Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
geoffsebesta: (Default)

^the two sides of Loughner's face, mirrored. I did my best to keep them level, his skull really is that misshapen. The top one corresponds to his right side, or left brain, and the top one is two copies of his left face, which is controlled by the right side of the brain. I find it interesting that the top looks diabolical, and the bottom like a true believer. A dangerous combination.

The question of whether Loughner's attack was "political" or "psychotic" is pointless -- there is no contradiction. What we are seeing is the intrusion of the psychotic into the poltical, at the behest of moneyed interests who believe they can control them.

Obviously I disagree. They've been getting the wrong target nearly every time. Consider Loughner -- he didn't kill Giffords, he did kill a Bush-appointed judge, a couple senior citizens, and a little girl who happened to have been born on September 11th, 2001. The congresswoman's husband was a freaking astronaut. The congresswoman's life was saved by a gay hispanic man. This could not have been a more perfect public relations disaster than if he'd accidentally wiped his ass on a flag on the way out the building. This guy was much more like the shoe bomber than Tim McVeigh, by which I mean he was an absolute imbecile.

The question of whether or not it is irresponsible to incite violence against public figures has been definitively answered. I think reasonable people can consider that debate closed.

The only thing this insane wave of violence is missing is abortion clinic bombings.

The slow-motion coup that the neocons have been brewing for decades has finally come to a boil. It is time to seriously consider what comes next.
Somebody is probably gonna try to kill Obama pretty soon. I hope they fail and disastrously.

Here's Sarah Palin's response to the tragedy in Tucson:

"I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence. Thanks for all you do to send the message of truth and love and God as the answer."

This was on twitter, by the way. I took the time to unjumble this. She hates war and violence. That does not mean she won't engage in it.

"Our children." "Politicos" is a vague group who include whoever she says it includes. "just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying" means if anybody even tries to think about saying someone is responsible, and by "anyone" she of course means herself and the people she chooses, and not some larger value of "anyone" that includes, for example, Loughlin or Bin Laden.

What she is saying there is that if anyone even tries to say she is responsible, "our children will not have peace."

"Thanks for all you DO to SEND THE MESSAGE of truth and love and GOD AS THE ANSWER." Not the message of peace at all. This is actually a direct threat. It's one of the more chilling things I've ever read from a major politician. What she is saying here is that if anyone says she incited this violence, she will incite violence.

So she's going to incite violence the next time something happens that she doesn't like -- at the next "Trigger," if you will. And something is going to happen that she doesn't like sometime soon, you can count on that.


geoffsebesta: (Default)

Most Popular Tags