There Art Thou!

Before reading my rant(s) concerning a certain political wannabe and the horrible events of late in Arizona, please:

acquaint yourself with the victims by clicking here.

Now, let's see what Bristol's mom had to say about the shooting she may or may not have inspired with her website content which suggested people dust off the heavy artillery and bust some caps in some Democrats' asses.

From Mrs. Palin's statement, delivered not during a press conference or involving the [liberal gotcha!] media but via her Facebook page in front of a fireplace and what appears to be a cardboard cutout of a waving American flag (oh, the symbolism):

journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.

Well, Sarah, what's reprehensible is that YOU issue language which incites hatred and violence. I'll laugh atcha later for pronouncing the word pundits as "pundints" - maybe Webster missed the silent N later in the word, you hopeless DUNCE. But we digress, dummy... now let's talk about the term you used, "blood libel." Really? That's how you choose to describe how journalists and "pundints" have responded to your possible role in this shooting and your certain role in molding the psyche of millions of America's lowest common denominator? I'll let the New York Times take this one, as published pretty f&*%ing immediately after SP's Facebook-issued public statement:

Blood libel is typically used to describe the false accusation that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals, in particular the baking of matzos for passover. The term, which is centuries old, referred to anti-Semitism and violent pogroms against Jews, and her use of the phrase itself has caused the video to go viral, attracting criticism of her description of the controversy. Ms. Giffords, who remains in critical condition in a Tucson hospital, is Jewish.

Oh my. Okay. Sarah really screwed the pooch with that reference. I don't love deferring the commentary, but I have some really smart, well-learned and quick-witted friends, so please allow me to step aside and let my college buddy Ray take this one:

For all the journalists just learning today what "blood libel" means, it's *not* that the blood was used to make Passover matzoh. It was for Haman pockets at Purim. I mean, come on. Matzoh aren't even red.

Ray was recalling his 411 from his near-conversion as a younger adult. Someone else tweaks it a little bit here:

Ray, you're incorrect. The most popular 20th century variation on the blood libel is called "Matzah of Zion," not "Hamentashen of Zion." Anti-Semitic slurs aren't supposed to make sense.

Let's not get too far off track. More from Sarah, who said the shootings

begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state. Not with those who listen to talk radio. Not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle. Not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies. Not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

Respectfully? Proudly? Oh yeah! I Google Imaged "tea party spelling" and here's a handful of highlights from the first page of results:











In related news:
Speaking of herself, Sharron Angle (R-NV) says it is "irresponsible," "dangerous and ignorant" to point out she recommended, twice, "Second Amendment Remedies" in Congress, and once said they were needed to replace her opponent Harry Reid.

Joyce Kaufman says it is "Duplicitous" to point out that she said "If ballots don’t work, bullets will" during the last election.

Funny, when I hear this part of Palin's shot-heard-'round-the-world Facebook video "statement" I instinctively hear it in Tina Fey's voice:

“We will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults."

Hell, rather than ending on a snarky or sarcastic note as I so often do, here's Palin's video, may it speak for itself.

Oh Bible Spice, Where Art Thou?

Three days ago (from MSNBC):

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was shot in the head and an unknown number of others were injured Saturday when an assailant sprayed bullets into an area where the lawmaker was meeting with constituents, congressional officials said. Officials said one victim died soon after the attack, and others were taken to a nearby hospital. They identified the victim as an aide to the congresswoman. There were conflicting reports on whether Giffords had died.

The officials said those injured included several of Gifford's aides who were with her at the time. The officials who described the events did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not permitted to comment publicly. FBI officials and local law enforcement were investigating the attack, which took place while Giffords was greeting constituents outside a Safeway grocery store. Giffords, who was re-elected to her third term in November, was hosting her first "Congress on Your Corner" event in northwest Tucson, NPR reported.

Giffords, 40, is married to U.S. astronaut Mark Kelly. She took office in January 2007, emphasizing issues such as immigration reform, embryonic stem-cell research, alternative energy sources and a higher minimum wage. In November, she edged a tea party favorite. The Arizona politician's office had been vandalized last March just hours after the House vote overhauling the health care system, The New York Times reported.

From Sarah Palin's website TakeBackThe20.com (don't look for it, it has been taken down), the map below appeared with the language "Help us prescribe a 2nd Amendment solution." Note the gun targets on districts with Democrats retiring or up for reelection. Giffords was one of these Democrats and one of the few who won their race.



There's also this, from Jesse Kelly, the Republican candidate running against her:


Federal Judge John M. Roll, and a 9 year-old girl born in 9/11/2001 were among those who were shot and have been reported dead.



AP News is reporting that Giffords thought something like this could happen: "For example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize that there are consequences to that action."

Naturally, the political Right is insisting we don't politicize this tragedy. However, as the Right politicizes EVERYTHING, they have no place asking that the fallout from this incident not be politicized just because that would suit them. These are the people who have their base believing that the centrist policies of the Obama administration are in reality Socialism, the media is liberal, the liberals are coming to take away your Bibles and guns... they can get fucked and take the hit here. The Right created the Tea Party, and now it has spun out of control. I'd like to have seen where blame would have been partitioned if the gunman had been an Arab and the gun target map had been on an al-Qaeda website. I imagine the reaction from the right would be pretty measured.

The shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, is a deranged white guy in his early twenties who has posted all kinds of wackadoodle stuff on YouTube and myspace covering such topics as terrorism, flag-burning, the literacy problem in his county, and his theory that the government "uses grammar for mind control." I won't give much space here for the maniac, but as my friend Tom described him: "Too crazy for the Army, too crazy for college, not too crazy to buy a gun." Perhaps owning a gun should be a privilege and not a right. Maybe a little background check could be inserted into the acquisition process? This dude walked into a gun shop and bought a glock, then into a Wal-Mart where he bought a bunch of ammo, then walked into a Safeway and shot a bunch of people. If you'd like to see just how crazy this guy is, you can check out his YouTube channel right here.

Whether or not you perceive links between Sarah Palin's rhetoric and the murders, that she spent all day airbrushing her various websites and has not issued a statement in the three days since the shooting suggests maybe she does.

Palin is not an elected official, but she decidedly participates in the national debate on every topic and she has millions of followers. She gets to wax on about all matters of public policy, she even gave Obama a report card after his first year. Now some heat comes her way and suddenly the incurable case of diarrhea of the mouth has passed, and for the first time since the angry bridge troll tapped her on the shoulder for his presidential run, the most dangerous place in America is no longer anywhere between her mug and a camera or a microphone. How convenient for Sarah Six Pack.

As the Right is so good at framing public discourse by controlling the language, Palin - the great inventor of such fluffy terms as "death panels" and "anchor babies" - most often describes Democratic policy as "reckless and irresponsible." If those words apply (says she) to a tax plan or public health care option, which words would most appropriately apply to the language and images on her website which may or may not have directly inspired this shooting? (at this point, we don't know, but I think we'll all agree her material doesn't exactly inspire anyone to help an old lady across the street, either). She didn't shoot anyone, and she didn't explicitly instruct anyone to. But the gun target icons and "it's time for some 2nd Amendment remedies" make her culpable to some degree. The least she can do is accept her responsibilities as a person from whom millions of people - albeit lowest common denominator mental defectives - take their cues. If your first instinct after hearing about a tragedy is to scrub your websites, there just may be something wrong with you, your political movement, and your message.

There being a silver lining to any cloud, maybe Sarah Palin will go away and stay away.

At least the local church is weighing in with some thoughtful ideas:

Playoffs?

Below, mostly an email I sent to my uncle Rob, a true intellectual and 5-star participant of discussion on virtually any subject. This post is about NFL football, particularly this weekend's playoff games.

Preface
My favorite teams:
1. Pats - born & raised in New England
1.a Bears- lived in Chicago from '94-'04
distant 3rd... Seahawks - lived here since '04

The Seattle Seahawks won the NFC West division with a 7-9 overall record, making them the first team since the 1967 AFL-NFL merger in a full season to reach the playoffs with a losing record (in the 1982 strike year, the Browns and Lions each got in with 4-5 records). Football fans everywhere seem to have a pretty serious beef regarding a 7-9 team advancing to the post-season. Get over it, Sallies. Nobody is 7-9. Everyone is 0-0. Here are my thoughts:

7-9
Winning the division has to count for something, period. In my opinion, that includes hosting a playoff game. That a team with a losing record has made the playoffs for the first time after 43 years, I'll say the system works. When it happens, I say let 'em play.

In Related News:
35 years ago, nobody believed in the Wild Card, but the '80 Raiders won the Super Bowl and so did the '97 Broncos, '00 Ravens, '05 Steelers and '07 Giants.

In 2010, Seattle won the NFC West, the universally-considered weakest division, that which of the league's 8 divisions and NFC's 4 divisions has sent a Super Bowl team in 2 of the last 5 years.

Every division ends up a cumulative .500 within itself. So, how do these divisions do against others?

Compare the Seahawks' 7-9 record to the 2010 aggregate out-of-conference records:
NFC West: 7-9
NFC East: 9-7
NFC North: 9-7
NFC South: 7-9
AFC East: 9-7
AFC North: 9-7
AFC West: 9-7
AFC South: 7-9

Big difference? Nope.

Don't forget while the Seahawks don't seem to pass the "eyeball test" because they don't make the ESPN highlight reel too often and don't play a particularly sexy brand of football, they did beat the 11-5, NFC North champs and 2-seed Bears at Soldier Field. At New Orleans, they lost by 15 but were in it until the last 3-4 minutes. They lost to a 10-6 Giants team which at the time was considered by most the League's best. According to the NFL Network, the Seahawks played the 2nd toughest schedule in the League, which is probably based on the cumulative win-loss record of its opponents.

Pete Carrol?
The Seahawks went 5-11 last year with rookie head coach Jim Mora Jr., and 4-12 the year before with likely first-ballot Hall of Fame head coach Mike Holmgren. When Pete came into Seattle, he opened every position to competition, including that of longtime incumbent QB Matt Hasselbeck, who was healthy for the do-or-die season finale which determined the team's playoff fate, but Pete started unproven back-up Charlie Whitehurst mostly because he'd taken the snaps with the first team all week in practice. He has created a college environment and I like that. He still refers to the team as a program (collegiate nomenclature) and not an organization (NFL).

This weekend:
Saints RBs Thomas + Ivory are out, much of their team (including Colston) is playing hurt, Seattle's run D has been GREAT all year, pass D is average but big-play oriented (more INTs than most - veteran and Pats alum Lawyer Milloy is like a player-coach and mentor to stud rookie Earl Thomas who has 5 picks - though they tend to give up 2-3 big plays per game and that could be a game-breaker for Seattle). Given NO's RB injuries, Seattle can run nickle and dime packages all day without the ground threat. Reggie Bush will have 2 or 3 big gains for 10-20 yards, but he can't pound the rock all day (sissy that he is), he's not a possession back and wouldn't scare me unless I was a dark-skinned fat chick with fake lips.

Prediction? Pain!
I'm not saying Seattle will win, though I think they can, but I'd LOVE to see these unlikely and disrespected guys make a run of it. The Saints laid an egg in their season finale which could mean they got the bad football out of their system, or could mean they don't have that special element in the tank (as they did last year) because that game could have won them home field advantage throughout the playoffs, it meant a lot and they blew it. If they couldn't do it then - albeit against a very good Atlanta team and in a familiar dome setting - what says they can do it on a cold and rainy Seattle day (the forecast calls for rain and snow showers at 43 degrees F) with the loudest fans in football where the visiting team averages more than 2 false starts per game, highest in the league?

How About a Likable Underdog?
More than half of Seattle's roster and starters were not here last year, and some guys who get a lot of playing time were picked up during this season (RB Marshawn Lynch came from Buffalo in October, and they grabbed an aging WR Brandon Stokley who'd been cut by the Broncos in late September). One guy (WR Mike Williams) had been out of football for 2 years and had ballooned up to 300 lbs when Carrol called him in the off-season and told him if he could show up at a certain weight, he'd give him a shot in training camp. With the regular season in the books, Williams led the team in receptions and receiving yards and last week signed a 3-year extension. The Seahawks have no Pro Bowlers, no name-brand players, have not played on Monday Night Football since 2007, only one Hall of Famer in the team's history (Steve Largent, though Walter Jones who retired last year is a guaranteed first-ballot inductee, one of the best offensive tackles in history), and I'd bet they don't have more than 5 or 6 guys who would be starters on more than half the teams in the league. The offensive line has been assembled in ten different combinations due to injuries, and the proper starting line has only played six games together. Anyone who likes to root for a spirited underdog can find their team right here. Plus, Lawyer Milloy is 127 in football years and has had a great season.

YOU HEARD ME!

In other games:
Green Bay over Philly - I will never root for a team with Michael Vick on its roster, but I think the Packers will win anyway. Philly's offensive weapons are banged up and can't handle what Clay Matthews & Co. are serving up. The Eagles' can't deal with that disruptive front, and Aaron Rodgers w/ his awesome WRs will dissect the Philly D like a frog in 9th grade biology class.
Indy over the Jets - a toss-up, but I'll take Indy because they've been there and I just don't think the Jets have the mettle this year. When it counts, Sanchez doesn't quite have the nuts to be a difference-maker. Santonio is poised but the rest of his team isn't. While I always welcome the possibility of more Rex Ryan on t.v., I think Peyton and his supporting cast will advance.
KC over Baltimore - partly because Baltimore has no karma (Ray Lewis: murderer, no gettin' around that, he can rot with Vick) but I REALLY like Kansas City, a small market team whose fans have been showing up and going bonkers for years, you watch games on t.v. and you just want to be at Arrowhead. I love the ex-Pats Matt Cassel and Mike Vrabel.

A Pats-Bears Super Bowl would make my head explode. It would mean perhaps the first true personification of the old phrase, "can't win for losing." So... how 'bout a Seahawks-Chiefs Super Bowl? It's unlikely, but I'd absolutely love for at least one of 'em to make a run of it.