Here are a few pieces I’ve found to be interesting reading relating to the aftermath of the tragic shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
The Stranger has an editorial explaining its politically-loaded gunsight-laden cover.
The Rumpus believes that Some Revelation Is At Hand.
David Frum has written up an even-handed piece about what an appropriate response to the shooting would have been:
Palin failed to appreciate the question being posed to her. That question was not: “Are you culpable for the shooting?” The question was: “Having put this unfortunate image on the record, can you respond to the shooting in a way that demonstrates your larger humanity? And possibly also your potential to serve as leader of the entire nation?”
And Videogum (???) has probably one of the overall best reactions to Palin’s ill-advised response video that was released this morning:
First of all, you are aware by now of the whole “surveyor’s symbols” thing? How Sarah Palin’s camp is claiming that the symbols on her map aren’t gunsight targets at all, but rather are symbols used in landscape architecture? Excuse me, but FUCK YOU. It’s one thing to be frustrated that you’re getting unwarranted criticism for a thing that is not your fault–fair enough–but do not start with the condescending bullshit nightmare lies. Those are gun targets. The end. I rest my case. You rested my case for me by, you know, USING GUN TARGETS ON YOUR PICTURE. The fact that they would even dare to mention “surveyor’s symobls” is just straight up VILLAINOUS.