www.ditl.org

Both were thinly-veiled attempts to spin a situation which should have been quietly mourned and definitely not taken advantage of. Obama's presence was a nice gesture, but he's the president - not one of the bereaved.

I guess he can't win, then. He he'd been absent, he'd been criticised for not being there during "America's time of trouble" and accused of being an absentee president.

No, I'm glad he was there. He just didn't need to speak about the matter, at least not more than a simple "I'm sorry to the families, what a horrible thing."

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Last time I checked, many republican on the right would quietly rejoice if there would be a terrorist attack on US soil while Obama is in power. Sadly ennough, this is the kind of people that end up in positions of power, where decency has to withdraw in the face of political opportunism.


What did you think of Obama's speech?

What did you think of Palin's speech?

That would be a mistake, Obama has shown with this tragedy that he can react in a favorable way. I daresay that his approval rating will go up quite a bit. I can say that I am thankful that he reacted as a concerned human being rather than the stereotypical politician. By making veiled comments about tossing blame he shows me that he can act as the President of the USA rather than just the leader of the DNC.

Palin's speech is right smack dead on target.

Sorry to be insistend, Vic, but I'd like to know what you mean, "Right smack dead on target"? What was her target?

No problemo Solka. Her target was the kneejerk attacks by some commentators against their right leaning opponents, without any more information than that a Democrat was shot today. According to these ideologically........psychotic fellows it was automatically a Republican, or a conservative, or a Tea Party member. Her labeling these baseless attacks as "blood libel" is right smack dead on target. Her saying that these baseless accusations only serve to drive us further apart is once again, right smack dead on target. When we as law abiding citizens need to be standing shoulder to shoulder against the howling madness of the lawless, these commentators seem to be gleefully trying to drive us further apart. Worse, doing so with the facade (and it is just a facade) of resonable, responsible journalism. John Stewarts comments that 'crazy will find a way' bump him a few notches higher in my estimation. That is responsible journalism.

On another tack, there is much bandying about of vitriol, and violent hyperbole. Any one who has even a cursory knowledge of the history of American politics knows that it has allways been that way, allways. From the first meetings of the Continental Congress to today. When one legislator said last year that the Republican health care plan was "die quicker" he was being quite vitriolic, if he wasn't then I clearly don't know what vitriol is.

Well, that again is an unfortunate example of the price of our two-party system. I'm not sure what Palin meant by the "blood" in "blood libel," but in general the use of verbal attack by proponents of one party against the other is a both commonplace and well-established; for good or ill, one of the primary concerns of any politician has to be working toward the next election - either personally or party-wise. Furthermore, in our current culture of media bombardment, there are no Cronkites any more; the sheer volume of "news" outlets has made true news much rarer than op-ed commentary, and one of the best ways to fuel that particular fire is with value-judgement rhetoric against one side or the other.

Indeed, the need to fill 24 hours of air time pretty much requires a bit more editorial stuff. It also means that the traditional watchdog on government activities doesn't do so much anymore. IMO I believe that the "blood" part of the comment is because the accusations are that the rhetoric used by the right led directly to the crime. In effect Palin and the Tea Party had blood on their hands as if they did it personally.

Ah, then I was confused by Palin's tenuous grasp of English. "Blood" in "blood libel" would properly refer to an aspect of the libelous accusations, not to an aspect of the antecedent of the accusations.

Mikey wrote:Ah, then I was confused by Palin's tenuous grasp of English. "Blood" in "blood libel" would properly refer to an aspect of the libelous accusations, not to an aspect of the antecedent of the accusations.

We are talking about the Barbie doll of politics here.

Mark wrote:And if he'd just shot the congresswoman, I'd agree. But he shot civillians....and children. That takes it from a political anything into a whole different realm.

Its so obviously politically motivated. The guy called it an assassination and targeted a congress woman. That's like saying that Iraqi Insurgents aren't trying to kill US troops cause some Iraqi civilians get caught in the blast. Remember, crazy politics still equal politics. He might have been so crazy that he fits on neither the right nor the left but he still had a political goal in mind (to fight mind control).

I don't think Palin is to blame of course. But I think she could have handled it a little better then saying she's the victim.

Monroe wrote:...he still had a political goal in mind (to fight mind control)...

Well, someone has to.

Welcome back, BTW.

Mikey wrote:Ah, then I was confused by Palin's tenuous grasp of English. "Blood" in "blood libel" would properly refer to an aspect of the libelous accusations, not to an aspect of the antecedent of the accusations.

Aha! I knew I knew the term, but I couldn't place it - shame on me. Palin, however, is a politician speaking publicly, and either should know better... or does, and is a raging bigot and calling out to her followers for mass prejudice. "Blood libel" is the name that is used for the allegation that Jews use the blood of Christian children in preparing the Passover celebration. More to the point, blood libel is used as a poorly-veiled excuse for attacks against peaceful jewish settlements (or individuals) beginning with the First Crusade.

If you are dumb enough to have a question about that, the answer is no - we don't. There is a theory that the allegation came about because of a practice known as kiddush ha-Shem, in which Jews would commit ritual suicide (including the children) rather than submit to forced conversion. Such forcible conversion was a common practice during the First Crusade, so kiddush ha-Shem would have been noticed then. It's an easy leap for institutional anti-Semitism to say that this means that the Jews enjoy killing other children as well - an easy way to disseminate a horrible lie about the Jews, and a convenient excuse for slaughter. The ridiculousness of the claim is moot, because everybody (except the Jews themselves) would have loved to use that excuse.

An assumption on my part (and I pray to God that I am right). Palin was equating the two as equally absurd and egregiously libelous, not mass prejudice. Otherwise I did know of the reference but chose not to mention it as it only exasperates the problems by dividing us when that divisiveness counterproductive.

I'm ashamed that I forgot the terminology. I don't honestly believe that Palin's calling for mass anti-Semitism, and I pray that even she isn't stupid enough to speak anti-Semitically in a public forum. However, she:
1) Is an asshole for trying to make herself the victim in this situation; and,
2) Is an asshole for trying to equate her situation (a bit of vitriolic rhetoric directed against her in the media) with what was historically the excuse for the pogroms - i.e., mass murder, rape, theft, and general barbarism directed toward a particular ethnicity. Dealing with a bit of name-calling doesn't really equate with a horde of armored Crusaders burning a peaceful village, killing the men, raping the women, and leaving the children to die alone.