Everyone knows what a political extremist is; they exist on both sides of the aisle. On the Conservative side you have people like Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Fox News, and anyone who prides themselves on being apart of the latest political cult, the Tea Party. On the Liberal side you have people like Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore (to name the two most attractive ones), and anyone who has given any implication that they place blame for the shootings in Tuscan, Arizona on rhetoric dropped by Sarah Palin. All extremists are ignorant in the fact that they give little to no consideration to any views outside of their own narrow-minded ones; it’s just as dangerous as having someone who has no values at all. I’m not saying you have to agree with both sides at all times or on all issues, but sometimes listening and simply agreeing to disagree is the best way to coincide in America’s current state.
With that said, I’d like to make it clear that I’m not a fan of Sarah Palin myself, though I am going to go out on a limb to defend her at this point. I love playing the devil’s advocate whenever I have the opportunity. Recently I heard on the news that Democrats (though I’m not sure which ones that generalization included) wanted to clear up earlier statement by saying “We never said Sarah Palin was an accessory to the shootings in Arizona; we said she’s an accessory to the instability in politics.” You notice I gave attention to the fact that I wasn’t sure which Democrats were responsible for that statement, but I’m certain it’s not the ones like Joan Rivers who came out and blatantly “partially” blamed them on Palin. Many Democrats, whether extremist or not, have – in one way or another – pushed some of the blame off on Sarah Palin for the shootings that left congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in critical condition. Ideally, I’d first make the presumption that if the congressman or woman that was shot had been a Republican, Liberals wouldn’t have been outraged at all, and Republicans wouldn’t have stooped to the point of blaming – oh, let’s just say for kicks – Obama for something like that. Now even if Democrats lacked the balls to come right out and pin the blame on Palin, they definitely went out of there way to imply that they felt she had some responsibility for it. People who make a point to use implications rather than accusations are weak, in my opinion. They imply something so that when they’re questioned, they can deny that any implication was there to begin with.
Whether Sarah Palin is “dangerous” or not, you CANNOT blame a mad man who goes on a shooting spree’s actions on political rhetoric. There is such a thing as personal responsibility. Jared Loughner [the shooter] CHOSE to open fire on that crowd and in doing so took the lives of many innocent people. HE CHOSE. No one else did. Because some people often fail to understand what the term “personal responsibility” implies, they’re always looking to shove the blame off onto something or someone else. If a child grows up through hard times and eventually turns to drugs and crime later in life, these people don’t blame the morally-wayward individual that child turned into. They blame “the village” that raised him and the failing education system, etc. They can’t grasp the concept that it is VERY possible, and often more likely, for kids raised in hard times to beat out adversity and rise above. Nooo, because that would take personal responsibility. Personally, I don’t like the message that has sent to my generation and the influence it will have on generations to come. Everyone is responsible for their own mistakes. Their own words and actions. Sarah Palin’s hands are cleam on this one, folks, and the sooner you stop fighting her on petty little shit like this and she has a dialect all of her own, the sooner you can start disagreeing with her on REAL issues, that REALLY matter.
You see, what many Palin critics cease to realize is that ALL publicity in the political world counts for something. Whether it be positive or negative, it spreads that person’s name at an unprecedented rate in today’s media. It perpetuates that person. Those who dislike Sarah Palin give her over three quarters of her total publicity. Imagine if you just completely dismissed the woman, and didn’t give her any attention. Her name would be a thing of the past in weeks. The dozens of repetitive anti-Palin jokes that blow-up my Twitter account page would diminish into things that were actually worth reading. Remember all of the negative press that once surrounded Obama? Like his anti-American, racist church leader? Or him being the anti-Christ? Or whether he’s a legit citizen of the United States? Well, that all led up to him getting elected. Is it possible negative publicity actually achieves the OPPOSITE of what critics really would have it accomplish?
Sarah Palin’s name and image will continue to flourish all thanks to the very people that are trying to destroy her. Like her or not, it’s important to remember that you have to rise above and be more than the things that you stand against in this world. You can’t destroy a monster if you match that monster in its own ignorance.
Just some food for thought.
