Specifically, a great to-do has been made of a map, supposedly flush with cross-hairs, released by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. Palin-haters jumped at the opportunity to indict a person they already despise for inciting a shooter to fulfill her supposed secret desire of violence against those with whom she differs politically. Though the Palin camp has credibly demonstrated that the “cross-hairs” in question are, in fact, surveyor’s marks (right at home on a map), there are those who—some out of their own ignorance—refuse to relent because deep in their hearts they want Sarah Palin to be a murderous wretch; it makes her so much more defeat-able.

The counter for this idiocy, thus far, has been to point out that Democrat campaigns and committees have released maps with bulls-eyes on them and that politicians, especially President Obama, have used language referencing knives, guns, fighting, etc. This has served to illustrate something that needs to be said expressly.

There’s a sick irony in that those who want to blame harsh political conversation for the Arizona shooting have done nothing but converse harshly and politically.

And I say this as one not opposed to political debate. It’s politics. It gets rowdy sometimes. That’s the nature of the beast. What I find unfathomable is that those who are most “offended” by the harshness of someone, say Sarah Palin, are the most offensive in their uninformed and malicious finger pointing and false accusations.

The bottom line is that in language, even political language, words mean things, and often they mean more than what they say. I deal with this in the spiritual realm, where I often encounter persons who miss the point of Scripture because they overemphasize the “literal” words on the page. The Bible is literature of varying genres, and as such it should be interpreted as literature. That means that sometimes we take what we see literally. That also means that sometimes we take what we see metaphorically. Our language, including charts or maps, is full of idioms and symbols that must be taken as such—comprehending what they mean rather than what they say. It really isn’t all that hard.

No sane, honest person believes that Sarah Palin wants anyone to take up guns against Congresspersons, even if those map symbols are cross-hairs (if they truly did, they would have moved heaven and earth to secure the other Congresspersons “targeted” by Palin). No sane, honest person believes that Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee wants anyone to take up bows and arrows against Congresspersons, even though their map had bulls-eyes on it. No sane, honest person believes that Barack Obama wants anyone to bring a gun to a knife fight. All this just as no sane, honest person believes they might step in a poodle when it’s “raining cats and dogs.”

We understand that language is full of idioms. We understand that what people mean often goes far beyond what they say. In short, we’re adults. Let’s start acting like it. The hypocrisy and feigned “shock” by those who can’t wait to say something shocking themselves are not lost on me.

No, folks, a lone and apparently mentally disturbed gunman perpetrated this evil. He bears the responsibility for it and will stand before his God and his government to give account. May God have mercy on his soul.

This is especially prescient because of the recent discussion here on the WynnBlog regarding Second Amendment rights. It has long been my position that First Amendment rights to free speech are as potentially dangerous—if not more so—than the Second Amendment right to possess weapons. Yet, we require no license from the government to exercise one’s right to free speech. Any schmuck former political operative can end up hosting a supposedly objective news program one one of the dinosaur media’s networks.

And just as some irresponsible idiots can abuse their Second Amendment freedoms and do great harm, even evil, some of the talking heads America relies on for news and information abuse the right of free speech and abandon all objectivity for the sake of politics.

From the column:

Every morning, a group of old friends have a nice chat. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CNN’s James Carville, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have a wide ranging conference call, usually starting just before dawn. Democrat Pollster Stan Greenberg is a frequent participant. They examine current events and how they fit into the new administrations policies. They determine how to best get their message to the public.

***

When they next appear on various programs as interviewers or interviewees, their comments do not conflict with each other. They have coordinated the broad themes and the topics, and after that early morning phone call they coordinate with their personal networks and associates, influencing and coaxing the comment and reportage on specific issues nationwide.

But why should this bother us? Shouldn’t we all just get along?

From an information consumer’s standpoint it is disturbing that several main networks are so tuned into White House message shaping. How can the citizen expect accurate analysis and reportage when the “journalists” that present it are so tied into the party in power? Obviously they cannot, as we have so clearly seen in the blatant bias and advocacy of last year’s campaign media coverage. The “prevailing political and media interpretation” is a nice way to say “political message.”

Those in the media should remember that it is the nature of those in power—from any party or political persuasion—to do everything possible to retain it. If you choose to be willing accomplices, there will be a price to pay, which we are already seeing with the mass downturn in traditional media viewership and readership. When you start doing your jobs—objectively—you might save the industry…and maybe the country. If you choose to stay in either party’s back pocket, you will feel the considerable heft of their backsides bearing down upon you eventually.

Oh, and there will be new permit program established to authorize you to exercise your First Amendment rights. You will be required to take an 8-hour training course at a cost of approximately $60, provide pictures and fingerprints to your local sheriff’s office (at a cost of approximately $35), undergo a background check, and pay a fee of $100 per five year period of licensure. The line forms to the right (or would you be more comfortable on the Left?).

[Despite the emphasis on "assault weapons" as instruments of destruction, FBI data does not support the contention they are used regularly to commit crimes. Furthermore, the definition of "assault weapons" as used by Holder et al includes semi-automatic hunting rifles.]

We knew it was coming. What shall we do about it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, looks like we’re going to get a triple-decker on that proverbial cr@p sandwich. And we are having it forced down our throats by the Obama administration because “it’s good for us.” I have visions of myself sitting at the kitchen table, sandwich on the plate in front of me, shaking my head defiantly that I will not eat it. Mama Obama smiles at me and tells me I can either eat it now or have it cold for breakfast. This, my friends, is the result of a squandered majority and a flubbed election. In short, this is what happens when you run John McCain as the Republican nominee for president. Let’s learn a few lessons here.

But my main point in posting is this: Obama’s policies are decidedly socialistic, I don’t care how he dresses them up. They are not fresh and new, though they might fall from the lips of a charismatic Beautiful Person. They’re all old and tired. And they will fail again, causing great pain upon the masses, as they always do. That’s the problem. Recessions are no fun, but they come when a booming economy slows down. In the socialist paradigm, there’s no boom to bust. It’s all just perpetual drudgery due to the loss of, first, economic freedom, then political freedom, and, ultimately, all freedom. This kind of expansion of the federal government, especially at the hands of Obama surrogates who so obviously lack character, is the first step toward the Gulag.

As for me, I’ll take the ups and downs of capitalism and the free market. Mainly because socialism has no ups. Just a steady and interminable march downward.

In a story on NewOK.com, it is reported that because some skull-full-of-jello fired a gun on the Langston University campus, rules are being changed to improve safety on campus. The changes?

• a safety hot line,
• hiring more police officers, and
• a random apartment search policy.

Absolutely none of the above measures will do anything to make campus safer. A safety hotline (isn’t that 911) and more police may help clean up after someone’s been shot. And the random apartment search is ludicrous in a free society. But I’m sure everyone feels better now that there’s a new policy.

And to illustrate how maligned guns are in this society (instead of the morons who accidentally fire them (by the way, guns do not go off accidentally unless they are seriously damaged)), just pretend that, because they found some crack or meth or weed on campus, university officials decide there will now be random apartment searches. See the disparity?

Students, time to move off campus where you can legally have a gun for protection (kept out of reach of idiots who “accidentally” fire them) and where you are safe from your “protectors” searching through your personal effects to make sure you don’t have a gun (or maybe eventually a Bible, or maybe pen and paper, Winston). This is just an example of how the government will erode your rights for your own good if you will let them. Sure, we’ll help you afford college. Sure, you can live on campus. Oh, but wait, you cannot defend yourself with a gun if someone attacks you. But, it’ll be OK because we have an emergency hotline you can call and get one of our many police officers to mop up the blood. Oh, and we’ll be pilfering through your things on a regular basis. We’ll only need this phone hotline until we get the telescreens installed. Now don’t you feel safe?

I’ll be interested to see if the many who have been writhing in anguish over eavesdropping on terrorists will make a peep about this.

P.S. Anyone who’s ever tried to get an open record from a university is probably laughing (if it didn’t hurt so much) at this whole situation. One must move heaven and earth to have access to documents that are public by law, yet the university regularly tramples students’ 2nd and 5th Amendment rights with no outcry. I think I’m gonna be sick.

Posting this picture, The Dish Rag blog by Elizabeth Snead at the L.A. Times website asks,

“How did Newsweek get Sarah Palin to pose with a rifle?”

Her answer is that Newsweek didn’t; it’s an old file photo. That said, methinks you wouldn’t have to twist Palin’s arm for a pic with a rifle. She could probably bring a few of her own.

Then Snead asks:

Hey, is that even the right way to hold a rifle? Can’t you shoot your foot off like that?

As I prepared to comment and let her know her mistake, I discovered that nearly all of her commenters decided to let her know that 1. it’s not a rifle; it’s a breech-loaded, over-under shotgun, and 2. that is a perfectly safe way to carry it.

My eyes aren’t good enough to tell whether it’s an over-under or double-barrelled; regardless, it’s broken over, so there are some real solid indications that it’s a shotgun.

And by the way, Newsweek, you just endeared most of the country to Palin with that picture.

He’s so articulate and bright and clean and nice looking.

Via Midnight Blue.

The movie is side-splittingly funny; people were still laughing as we exited the theater (not our individual theater, but the entire building). Yet, while being decidedly slapstick throughout, the movie was also beautifully poignant in parts. Some scenes tell profound truths (e.g., the Columbia professors’ musical number and the ACLU undead courtroom scene) with such whimsy that the entire theater was gasping for air from the laughs. And then, at the end, when we see the generations of soldiers standing among the crowd at a concert, it might just invoke a little tear.

The cast, and it was a star-studded one, did a superb job. Extra kudos to Kelsey Grammer for his Patton.

It’s a movie you should definitely see. We need more light-hearted commentary about who and what we are as Americans. This movie will undoubtedly resonate with us real Americans out here in fly-over country. It certainly hit home with me.

Asked by the committee if it was a good idea to allow 18 year-olds to carry handguns, Ellis replied, “In my district, they’ve probably already had 16 years of experience.”

Via NewsOK.com 

Guess the party affiliations of Murphey and Roan.

Okay, folks, since this issue has come close to home this last couple weeks, weigh in with your comments.

The Tulsa World has the story.