he stood for.
Instead, she followed another path, that did not seek to acquit her or advocate for her innocence, but rather defend the political process of public discussion and the articulation of political philosphies in the marketplace of ideas.
You and others fail to remove the hate, vitriol and bias toward this woman to effectively hear her comments and glean the truth that existed.
I, too, reviewed Mrs. Palin's video. I, like many people I have talked to, agree with her viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteThe media is talking to and about Mrs. Palin while we are bantering here in the Ozarks about this issue. What is she supposed to do? I believe her course of action was proper and needed.
Thank you Sarah for focusing our attention on the real victim behind the Tucson tragedy: Sarah Palin.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the odds Sarah Palin knows what a blood libel is?
What are the odds Sarah Palin actually wrote that statement herself?
I believe the record will show that Palin issued an early statement about the tradedy, and then, she was attacked by those among us who do not like her.
ReplyDeleteRandy, Nor is this about you!
ReplyDeleteBy Chris Ariens on January 12, 2011 10:53 AM
This morning on “Good Morning America,” ABC’s Ashleigh Banfield sat down with Zach Osler, a high school friend of Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson massacre.
Osler says his friend wasn’t shooting at people, “he was shooting at the world.” Regarding the high-pitched talk radio and cable news political rhetoric, Osler says his friend didn’t even watch the news.
He did not watch TV. He disliked the news. He didn’t listen to political radio. He didn’t take sides. He wasn’t on the left. He wasn’t on the right.
There is a reason that many immediately blamed Palin and the other right-wing reactionaries for the Tuscon shooting, long before any facts were known, and it has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It has everything to do with being civilized and wanting to live in a country that follows the rule of law and not a country that lives in anarchy, as many right-wing supporters advocated with their support of Second Amendment solutions over ballot box solutions.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of that speech and in this case the consequence was an instant conviction of Sarah Palin and the mouthpieces in the court of public opinion. As she has so ably demonstrated in her attacks over the years, the facts don't matter now.
Once again she has demonstrated that she is an amateur.
ReplyDeleteNot to worry, the left will not have to do anything to rid all of us of Ms. Palin, the right will cannibalize her soon. The 2012 campaign is about to start and her own party will forever tie her, her cross hairs, and her aggressive and violent behavior to the events this weekend in Tuscon.
Was it really a good idea to put those cross hairs on these candidates districts?
Say what you want sister Sarah, it's over for you girl. No respectable Republican would want your toxic-ness near their campaign. Reload all you want.
Mr. Turner you and many other Palin haters didn't listen very well to the former Governor.
ReplyDeleteShe spoke of the accusations against ALL political rhetoric and discourse. She defended the right for EVERY conservative and liberal to discuss their dissatisfaction with the current direction of public policy. She rarely mentioned anything specific about her, and then only has an example of what some of the rhetoric has been.
Her "blood libel" was not in regards to her specifically or her alone, but to point out the error of punidts, people and reporters that were attempting to hijack this tragedy by fostering more hate and anger toward--who?--conservative rhetoric. You admit that Palin and others were wrongly maligned. Yet, you demand she not speak out?
This propaganda against Talk Radio, Fox News, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party was designed to foster an atmosphere of hate and disgust against these important elements of our society's political education and discourse. These accussastions were aimed at stifling debate and the political process by generating fear and ferocity toward one political spectrum.
Just as "blood libel" against Jews was intended to prepare a country's heart with hate to rationalize the coming Holocaust, this attempt by some was to stir the population to hate one half of the political pendulum.
Palin could've have taken a different approach. She could have followed the example of Thomas Jefferson, who never sought to defend himself from libel or slanderous remarks in the press and in public. Of course, today people still believe and spread false information about Jefferson's supposed relations with Sally Hemings and others. Some have tried to distort the history of his religion and his view on the religous freedoms he stood for.
Instead, she followed another path, that did not seek to acquit her or advocate for her innocence, but rather defend the political process of public discussion and the articulation of political philosphies in the marketplace of ideas.
You and others fail to remove the hate, vitriol and bias toward this woman to effectively hear her comments and glean the truth that existed.