Sarah Palin: Political Speech Can Cause Violence

I just got 'round to reading this blog on Palin's speech and I'm glad to see that someone else picked up on how Sarah Palin can't get through a short speech without completely contradicting herself on the central issue of that speech. This one made my eyes spin around their sockets. I mean... huh?

At no other point in her address were Beck's phony-baloney, maudlin dramatics more apparent than when she accused the press of inciting violence against her: "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."

So when a public figure says something incendiary on television, it can trigger violence, and, therefore, public figures should be careful about their language. Let that be a warning, Keith Olbermann. No recommendations for "Second Amendment remedies" to our problems. And chill out, Arianna Huffington, with anything resembling the word "reload." Sarah Palin said that words can motivate people to commit violence. So cut the crap.

Except she doesn't believe that. How do we know? She said so in the very same presentation: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."

That's a direct contradiction. We can only gather that, in her opinion, words are and are not responsible for inciting violence. Confused?

I guess words or are only dangerous if she's the potential victim (more of her narcissism). But she has no ability to cause anything with her rhetoric... and that's what makes her a political leader who should be taken seriously in a presidential run... the fact that she's completely ineffectual... (???)

Loughner's Politics

Regarding Andrew Sullivan's post here, I don't see how anyone can say that the Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner was apolitical. It's a convenient meme for putting distance between his actions and a toxic, political climate fueled by violent rhetoric. Sarah "crosshairs map" Palin used that talking point in her weird, "blood libel" invoking fireside chat.

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal.

Lougher's apparent mental illness makes it all too easy to dismiss what he was saying because of how he was saying it. Well I looked at his YouTube account the day of the incident. As disordered as his thinking and language is, it's clearly political. Just because it doesn't accord with any consistent, political philosophy that would be apparent to policy wonks inside the beltway, doesn't make it apolitical. It's quite explicitly political. Aside from his own rambling text videos, in which he takes on things like the monetary system and government control, there's the issue of the one and only favorite video America: Your Last Memory In A Terrorist Country! That video is posted by someone called Starhitshnaz who has a profile that looks exactly like Loughner's. I tend to think it's him. Whether it is or isn't, that this chilling video is his only favorite indicates an identification with a very angry, anti-government, political viewpoint.

Republicans in the Crosshairs

Appearing at The Jaundiced Eye, the Independent Bloggers' Alliance, and My Left Wing.

Jesse Kelly Violating Military Regulations

It's not just Democrats who are scared after the assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords that left six others dead. A number of Arizona Republicans have resigned for fear of Tea Party violence directed at them for being RINOs. I think Jesse Kelly (see photo), who was narrowly defeated by Giffords, makes it clear what Arizona Tea Partiers think of RINOs. The primary target? Anthony Miller, a former McCain campaign staffer and the first and only African-American to hold the chairmanship for his Arizona district. This has netted him the moniker "McCain's boy."

A nasty battle between factions of Legislative District 20 Republicans and fears that it could turn violent in the wake of what happened in Tucson on Saturday prompted District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others to resign.

Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.

. . .

The newly-elected Dist. 20 Republican secretary, Sophia Johnson of Ahwatukee, first vice chairman Roger Dickinson of Tempe and Jeff Kolb, the former district spokesman from Ahwatukee, also quit. "This singular focus on 'getting' Anthony (Miller) was one of the main reasons I chose to resign," Kolb said in an e-mail to another party activist. Kolb confirmed the contents of the e-mail to the Republic.

. . .

"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."

So what's the margin of error?

In fact, the jobless rate is calculated based on survey data, not the unemployment insurance rolls. Roughly one-third of the nearly 15 million unemployed are not receiving benefits in the first place.

"Each month the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households," Steinberg said in an email. "Each household provides labor force information on each member of the household. Everyone unemployed is counted as unemployed, no matter how long they have been unemployed. The survey does not ask about unemployment insurance benefits."

. . .

"Respondents are never asked specifically if they are unemployed, nor are they given an opportunity to decide their own labor force status," according to the BLS website. "Similarly, interviewers do not decide the respondents' labor force classification. They simply ask the questions in the prescribed way and record the answers. Based on information collected in the survey and definitions programmed into the computer, individuals are then classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force."

If the unemployme­nt number is based on what amounts polling, what is the margin of error? And couldn't that margin of error account for the fractions of a percent that change from month to month? Did the unemployme­nt rate really go down .4 percent last month or is that just variabilit­y in polling data?
It's based SURVEYS?!! Now I trust that number less than ever.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost