Obviously, these are cross-hairs.
That doesn't mean that SarahPac is responsible for this Congresswoman's being shot. I have no idea whether this particular act of right-wing domestic terrorism was inspired by Sarah Palin or her gun-sight map. He may never have have seen the map, who knows? He may very well have been inspired by Palin, or he may not have. That's not the point. I mean, it is a very important point, it's just not the one I'm making.
The point I'm making is that it's utterly pathetic for Palin's defenders to take to the airwaves en masse to claim that "oh, no, these aren't cross-hairs, they're um. . . surveyor's symbols, yeah that's it, surveyor's symbols."
If those are surveyor's symbols, what are they symbols of? They don't make any sense unless they are cross-hairs.
Why can't they at least be honest and say "we meant those cross-hairs symbolically, we meant that those districts should be targeted politically." Why do they have to go through the whole pearl-clutching "why I never!" routine acting like it never occurred to them that anyone might think those were gun sights! Obviously this lady knows what gun-sights look like.
And it's not like she doesn't traffic in violent gun imagery
And you know who DOES think the symbol is a "bullseye?" Sarah Palin.
By the way, Sarah, a bullseye looks like this:
The symbol you used was a cross-hairs or gunsight. But that's not really the point either.
A very similar "cross-hair" symbol is used on geological maps to denote horizontal bedding- though the "hairs" stop at the circle, and don't extend beyond it. I commented somewhere yesterday that the SarahPac map was merely intended to show where the bedding needed to be tilted to the right.
ReplyDelete