Amid a growing backlash spurred by Arizona’s mass shooting, SarahPAC official Rebecca Mansour appeared on The Tammy Bruce Show to push back against suggestions that Palin’s much-derided “crosshair” map is somehow connected to the tragedy. In the process, though, she claimed that the symbols on the graphic were never intended to evoke gunsights, but rather, “surveyors symbols.”
Regardless of the graphic’s relevance to last weekend’s shooting, Mansour’s claim is belied by a November tweet from Palin, which read “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)” (h/t Teresa Kopec & Lucian Dixon)
An aide to Sarah Palin said images of cross-hairs were never meant to evoke violence, in the Palin camp’s first extended comment on yesterday’s attack.
” We have nothing whatsoever to do with this,” Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. ”We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” she said, suggesting that it is a “surveyor’s symbol.”
There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.
She called attempts to link Palin to the violence “obscene” and “appalling,” and said she was “disgusted” with the politicization.
“We can’t ban the words ‘targeted swing districts’ from the English language,” she said. “We did nothing wrong here.”
To be clear, the host of the show, Tammy Bruce, volunteered the “surveyor’s symbol” term, and Mansour concurred.
Mansour is correct to say that the map isn’t to blame for the shooting, and that attempts to score political points even as the tragedy unfolded were reprehensible.
However, the notion that these symbols were “crosshairs, like you’d see on a map” is ridiculous on it’s face. There may be a map somewhere that uses crosshairs in lieu of flags, pushpins, or even bullseyes, but Palin’s is the only one I’ve ever seen. Further complicating the claim, though, is Palin’s own acknowledgement of the imagery in that tweet.
Even if bloggers on the left had not pushed the blame on Palin in the early hours of this story, the media was bound to have this conversation anyway, by virtue of Gabrielle Giffords’ own indictment of the map on MSNBC in March.
As Laura Martin points out, though, Palin offered her own eerily prescient argument in March. In a Facebook post, she illustrated the degree to which violent imagery pervades popular speech with a rant about the NCAA’s Final Four. The merits of her argument are debatable, but it’s certainly more honest than Mansour’s “surveyor’s symbol” explanation.
I happen to agree with Palin’s overall point, that you can’t simply police speech using a “violence=bad” equation. Where we part ways, though, is in whether her map crossed the line into irresponsibility. The use of “targeting” terminology is commonplace in political talk, as Chuck Todd pointed out to Giffords in March, and many conservatives also point to the use of bullseyes in Democratic maps to defend Palin. While this tragedy has people reevaluating their use, Palin’s “crosshair” map is a degree or two worse.
A bullseye is commonly associated with target practice, and as such, the bullseye itself is the inert, nonliving target. Crosshairs, on the other hand, represent the mechanism by which a target is acquired and killed. It is also an image that resonates in popular culture through countless repetitions, in films and television shows, of the assassin’s POV shot. That the intent was to evoke something like a bullseye (only way tougher), and not the spectre of assassination, is an obvious, yet moot, point. Once that reasonable objection was raised, the image should have been abandoned. The fact that such a move would have done nothing to sate Palin’s critics, and likely would have amplified the din, might have been a factor in Palin’s decision not to, but it would have been the right thing to do.
That she didn’t, and that this refusal has come back to haunt Palin, doesn’t mean that she’s in any way to blame for yesterday’s tragedy. However, Geraldo Rivera is probably correct when he says that Palin will pay a price for this, politically. The coincidence has amplified a poor decision, and this even poorer attempt at evasion only exacerbates that.
Friday, January 21, 2011
More on the Wing-Nuts
Amid a growing backlash spurred by Arizona’s mass shooting, SarahPAC official Rebecca Mansour appeared on The Tammy Bruce Show to push back against suggestions that Palin’s much-derided “crosshair” map is somehow connected to the tragedy. In the process, though, she claimed that the symbols on the graphic were never intended to evoke gunsights, but rather, “surveyors symbols.”
Regardless of the graphic’s relevance to last weekend’s shooting, Mansour’s claim is belied by a November tweet from Palin, which read “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)” (h/t Teresa Kopec & Lucian Dixon)
An aide to Sarah Palin said images of cross-hairs were never meant to evoke violence, in the Palin camp’s first extended comment on yesterday’s attack.
” We have nothing whatsoever to do with this,” Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. ”We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” she said, suggesting that it is a “surveyor’s symbol.”
There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.
She called attempts to link Palin to the violence “obscene” and “appalling,” and said she was “disgusted” with the politicization.
“We can’t ban the words ‘targeted swing districts’ from the English language,” she said. “We did nothing wrong here.”
To be clear, the host of the show, Tammy Bruce, volunteered the “surveyor’s symbol” term, and Mansour concurred.
Mansour is correct to say that the map isn’t to blame for the shooting, and that attempts to score political points even as the tragedy unfolded were reprehensible.
However, the notion that these symbols were “crosshairs, like you’d see on a map” is ridiculous on it’s face. There may be a map somewhere that uses crosshairs in lieu of flags, pushpins, or even bullseyes, but Palin’s is the only one I’ve ever seen. Further complicating the claim, though, is Palin’s own acknowledgement of the imagery in that tweet.
Even if bloggers on the left had not pushed the blame on Palin in the early hours of this story, the media was bound to have this conversation anyway, by virtue of Gabrielle Giffords’ own indictment of the map on MSNBC in March.
As Laura Martin points out, though, Palin offered her own eerily prescient argument in March. In a Facebook post, she illustrated the degree to which violent imagery pervades popular speech with a rant about the NCAA’s Final Four. The merits of her argument are debatable, but it’s certainly more honest than Mansour’s “surveyor’s symbol” explanation.
I happen to agree with Palin’s overall point, that you can’t simply police speech using a “violence=bad” equation. Where we part ways, though, is in whether her map crossed the line into irresponsibility. The use of “targeting” terminology is commonplace in political talk, as Chuck Todd pointed out to Giffords in March, and many conservatives also point to the use of bullseyes in Democratic maps to defend Palin. While this tragedy has people reevaluating their use, Palin’s “crosshair” map is a degree or two worse.
A bullseye is commonly associated with target practice, and as such, the bullseye itself is the inert, nonliving target. Crosshairs, on the other hand, represent the mechanism by which a target is acquired and killed. It is also an image that resonates in popular culture through countless repetitions, in films and television shows, of the assassin’s POV shot. That the intent was to evoke something like a bullseye (only way tougher), and not the spectre of assassination, is an obvious, yet moot, point. Once that reasonable objection was raised, the image should have been abandoned. The fact that such a move would have done nothing to sate Palin’s critics, and likely would have amplified the din, might have been a factor in Palin’s decision not to, but it would have been the right thing to do.
That she didn’t, and that this refusal has come back to haunt Palin, doesn’t mean that she’s in any way to blame for yesterday’s tragedy. However, Geraldo Rivera is probably correct when he says that Palin will pay a price for this, politically. The coincidence has amplified a poor decision, and this even poorer attempt at evasion only exacerbates that.
Regardless of the graphic’s relevance to last weekend’s shooting, Mansour’s claim is belied by a November tweet from Palin, which read “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin’ incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T’aint bad)” (h/t Teresa Kopec & Lucian Dixon)
An aide to Sarah Palin said images of cross-hairs were never meant to evoke violence, in the Palin camp’s first extended comment on yesterday’s attack.
” We have nothing whatsoever to do with this,” Palin aide. Rebecca Mansour told the talk radio host Tammy Bruce in an interview. ”We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights. It was simply cross-hairs like you’d see on maps,” she said, suggesting that it is a “surveyor’s symbol.”
There is “nothing irresponsible about our graphic,” she said.
She called attempts to link Palin to the violence “obscene” and “appalling,” and said she was “disgusted” with the politicization.
“We can’t ban the words ‘targeted swing districts’ from the English language,” she said. “We did nothing wrong here.”
To be clear, the host of the show, Tammy Bruce, volunteered the “surveyor’s symbol” term, and Mansour concurred.
Mansour is correct to say that the map isn’t to blame for the shooting, and that attempts to score political points even as the tragedy unfolded were reprehensible.
However, the notion that these symbols were “crosshairs, like you’d see on a map” is ridiculous on it’s face. There may be a map somewhere that uses crosshairs in lieu of flags, pushpins, or even bullseyes, but Palin’s is the only one I’ve ever seen. Further complicating the claim, though, is Palin’s own acknowledgement of the imagery in that tweet.
Even if bloggers on the left had not pushed the blame on Palin in the early hours of this story, the media was bound to have this conversation anyway, by virtue of Gabrielle Giffords’ own indictment of the map on MSNBC in March.
As Laura Martin points out, though, Palin offered her own eerily prescient argument in March. In a Facebook post, she illustrated the degree to which violent imagery pervades popular speech with a rant about the NCAA’s Final Four. The merits of her argument are debatable, but it’s certainly more honest than Mansour’s “surveyor’s symbol” explanation.
I happen to agree with Palin’s overall point, that you can’t simply police speech using a “violence=bad” equation. Where we part ways, though, is in whether her map crossed the line into irresponsibility. The use of “targeting” terminology is commonplace in political talk, as Chuck Todd pointed out to Giffords in March, and many conservatives also point to the use of bullseyes in Democratic maps to defend Palin. While this tragedy has people reevaluating their use, Palin’s “crosshair” map is a degree or two worse.
A bullseye is commonly associated with target practice, and as such, the bullseye itself is the inert, nonliving target. Crosshairs, on the other hand, represent the mechanism by which a target is acquired and killed. It is also an image that resonates in popular culture through countless repetitions, in films and television shows, of the assassin’s POV shot. That the intent was to evoke something like a bullseye (only way tougher), and not the spectre of assassination, is an obvious, yet moot, point. Once that reasonable objection was raised, the image should have been abandoned. The fact that such a move would have done nothing to sate Palin’s critics, and likely would have amplified the din, might have been a factor in Palin’s decision not to, but it would have been the right thing to do.
That she didn’t, and that this refusal has come back to haunt Palin, doesn’t mean that she’s in any way to blame for yesterday’s tragedy. However, Geraldo Rivera is probably correct when he says that Palin will pay a price for this, politically. The coincidence has amplified a poor decision, and this even poorer attempt at evasion only exacerbates that.
Straight Shooter Limbaugh
This Billboard is an example of how far we can take our freedom of speech. We can walk away from a speech and not listen to it, but that freedom is on a billboard for Arizona to see is beyond my comprehension. This is using that freedom to say that Rush Limbaugh, is a straight shooter. My interpetation of this wording is the deranged was not a straight shooter, but that Rush is. As I said we can ignore a speech, my question is how can you avoid reading the disgusting wording on this sign. It is like putting salt on a wound. It does not matter what political party we agree with. It is garbage like this that we should all be against.
Rush Limbaugh's totally inappropriate billboard stirs outrage
Bullet images in the aftermath of a tragic shooting rampage
This image of a billboard made its way around the internet this morning. Originally uploaded on Tuesday, the photo was purportedly taken near the scene of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the image is old. Or not in Tucson area. Or Photoshopped. ( Who are we kidding?) The radio station featured in the lower righthand corner -- KNST, indeed a Tucson based AM news station -- is likely responsible for the now (very) inappropriate artwork.
Straight Shooter Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh's totally inappropriate billboard stirs outrage
Bullet images in the aftermath of a tragic shooting rampage
This image of a billboard made its way around the internet this morning. Originally uploaded on Tuesday, the photo was purportedly taken near the scene of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona.
Of course, it's entirely possible that the image is old. Or not in Tucson area. Or Photoshopped. ( Who are we kidding?) The radio station featured in the lower righthand corner -- KNST, indeed a Tucson based AM news station -- is likely responsible for the now (very) inappropriate artwork.
Straight Shooter Limbaugh
Evil Amongst Us
As with all origins and nationalities, not all Islamic people are terrorist, like not all Mexicans are engaged in Drug Cartels. Terrorist come from all over the world including our own Domestic Terrorist. we are fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not, started by an Islamic few who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?
Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from the capitol of the USA and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of a nation they are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East, start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which, is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .. I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head, while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan , come out and fight like men, instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana, care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories, is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home, to hear about them when something happens. In the meantime, when I hear a story about an American soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:
I don't care. [shoot him again] When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food, that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe, in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it,
I don't care!!
'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering, if during their life on earth, they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.'
I have another quote that I would like to share.
One last thought for the day:
Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for us:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The British Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for our soul, the other four, for our freedom.
Fred Herrera
Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from the capitol of the USA and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of a nation they are fighting against in a brutal insurgency.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East, start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere belief of which, is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan .. I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head, while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan , come out and fight like men, instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques and behind women and children. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana, care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories, is more important than the lives of the soldiers on the ground or their families waiting at home, to hear about them when something happens. In the meantime, when I hear a story about an American soldier roughing up an Insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank:
I don't care. [shoot him again] When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food, that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe, in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it,
I don't care!!
'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering, if during their life on earth, they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers don't have that problem.'
I have another quote that I would like to share.
One last thought for the day:
Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for us:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American Soldier.
3. The Canadian Soldier.
4. The British Soldier, and
5. The Australian Soldier
One died for our soul, the other four, for our freedom.
Fred Herrera
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)