From an observant listener commenting on the Sullivan blog:
1. “Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them.”
2. “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 they purport to condemn.”
In the first statement, she is saying that you can’t incite people to violence, they stand on their own. The second statement, however, makes the opposite claim (that you can incite people to violence).
I don’t blame Palin for the Arizona murders. I do see her as part of today’s dumb ass politics. This sort of reasoning is what I’ve come to expect from the woman who can see Russia from Wassila. This one wasn’t even a tweet. She had it entered into a teleprompter.
I’ve supplied plenty of smart aleck commentary about some local Duluth politicians. If any of them were to be attacked I would expect to be blamed for inciting the attacker. (Although so far its only my allies who have been handcuffed) Would that criticism be fair? Maybe. Has my commentary been fair? Maybe not. Is scorn an appropriate attitude to take in public discourse? I do make use of it whether its the best means of making a point or not. I hope that most of the time when I write scornfully of others I can provide legitimate examples of actions worthy of scorn. The example above of Palin’s refudiation of what she has just said is, I think, such a worthy example.
Meanwhile Sarah’s boss at Fox News, Roger Ailes, tells his employees:
I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast. I hope the other side does that.
That sure sounds like an admission that the “Fair and Balanced” news station represents one side. I wonder which one it is?
