Re: Palin Holds High Ground Over Harsh and Unfair Critics

I googled Ms. Clinton and got many hits, but that means little.  Shrug.  I
recall her using almost nothing else during her Senate campaign.
 
When she ran for president though I think she switched from Hillary Rodham
Clinton to just Clinton, and the Mrs was more common…I think.  
 
As for me, I take the same road as Mike, Ms is a safe bet almost all of the
time, and if a woman wants to be mrs or miss, she will let you know.
 
 
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Johne Cook
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:16 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Palin Holds High Ground Over Harsh and Unfair Critics
 
If we know the woman is married and her career identity is not threatened by
that relationship, it seems lazy not to acknowledge the fact. Perhaps I'm
sheltered, but I don't recall ever hearing of Hilary being referred to as 'Ms.
Clinton.' I don't see why it is any harder to refer to her as Mrs. Palin. 

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]> wrote:
No, Ms. is commonly accepted as a non marital status way to refer to women.  I
use it all the time regardless of whether I know a woman is married or not,
unless I know the woman prefers Mrs.  
 
 
 
Mike F.  
 
  _____  

From: Johne Cook <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, January 18, 2011 1:07:41 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Palin Holds High Ground Over Harsh and Unfair Critics

There is one thing I disagree with in this post: Sarah Palin is married to Todd
Palin. As I understand it, that makes her Mrs. Palin, not Ms. Palin. Her maiden
name was Heath, but calling her Ms. Heath would be weird, too. If Hilary Clinton
is Mrs. Clinton, Sarah is Mrs. Palin.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com <http://raygunrevival.com/>  |
http://authorculture.blogspot.com <http://authorculture.blogspot.com/>  |


On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Mike Findlay <[email protected]> wrote:
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/palin_defeated_unfair_criti
cs_at_nyt__msnbc_108561.html
January 18, 2011 

Palin Holds High Ground Over Harsh and Unfair Critics

By  <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/?author=Ed+Koch&id=14962> Ed Koch
As I see it, in the current battle for public opinion Sarah Palin has defeated
her harsh and unfair critics.
After the January 8 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the
murder of six others in Tucson, Arizona, some television talking heads and
members of the blogosphere denounced her and held her in part responsible for
creating a climate of hatred that resulted in the mass attacks.

  <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/images/icon_alert.gif> Receive news alerts
Email AddressSign Up 
[          ] 


[ ]Ed Koch
[ ]RealClearPolitics

[ ]Jared Lee Loughner
[ ]Joe Scarborough
An example is Joe Scarborough and his crew on the "Morning Joe" show, which I
watch and generally enjoy every morning at 6:30 a.m. when I rise to start the
day. Because Palin designated Congresswoman Giffords and others for defeat in
the November elections by the use of crosshairs on website maps of the
Congressional districts, they blamed Palin for creating an atmosphere that
caused Jared Loughner (whom everyone now recognizes as being mentally disturbed)
to embark on the shooting and killing spree.
Then reason set in, led by President Obama in his now famous and widely-lauded
speech in Tucson bringing the country together. Most commentators did an
about-face, recognizing that the lack of civility in both speech and actions by
politicians, particularly in Washington, were not the cause of the shootings. A
friend of the shooter said he had no interest in politics or talk radio.
Insanity was the cause of his vicious acts, not political rhetoric.
While the charge of responsibility against Palin was dropped, the Scarborough
crew continued to assail her for defending herself on her website where she
stated that she had been the subject of a blood libel. Her critics were incensed
that she should use the term "blood libel." That was the description given by
Jews to the charge of Christian clergy who falsely accused Jews of killing
Christian children in order to make matzos (unleavened bread) during the
Passover holiday. That libelous accusation was intended by those using it to
cause pogroms that killed and injured thousands of Jews. It started in the early
centuries A.D. and continues to date, according to Wikipedia. That same charge -
blood libel - is now repeated by the media in Arab countries to stir up the
anger of the Arab street against the Jews in Israel. The libel continues to do
damage.
Today the phrase "blood libel" can be used to describe any monstrous defamation
against any person, Jew or non-Jew. It was used by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
when he was falsely accused of permitting the Lebanese Christian militia to kill
hundreds of defenseless and innocent Muslim men, women and children in Lebanese
refugee camps. The killings were monstrous and indefensible revenge for earlier
killings by Muslims of innocent Christian civilians.
Time Magazine published a story implying that Sharon was directly responsible
for the massacres. He sued the magazine. At trial it was determined that the
magazine story included false allegations, but since Sharon was a public figure,
he received no monetary damages.
How dare Sarah Palin, cried the commentators, use that phrase to describe the
criticism of her by those who blamed her for creating the atmosphere that set
Loughner off in his murderous madness. Some took the position that it proved
their ongoing charges that she is not an intelligent person and probably did not
know what the phrase meant historically. In my opinion, she was right to
denounce her critics and use blood libel to describe the unfair criticism that
she had been subject to.
Here are excerpts from her statement:
"Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on
Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the
hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families
as we express our sympathy." 
"Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying
for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then
with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people
attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event."
"Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most
cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to
work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you
don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision.
If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But,
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. That is reprehensible."
"As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very
heated primary race, ‘We know violence isn't the answer. When we take up our
arms, we're talking about our vote.' Yes, our debates are full of passion, but
we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box - as we did
just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next
election, and the next. That's who we are as Americans and how we were meant to
be. Public discourse and debate isn't a sign of crisis, but of our enduring
strength. It is part of why America is exceptional."
Why do I defend Palin in this case? I don't agree with her political philosophy:
She is an arch conservative. I am a liberal with sanity. I know that I am
setting myself up for attack when I ask, why did Emile Zola defend Dreyfus?
Palin is no Dreyfus and I am certainly no Zola. But all of us have an
obligation, particularly those in politics and public office, to denounce, when
we can, the perpetrators of horrendous libels and stand up for those falsely
charged. We should denounce unfair, false and wicked charges not only when they
are made against ourselves, our friends or our political party but against those
with whom we disagree. If we are to truly change the poisonous political
atmosphere that we all complain of, including those who create it, we should
speak up for fairness when we can.
In the 2008 presidential race when Sarah Palin's name was first offered to the
public by John McCain as his running mate, I said at the time that she "scared
the hell out of me." My reference was to the content of her remarks, not to her
power to persuade voters.
It was McCain who lost the presidential election, not Palin. Since that time she
has established that she has enormous power to persuade people. A self-made
woman who rose from PTA mother to Governor of Alaska, she is one of the few
speakers in public life who can fill a stadium. Her books are enormous
successes. Her television program about Alaska has been a critical and economic
success. When Sarah Palin addresses audiences, they rise to their feet in
support and applause. She is without question a major leader of the far right
faction in the Republican Party and its ally the Tea Party.
I repeat my earlier comment that she "scares the hell out of me." Nevertheless,
she is entitled to fair and respectful treatment. The fools in politics today in
both parties are those who think she is dumb. I've never met her, but I've
always thought that she is highly intelligent but not knowledgeable in many
areas and politically uninformed. I don't believe she will run for president in
2012 or that she would be elected if she did. But I do believe she is equal in
ability to many of those in the Republican Party seeking that office.
Many women understand what she has done for their cause. She will not be
silenced nor will she leave the heavy lifts to the men in her Party. She will
not be falsely charged, remain silent, and look for others - men - to defend
her. She is plucky and unafraid.
While I disagree with her and I am prepared to oppose her politically, in the
spirit of longed-for civility I say, Ms. Palin you are in a certain sense an
example of the American dream: You have the courage to stand up and present your
vision of America to its people. Your strength and lack of fear make America
stronger and are examples to be emulated by girls and boys, men and women who
are themselves afraid to speak up. You provide the example that they need for
self-assurance.
Ed Koch is the former Mayor of New York City.
Page Printed from:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/18/palin_defeated_unfair_criti
cs_at_nyt__msnbc_108561.html at January 18, 2011 - 12:40:31 PM CST 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
 

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot