Sunday, January 9, 2011

KOS Bulls Eye vs. Palin's Cross Hairs on Gabrielle Giffords

The conservatives have scored a hard counterpunch in the blame game about the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. On this right wing site, you will find out that Daily Kos, a left wing website, had previously put a bulls eye on Gabrielle Giffords, long before Sarah Palin put a "Surveyor's Target" on her.

In my opinion, Sarah Palin's rhetoric was far more inflammatory than KOS, if that counts for anything. It was quite a stretch to compare the KOS article to gunplay. There was a huge difference between the Daily KOS Bullseye and Sarah Palin's. I'm going to list some of the differences here, if only for people with am interest in propaganda.

Sarah was talking of an opponent, not a friend or an ally, like KOS was.

Daily KOS never had an actual graphic of a bulls eye. It was the right wingers who faked up a bullseye graphic to make KOS look bad. Here's the original for comparison:

Without the picture of a bulls eye, the words bulls eye also happen to mean "the precise accomplishment of a goal or purpose". In context, it was pretty obvious that this was the intended meaning for KOS.'s+eye

Daily KOS didn't use gunplay related slogans like Palin did with "Don't retreat, reload".

Everybody knew those were crosshairs long before the shooting. Even though after the shooting, Sarah's camp said the crosshairs were actually a "surveyor's scope". But Sarah earlier tweeted about her crosshairs icon, calling them a "bullseye" on Nov. 4th. Is it worth mentioning the difference? See the picture: Cross hairs are see-through, and are used to aim at the target, a bulls eye cannot be seen through, and it is the target. Anyway, she should know the difference between the target and the sight.

Tea partiers often bring loaded guns to political rallies, and use the language of guns in their rhetoric all the time. Liberals are usually unarmed at political rallies. The reference to guns on Palin's web entry was obvious to all.

Gabrielle herself said long before she was shot, that there would be consequences of being in Palin's crosshairs. Gabrielle did not mention the KOS "bulls eye", either was not aware of it or apparently did not consider it to be threatening or intimidating.

On "The View", right wing supporter Elisabeth Hasselbeck called Palin's crosshairs despicable long before the shooting.

Maybe I could find a few more comparisons, but does it make any difference. This is not a debate. It's a propaganda war, and most of the heavy artillery is on the right wing side (to use a violent military metaphor.)

The right wing Christians (who back Sarah Palin) have been able to accomplish the amazing (to me) feat of twisting Jesus's words around to make him into a warmonger. By comparison this little shooting should be easy for them to turn around until the Democrats are back on the defensive.

Picture: Which is the bulls eye, which are the cross hairs? And which are best for targeting someone? We should also remember that Jesus wants us to kill Bin Laden, not Gabrielle Giffords, which is why Canada sent it's troops to Afghanistan and not Arizona.


  1. Turned Jesus into a warmonger?
    Oh wow.
    Can you cite an example?

    I'll agree with you that this has become a propaganda war, but it's gonna be awfully hard to beat this statement in that war, wouldn't you agree?

    I fear we're beyond dialogue. I personally have given up trying to get lefties to answer questions they either ignore or turn into a question I didn't ask in the first place.
    As a country we are in very, VERY dangerous territory here.

  2. In the final analysis, it all comes down to the fact that the U.S. is a violent nation. In both interpersonal as well as international relations, Americans are quick to resort to violence.

    'Symbols' such as bulls eyes and cross hairs are integral cultural components and all too often we see comments that are tantamount to, 'They do not agree with us and they deserve to be whacked.'

    In that context, the anger, hatred and vitriol in U.S. politics, inflamed by the extremist rhetoric of some American politicians, is bound to influence other disordered minds to act out, as Loughner has.

  3. To try to pin this deranged soul's attack on the right is disingenuous. His friends and classmates who probably knew him best call him a "Liberal Pothead". But you won't see me trying to say Liberal hate-speech was the cause of his going off the deep end here.

    I'm continually amazed at how the left conveniently forgets their behavior. During President Bush's tenure we had radio talk show hosts actually calling for him to be shot... with no investigation. There was a movie produced that actually suggested he be assassinated... "Death of a President" that was hailed as art and protected by free speech.
    And you know what? I agree. People ought to be able to say what they want, so long as they are also willing to suffer the consequences.
    But for eight years conservatives had to stand by listening to the most vile, horrible, and often untrue crap coming from the other side that it frankly knocks me out to now see the left try to pin this anarchist's attack on the "Right wing".

    Now Madeye, I have asked you for a citation showing "Christian" rhetoric turning Jesus into a warmonger. You've made a very strong accusation there. I'd like to read or hear a reference. (I'm being somewhat facetious here... anyone using that kind of rhetoric is no true Christian, obviously.)
    But like Bush during his tenure, Christians now seem to be the easy "target" (Ha!) for hate speech and disinformation, don't they?
    We can take it.
    Give me a credible citation, please.

  4. A sampler of lefty hate for your edification.
    Can you even begin to equal the terrible things on that list?

    If your intent is truly to "tone down the hate speech", good for you.
    But I take umbrage at your insinuation that this is totally a conservative problem. Conservatives cannot even come close to the vitriol from the left.

  5. Now, now, Greybeard ... I neither accused Jesus of being a warmonger, nor did I blame Loughner's attack on 'the right.'

    The first point you'll have to take up with the blogger - it was his contention, and I'll let him speak for himself.

    As far as the second point (Loughner's attack) my observation was simply that the U.S. is a 'violent society' - difficult to argue with that, I should think.

    And, in the context of that general social condition, rather than acting responsibly, as one would expect of one's elected officials, too many fall victim to the temptation to indulge in extreme rhetoric.

    Your 'Lefty Hate' link is all very interesting, but none of that is relevant to my thesis that too many American politicians resort to extreme rhetoric. In fairness, I suppose, I should also have linked examples from the 'left' (certainly not unknown on the part of Democratic Congressional members) but examples of extreme speech on the part of Republican members was simply easier to find ;-)

  6. I'm sorry. I thought this quote,
    "The right wing Christians (who back Sarah Palin) have been able to accomplish the amazing (to me) feat of twisting Jesus's words around to make him into a warmonger..." was under your authorship, Madeye.
    If that's not the case, please accept my apology. Who IS the author" 'Cause methinks they stepped one step too far.

  7. No, Greybeard, I remain, just like yourself, simply another commenter on this blog entry.

    You'll have to debate that 'feat of twisting Jesus's words' passage with The Lost Motorcyclist himself ;-)  

  8. I admit it, am the author, also the writer of this blog. Hope my pace is not too slow for you, as I actually took a lot of time answering your comment, and just have completed now. I decided to put it in a new blog entry, as recently I was having a lot of problems with links in my comments.

    So check my latest blog entry

    Examples of Twisting Jesus Words

  9. You make a valid point, that not all crazies are on the right. And you may be surprised to know that I have written a blog on December 15, 2009 with that exact same title.

    Not All Crazies are on the Right

    So does that mean I agree with you, or that you agree with me?

    I am not questioning any of them, but I have never before heard of any of the "LEFTY HATE" examples you linked to coming from Michelle Malkin's site. No, I cannot match the extremism and repulsiveness of those examples. But I am not really trying to find out who has committed the most disgusting repulsive acts.

    I am just an ordinary middle of the road guy who does not look for extreme repulsiveness on purpose. I'm not saying that you are doing that, you are probably just trying to defend the right against these accusations of violent rhetoric, by showing that the left does exactly the same thing. And if nobody on the left had tried to politicise this tragedy, you would not have needed to give the example of all those insane left wingers to help give us a balanced point of view.

    But this only the latest one of a number of murders of liberals and Democrats that (so far) have gone unanswered by the left wing crazies. So I think it is understandable that the liberals and Democrats are starting to worry that this is turning into a one sided game of veiled death threats being played by at least one well known right wing public figure. The one I heard about is Sarah Palin, and I think she realizes her mistake now, probably wishes she could take that back. Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would have been too experienced or smart to stumble into that trap.

    I don't expect it's possible to get every American to tone down their rhetoric. But it should be possible among responsible, highly paid, well known, and well respected members of society. Like Sarah Palin for example, and if some Democrats have made veiled death threats, they should stop too, it's just dumb.