When it appears in an editorial titled "Courting Judges," the sentence "He fired a shot across the Supreme Court's bow in his State of the Union address" makes it sound as though at least one of the two parties who are the subjects of the article is either a Hatfield or a McCoy.
I admit that I saw this and cared first about the aesthetics of the piece. Or, rather, the lack of such. Or do I mean "the assault to such"? Anyway, I'm certain that any females among The Nation's editors wouldn't enjoy extricating themselves from a relationship (even if it is only a professional association, and tenuous) with Sarah "in the crosshairs" Palin.
If female editors aren't concerned with Palin, there is now Dahlia "Inspiration Nation" Lithwick, of Slate, who says the following:
Now this isn't a tricky legal question about the direct connection between the language of incitement and the resulting violence. It's a commonsense question about the power of words to influence the behavior of others. And much as she may deny it when it's convenient, Sarah Palin knows the power of language and the media better than virtually anyone. That means she must accept that her calls to arms (and you can insert air quotes around "arms" if you wish) are as powerful as her call to lofty inspiration. If Sarah Palin wants to be responsible for introducing us to "extraordinary Americans," I will be the first to applaud her. But she must also accept responsibility for the fact that her words and threats about the ordinary Americans who don't share her political views have very real consequences, too.
Lithwick handles Slate's "Jurisprudence" column. (That's just a Cc to Walter "let's be progressive" Mosley [and a Bcc to Rae Gomes].)
Joan E. Bernecky
Apr 5 2010 - 8:36am