Inter-connection and availability of information literally at one’s fingertips, at least in the case of my iPad with touch screen technology, makes ignorance unforgivable, especially for a prominent politician, such as Sarah Palin. She dug up some obscure antisemitic phrase from centuries ago (blood libel) to express her political, gun happy views, embedded in a context of her defence against allegations that her speeches and her use of the “crosshairs” mataphore when attacking opponents, is damaging and incites hatred and deadly actions such as in Tuscon, Arizona recently.
Sarah admonished her opponents and her critics using that word, of all things, to ask for more tolerance for her ideas.
Under the superficial glaze of her image as folksy and plain-talk house wife with a normal family, she incites fear for people that are different, which include her opponents. Look up what blood libel represents, I would suggest to the reader.
Is there any time where speaking one’s mind should be discouraged?
Most prominent politicians have handlers and speech writers who will recommend not to use a certain phrase or image, as it might reflect badly on the speaker, or be easily refuted as false. It appears to me that Sarah needs a new speech writer. Or what would be worse: she insists on writing her own speeches. Her audacity and ignorance of
global issues shows that she just might think herself intelligent enough to continue to just say whatever comes up in her mind. In my profession of social worker having dealt with people with personality disorders, I would liken that to somebody having delusions of grandeur.
Historically, others have arisen through the ranks to prominence touching a snare in people, resonating in people’s emotions, sometimes fear-based, sometimes based on hope and a new future, all irrational feelings. With the giant neighbour next to us, potentially influencing what happens in Canada, I am concerned
about the developments around the political process in the US.
Our cultures are much more similar than different, our political (two party) systems more alike than not, we even have as many guns, or close to it. However, our crime rates have decreased with twenty
percent during the last ten years and we have taken initiative to develop a gun registry law, still a work in progress.
Bearing arms is not a constitutional right, and should not be; we have an army and we have police that are scrutized by a public process as needed. Any developed, civilized country does not ne need to have an armed population that could turn into vigilantes on
Lately, Canada has looked pretty good in the banking world and in health care social programs, at least compared to the US.
Let’s see whether we can influence our neighbour south to our ideas of acceptability of a gun control law, of having a record of who owns what guns, of taking away guns from those who potentially may misuse those against other citizens. Let us lead the way, let’s pass our own gun registry law, once and for all, and accept and implement that our lives cannot be lived in fear. That we in principle trust the people around us and have others to protect us when needed, as a civilized society should.
I would encourage you to leave me acomment if you agree.