He brings them up but as several of the commenters in his column pointed out, he tends to ignore others in a fashion that's either lazy or disingenous. He glosses over the fact that a politician was (almost) assassinated, and specifically targeted due to their politics, whatever they were understood to be by the schizophrenic mind of the assailant. To acknowledge this, and the particularly fear and paranoia-driven strain of Arizona politics that (coincidentally?) the assault was launched amidst isn't the hyper-partisan conclusion of a "politicized mind" any more so than the deliberate sanitization or refusal to acknowlege these facts in your New York Times column. Because the assailant was effectively a prisoner of his own damaged mind doesn't mean he won't react to external stimuli.
if she doesn't feel guilty at all for her rhetoric, why was the controversial image removed from the website on saturday?
because the election is over? I have no idea why she would remove it. I wouldn't jump to the conclusion it is guilt.
Actually it's entirely clear that she was the deliberate target of the assault, has been since Saturday, it's what he is charged with, it's what subsequent evidence such as his own words, has corroborated and what he will in all likelihood be convicted of.
Well Sammy, I hate it when my two accounts argue, and I worry especially now that the nation will become more hyper-aware of pchizoids, but here we go... First, I don't agree with Brooks point by point, but rather think it is the best standing statement of a conservative on the whole thing. I do think the media under-reported the actual (gasp) science of the situation and now *only* lives in politics. It's like the new cliche goes: "I thought FOX worked for the GOP, but now I know the GOP works for FOX." (1) I guess I agree that she was targeted as a public figure, and in part due to a perception of her politics. "Due to their (sic) politics" ... I don't quite agree. (2) Agree completely if by "this" we use the fact that she was a politician and would not now be struggling for her life if she wasn't a politician. (3) Agree completely. Media could actually give some column inches to what we understand of disturbed minds! But much more fun to give column inches to Palin, etc. No reporting. No research. More blue team versus red team. Inflame, sell ad space, repeat.
It's pretty clear that he heard of her because she was a politician , became obssessed with her, attended some other event with her and asked some questions, didn't like her answers, and then deliberately planned her murder. Obviously, he disagreed with, as I put it above, what he believed to be her politicial stances, be it either something ordinary like health care or immigration, or something wacko like mind control and space aliens - either way the fact that she was a politician with countervailing beliefs is the catalyst for his actions.
It's not pangs of guilt, just PR. People have been zeroing in on it and criticizing her for it. To leave it up, these critics will go on to say, "and she still has it up!" It's not serving a worthwhile purpose at the moment and it's causing trouble, so why not get rid of it.
So what percentage of democrat politicians are blaming Palin for this? I have seen maybe 1, or 2 max. The other 1,000 haven't blamed her. Seems to me Palin is inventing this attack to make the whole tragedy about her and bring more spotlight to herself. Why did she make some weird political speech if she isn't just a part of the attention grab herself?
It makes sense to take that image down whether or not you feel any guilt for its existence in the first place. I mean, it's got crosshairs on Representative Giffords. Leaving it up would be in poor taste no matter what. And it certainly could have been more of a PR move than an attempt to be extra respectful, but either way it doesn't mean she thinks it's responsible.
The thing is when using blood libel as a phrase to describe what's happening to her is that she's equating herself with persecuted jews who rounded up an killed in various anti-semitic attacks. It is delusional on her part to think anything that has been said regarding her equates to the kinds of falsehoods that were used in attempts to justify the slaughter of European Jewish populations.
Ok, so it's poor form. So? I'm wondering what the big deal is. Maybe it's just a topic worth discussing on a message board and not a big deal, and some are just flummoxed by the use of a somewhat offensive analogy. I just don't see much more than that. It almost seems like the entire point is to provide another example of "your side is worse than mine", though. If that's the case, is it really necessary?
This is a nice quote that illustrates 4 examples of magical delusional thinking: 1. Loughner 2. Your fake political science doctorate/Arizona undergrad internet personalities (confused AZ college student, sound familiar to anyone here? Almost eerie actually) 3. Pretending that nasty right wing garbage did not exist in 2007 prior to 2008 4. The logical fallacy that nothing fter 2007 exerted any influence.. I see him rollin', he hatin'
In both cases someone is inaccurately being accused of causing the death of children/child with the purpose of stirring up hate towards the person. I think the comparison is fair.
Poor form, and delusional. So? I wasn't advocating she be arrested or anything else. Just that she's delusional and has inflated sense of self importance to compare anything that's been said about her to blood libel. Nothing more, or less. I'm not sure why that is any less worthy of being discussed than any other topic on the board. I didn't pretend like it was a federal offense or the most pressing issue at hand, or would end her career as a politician or public persona. So I really don't understand what your beef with discussing her statement is.
